Breaking news: Eugenics now legal in Delaware. Euthanasia for mentally disabled! - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Breaking news: Eugenics now legal in Delaware. Euthanasia for mentally disabled!
in Politics

Zombieguy1987BryceSloan



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Eugenics and assisted suicide are quite different things... In this case (Bill HS160), there's nothing "eugenic" about it, nothing at all... Eugenics would be the forceful sterilization of individuals, eugenics deals with reproduction, not death... 

    The bill is quite restrictive too...I see no problems with it...

    searZombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen You don't have a problem with mentally disabled people dying? I am mentally disabled and want to LIVE. This will lead to forced euthanasia, which Adolf Hitler would support. Suicide IS eugenics when it's legal.
    Zombieguy1987BryceSloan
  • @YeshuaBought

    I think you don't understand what "eugenics" means.

    Eugenics  is the science of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It's all about reproduction, gene manipulations to "breed" modified human beings. Much like dog selective breeding creates new "races" of dogs... It has nothing to do with euthanasia per se... An eugenicist wants to breed different kind of humans, like there are many kinds of dogs,  Hitler's ideas were genocidal, he wanted there to be only 1 kind of dog... It's very different.

    And as for you being "euthanized", first YOU have to ask for it... No one can ask FOR you, it's not permitted, at all... If you don't want to be euthanized, you won't be, period...

    The process is extremely regulated, have you read the bill? 

    First you, yourself, have to ask for it, no one can ask in your name... Then, not 1 but 2 physicians must certify that you are terminally ill with no chance of surviving...  Those doctors MUST make sure you can consent, if your mental illness is so profound that you cannot consent, then they'll deny you the right to die on your terms... It's much stricter than elsewhere in the world... I wouldn't worry if I were you...

    Also, people die, that's what they do, disabled or not we all die and we've got to come to terms with it... It's one of the most personal choice one can make. 

    See, I had no choice but to exist, it was imposed on me and I have no choice but to cease to exist at some point, this is also imposed on me... So as the outcome was set before I even knew I had begun, the only choices I can possibly make are when (now or not) and how (by myself or not)...

    And this question is continuously asked, like a loop, deep within the inner sub-routines of my consciousness. It just so happens that I'm, for the moment, continuously answering "not" to both question...

    For the moment I chose "death by existence" as my preferred method of suicide... So far so good! But if health fails me before the cosmos kills me, I won't wait around and will face oblivion on my own terms. 
    BryceSloanYeshuaRedeemedZombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • searsear 104 Pts
    "Eugenics  is the science of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits." Pv

     It may include that.
    It is not limited to that.
    It also included forced sterilization of those deemed unfit.

    It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...

    Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Buck v. Bell - May 2, 1927

  • @sear

    Yes, I did mention forced sterilization in my first comment...

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 452 Pts
    edited March 19
    @Plaffelvohfen extremely ironic considering @YeshuaBought has argued in favor of forced sterilization of people with mental illnesses previously on this site.

    Also @YeshuaBought please read the actual bill land not just a news report about it before you jump to conclusions and get whipped into a frenzy. This bill is a far cry from what you think it is. This comes from the link to the actual bill in the source that you linked.

    "The bill clarifies the procedures necessary for making the request, including 1) the presentation of all end of life options which include comfort care, hospice care, and pain control, 2) a physician’s evaluation, 3) medical confirmation by a second physician, 4) psychiatric/psychological counseling when indicated, 5) the passage of two waiting periods, and 6) the completion of a formally witnessed request for prescribed medication. The bill provides many safeguards to ensure the patient is making an informed decision, the right to rescind any request for medication, and immunity for persons participating in good faith compliance with the procedures. When the process is followed with its safeguards, the terminally ill patient is provided the right to receive medication to peacefully end the patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner."

    This sounds nothing like forced anything to me, or eugenics in the slightest.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @Plaffelvohfen Libtard, mentally disabled people have the right to live. You should agree with me, because you are retarded if you support this, and you have the right to live. You have been blocked for supporting eugenics.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @WordsMatter
    @Plaffelvohfen extremely ironic considering @YeshuaBought ;has argued in favor of forced sterilization of people with mental illnesses previously on this site.
    ?? I see................. Oh well, I tried...  :|
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    edited March 19
    YeshuaBought:

    Suicide IS eugenics when it's legal.
    In contrary, suicide being illegal would be eugenics. As that would mean that the government controls the population and does not let the individual members of that population decide for themselves whether to keep on living or not.
    Besides, euthanasia is a form of assisted suicide. There are many other forms of suicide, assisted and not, and outlawing euthanasia would not in itself outlaw suicide as a whole.

    I do not have any problem with people voluntarily choosing to die. Granted, I believe the decision to commit suicide to be the worst possible decision one can make in their life, and those who choose to go down that path lose any compassion from me momentarily - but, unlike certain others on this website, I am not interested in imposing my views on others. Their lives are their own to live and to take if they so desire.

    You dislike freedom so much, except for yourself... You want to force others to pay for your healthcare, but you yourself are not willing to pay for their education in evolution. You want to sterilize mentally disabled people, and you do not want them to have a choice in the matter of whether to keep living - but you somehow must be guaranteed the right to live upon your request. You constantly keep talking about how much you love Jesus, yet throwing snarly remarks at everyone who does as much as say one word you dislike.

    Many religious followers are like that, only interested in controlling others and do not care much about actually important things in life, such as freedom, happiness and pleasure. They want to put an iron boot on and reshape the world in their image, regardless of what everyone else thinks about that image.
    YeshuaRedeemedZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar Troll some more, eugenicists. I won't see you. Blocked for supporting the eugenics death of mentally disabled people.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @WordsMatter I don't support forced sterilization anymore, A@@wipe.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    edited March 20
    @YeshuaBought ;

    I am not sure what you are doing on this website. You never put up any sort of argument, you just post negative comments over and over.

    My advice is for you to read more books, so you can improve both your reading comprehension and your ability to write well. The Bible alone is not going to make you a decent debater.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar Troll some more, eugenicists. I won't see you. Blocked for supporting the eugenics death of mentally disabled people.

    This is the best thing for an argument!? 

    Blocking people!?



    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Plaffelvohfen Libtard, mentally disabled people have the right to live. You should agree with me, because you are retarded if you support this, and you have the right to live. You have been blocked for supporting eugenics.

    Sooooooo… uh, You're forcing people to agree with you? That's sounds authoritarian to me...

    Also, you're name calling again!. If you're best counter is blocking and name calling, clearly debating isn't a strong suit for you 


    BryceSloan
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 So libtard, you're for forcing disabled people to die?
    Zombieguy1987BryceSloan
  • While I'm sure I'll get blocked by a certain someone for saying this, euthanasia and eugenics are not the same thing, and Delaware is legalizing the former, not the latter. They're legalizing it in a rather restrictive way as well. There is good reason to be at least somewhat skeptical of any euthanasia policy based on the amount of leeway doctors and family members have to make these decisions for their loved ones, but there's little doubt that, at least in some cases, it is more cruel to force someone to continue living rather than giving them a quiet death. We do it with our pets because we recognize that they shouldn't be forced to suffer without recourse until they die. 

    Just to clarify, though, the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia has largely been defined by a person's agency. If a person can administer the means of suicide themselves and a doctor merely prescribes it, then it's assisted suicide. If a person cannot do so and someone else must administer the means to end their lives, it's euthanasia.
    AmpersandZombieguy1987BryceSloan
  • While I'm sure I'll get blocked by a certain someone for saying this, euthanasia and eugenics are not the same thing, and Delaware is legalizing the former, not the latter. They're legalizing it in a rather restrictive way as well. There is good reason to be at least somewhat skeptical of any euthanasia policy based on the amount of leeway doctors and family members have to make these decisions for their loved ones, but there's little doubt that, at least in some cases, it is more cruel to force someone to continue living rather than giving them a quiet death. We do it with our pets because we recognize that they shouldn't be forced to suffer without recourse until they die. 

    Just to clarify, though, the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia has largely been defined by a person's agency. If a person can administer the means of suicide themselves and a doctor merely prescribes it, then it's assisted suicide. If a person cannot do so and someone else must administer the means to end their lives, it's euthanasia.
    Yes. This is a general law allowing assisted suicide. What the extra protection in the amendment does is make it less likely for people with mental disabilities to make use of the assisted suicide law by adding in extra requirements/protections specific to them.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflameBryceSloanYeshuaRedeemed
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited March 20
    Even as a European a quick google search regarding law in Cleveland demonstrated to me another reason why American religious nuts are so scary as they get their news from fellow religious nut jobs who hold forth on subjects they haven’t a clue about.

    The link you cited is from a priest who seems to make it up as he goes along , the game is always the same  unless yous make out you’re being demonized and singled out for unfair treatment yous have nothing to whine about so yous have to invent something new every time 
    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenWordsMatterBryceSloan
  • @Zombieguy1987 So libtard, you're for forcing disabled people to die?

    Once again... With the name calling. This isn't how you debate. I'm not forcing disabled people to die, I'm just pointing out how your debate skills only rely on name calling and blocking

    DeePlaffelvohfenYeshuaRedeemedBryceSloan
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • Ampersand said:
    Yes. This is a general law allowing assisted suicide. What the extra protection in the amendment does is make it less likely for people with mental disabilities to make use of the assisted suicide law by adding in extra requirements/protections specific to them.
    Nicely specified.
    BryceSloan
  • @Zombieguy1987 There is no block feature.
    Zombieguy1987BryceSloan
  • @Zombieguy1987 This debate is about the bill in question. Stay on topic.
    BryceSloanZombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame So you're saying it's okay to euthanize disabled people?
    BryceSloanZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1076 Pts
    Curiously; for a bill that "would allow euthanasia for ‘intellectually disabled’", the words "intellectually", "mentally", and "disabled" are never used.  In fact, the closest use of any of those terms seems to say the opposite.

    (b) No person can qualify under the provisions of this chapter solely because of age or disability.

    BryceSloan
  • I am going to argue that this, in fact, is not a bad thing.  At first, I thought it was a group of people spewing out false ideals, but it turns out, there is only one person spewing out falsifications.  That @YeshuaBought.  I will address a few points that have been brought up.

    First, let me clear up some definitions;
    According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary;
    Eugenics is defined as; the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition (Source)
    Euthanasia is defined as; the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. (Source)
    Utilitarianism is defined as; a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.  (Source)

    As @Plaffelvohfen stated, "Eugenics and assisted suicide are quite different things".  And I feel that @YeshuaBought ;doesn't understand that they are in fact different.  As I and many others have defined that Eugenics and Euthanasia as two completely things and that must not be overlooked when discussing this topic.  I would like to address @YeshuaBought ;rebuttal to Plaffelvohfen You don't have a problem with mentally disabled people dying? I am mentally disabled" As we can clearly see "and want to LIVE. This will lead to forced euthanasia, which Adolf Hitler would support. Suicide IS eugenics when it's legal."  Yes, you want to live, but for some people, it is too painful to live.  People with terminal illnesses and their very existence is a pain.  Euthanasia is assisted suicide and is in no way related to Eugenics and her argument collapses in on itself.

    I will end it here because my computer is almost dead, but I leave my text open for retaliation from the only person who, for some reason, is offended by the unrealistic relationship of Eugenics and Euthanasia, @YeshuaBought.  Thank you.
    Plaffelvohfen
    Bryce M. Sloan,
    "Streite nicht mit einem Idioten, sie werden dich auf ihr Niveau herunterziehen und dich mit Erfahrung schlagen."  -Mark Twain 
  • @Zombieguy1987 This debate is about the bill in question. Stay on topic.

    How can I say on topic when you around name calling me a "libtard" and then block me!? It's impossible to debate with you because when you have to use evidence *gasp* you go into your bible eco-chamber to avoid others opinions... like an SJW

    @Zombieguy1987 There is no block feature.

    Then why do say these then!?

    @MayCaesar Troll some more, eugenicists. I won't see you. Blocked for supporting the eugenics death of mentally disabled people.

    @Plaffelvohfen Libtard, mentally disabled people have the right to live. You should agree with me, because you are retarded if you support this, and you have the right to live. You have been blocked for supporting eugenics.
    Here you don't EVEN TRY to counter argue them. You just call them both libtards and then block both of them no good reason




    BryceSloanAlofRI
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • YeshuaBought said:
    @whiteflame So you're saying it's okay to euthanize disabled people?
    I’m saying that it’s OK to have euthanazation on the table for those who are clearly suffering and incapable of speaking for themselves. Where and how it should be used are more difficult questions to answer, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to treat all euthanasia as solely or even chiefly eugenic in nature.
    Zombieguy1987YeshuaRedeemedAlofRI
  • @YeshuaBought ; It is hard to stay on topic when you are too incompetent to stay on your own topic.  Stop being a hypocrite and do research/read other people's arguments.
    Zombieguy1987YeshuaRedeemed
    Bryce M. Sloan,
    "Streite nicht mit einem Idioten, sie werden dich auf ihr Niveau herunterziehen und dich mit Erfahrung schlagen."  -Mark Twain 
  • @Zombieguy1987 This debate is about the bill in question, what do you have to say about the bill in question?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @BryceSloan Ad homenim fallacy. This debate is about the bill in question, stay on topic.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame I will take that as a yes. Who are you to say disabled people should not live? We have the right to live.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1653 Pts
    @YeshuaBought

    You are the only one around here advocating against people's rights. Nobody denies your right to live. I told you many times already: "right" and "guarantee" are different things. Nobody is going to actively take your life, but people can stop supporting your life artificially when they deem it reasonable.

    If you are plugged into a machine, but are unconscious, hurting and have no visible prospect of ever recovering - then it is only reasonable to unplug the machine and let you expire naturally. There is no reason to keep you "alive" (or, rather, undead?) when you are not really a living being and are just a knot of failing nerves and reflexes.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar No I'm not. I have consistently said people have the right to live, and I DON"T support forced sterilization anymore. I have apologized time and again, and I'm DONE apologizing. I didn't even mean what I said, so really, get over it.
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • @whiteflame I will take that as a yes. Who are you to say disabled people should not live? We have the right to live.
    It would be great if you could actually read the words I'm typing.

    This isn't a black and white issue - there's a reason that many countries legally allow euthanasia, and it's mainly because a lot of people can't speak or act for themselves, requiring some external actor to make decisions for them. That situation is, unfortunately, true of a number of disabled people. They can't speak for themselves. You can, and you're able to say whether or not you wish to take any given action, as well as pursue that action for yourself. If you wanted to commit suicide (not saying you do, nor am I encouraging it), you could actively pursue it by any means you wish. If, on the other hand, you were put into a coma tomorrow, you would no longer have that ability, and your family would have to make choices regarding your well-being. Depending on whether or not you left behind sufficient information to know what you wanted (say, a living will), you might impart all or most of the information they require to make those decisions. But not everyone leaves behind that kind of information, and people have to make difficult decisions for their loved ones. For better or worse, sometimes the decision to force someone to keep on living, particularly when they are enduring great suffering, is more cruel than bringing an end to their lives.

    All this is to say that I'm not dictating who should live and who should die. It's not my choice, nor have I ever declared it to be my choice. I'm stating that the decision exists, and sometimes, it's not in the hands of the individual whose life is on the line. That's just a matter of fact - very few people get to choose how their lives end, and it's all the more unfortunate for those who have very little choice in the directions their lives take, such as those with severe disabilities. I am recognizing that fact and stating that there should exist methods to ensure a right to death with dignity just as much as there exists a right to life.

    You seem rather dismissive of my argument without actually addressing it, though I know this is your usual modus operandi. You don't really care what people who think differently from you argue because, at the end of the day, we disagree with you and therefore we are wrong. And our prize for being wrong is to be told that we're awful human beings. Huzzah.
    YeshuaRedeemedPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame You're not blo tried to post a public apology, but it was taken down. If you don't believe anything I say, please believe my sincere apology. Of course people have the right to have children, as many as they can care foir and love. If you want to talk privately, I will NOT be abusive. I oppose this bill, because I really hate eugenics. I was not in my right mind, and I'll do anything to prove how sorry I am.cked. I unblocked people. I was just calming down. I really am sorry for my bigoted comments in the past, and seek a fresh start. I
    Zombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame You're not blo tried to post a public apology, but it was taken down. If you don't believe anything I say, please believe my sincere apology. Of course people have the right to have children, as many as they can care foir and love. If you want to talk privately, I will NOT be abusive. I oppose this bill, because I really hate eugenics. I was not in my right mind, and I'll do anything to prove how sorry I am.cked. I unblocked people. I was just calming down. I really am sorry for my bigoted comments in the past, and seek a fresh start. I
    I'm not quite sure what you're apologizing for beyond somewhat rude responses, though in this case it may be for the lack of direct response to my points. That makes it all the more confusing that you still appear to be responding to a point I haven't made. Nothing I've said has anything to do with having children, it's about the right to die with dignity. If you'd like to address that, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
  • @whiteflame I owe this community an apology for making bigoted comments, and for being mean. 
  • @whiteflame I am up for a convo.
  • @whiteflame I am up for a convo.
    Alright, we can start right here. What are your views on the right to die with dignity?
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • @whiteflame I support end of life choice, but there has to be proper consent by people. I reacted out of fear, because I'm mentally disabled, and I fear that true eugenicists will seek to end my life without my consent.
  • @whiteflame I support end of life choice, but there has to be proper consent by people. I reacted out of fear, because I'm mentally disabled, and I fear that true eugenicists will seek to end my life without my consent.
    Alright, now we're getting somewhere. I agree that, in the case where consent can be offered (either via a living will or actual assent from the individual in the moment) that that is the best case scenario. But we're not dealing with a best case here. We're dealing with patients who have largely been incapable of consent, perhaps for their entire lives. We have no indication of their wishes because they cannot provide them. Unfortunately, many of these individuals will be placed into a situation where they will endure great suffering and their families will have to make choices for them, including those related to their continued survival. In that case, consent can only ever be obtained from someone else. How do you view circumstances like this?
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • @whiteflame Fair enough. I do think if scientific treatments fail, maybe, but consent is a big issue for me. Eugenics practices should always be consentual, such as sterilization, abortion, death with dignity, and I say this because I personally believe bodily liberty is a human right. I have been in situations where my right to my body were taken away, so that is why I'm adamant about bodily liberty. I do remain personally oppose to abortion, but won't snivel at rape victims who need an abortion, or if there is a medical reason. Sterilization for any reason should ALWAYS be consensual like when I consented to have my tubes removed for birth control. I have believed since I was 8 that humans have the absolute right to choose how they die, and I forget what else OH, I oppose the death penalty and torture as well. Torture is one eugenics practice that should be abolished, but I am more willing to be flexible on the death penalty, if someone can present to me ethical scenario. In short, consensual eugenics is okay because of the right to bodily liberty, but I don't feel comfortable with forcing eugenics on people, and I guess one can argue that you just never know a mentally disabled person's ability to consent, so there must be safeguards in place.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 657 Pts
    edited March 25
    @YeshuaBought

    You're meandering a bit in your response, so it dips into a number of different topics. I will say that I don't think it's reasonable to designate any of these practices as eugenic in nature. The choice to sterilize oneself, for example, is largely not based in a desire to self select ourselves out of the gene pool. Abortion may sometimes be utilized to prevent the birth of a child with a deleterious genetic illness, but it's not inherently or solely used for that purpose. Death with dignity is probably the least associated with eugenics out of the bunch, since it's not based in restricting the passing on of genes (which is kind of the whole thing behind eugenics), but rather the persistence of one life, most often the life of someone who is elderly and either can't or is exceedingly unlikely to pass on their genes in any case. The same is true for the death penalty and torture, both practices that do not inherently restrict gene pools. What you seem to be arguing against, if I'm getting the correct picture, is any practice that aims to devalue persons in any form on the basis of their perceived inferiority. On that level, I think we're in agreement that all these practices can do that, though I don't think any of them inherently do. You would have to force these practices, or in some way coerce people to do them, in order for this to be true in all cases.

    That being said, I understand the desire for consent, and I accept that consent is a necessity where it can be obtained. The question is, what do you do in circumstances where it cannot be obtained? From the sound of it, you do believe that disabled people without the capacity to consent do warrant the right to death with dignity, though you would impose "safeguards" of some sort to address abuses. I'm interested in what you would have in mind for such safeguards. Who gets to make these decisions for others, and under what circumstances should those decisions be allowed?
  • @whiteflame I'm sorry liberty should be the whole of the law. I am lucky for a mentally disabled person. I can speak for myself, and it really P's me off when someone other than Yeshua tries to speak for me. That's all. I feel terrified that I will be forced to die when I don't want to. You don;t have to prove anything, but can you reassure me, that I still have the right to choose what to do with my body? I want to live.y, I will stick to end of life choice. I support it, if the person dying or living is able to make their own choices, but Person 1 may not choose for Person 2, because again, when it comes to life and death, bodil
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 657 Pts
    edited March 26
    @whiteflame I'm sorry liberty should be the whole of the law. I am lucky for a mentally disabled person. I can speak for myself, and it really P's me off when someone other than Yeshua tries to speak for me. That's all. I feel terrified that I will be forced to die when I don't want to. You don;t have to prove anything, but can you reassure me, that I still have the right to choose what to do with my body? I want to live.y, I will stick to end of life choice. I support it, if the person dying or living is able to make their own choices, but Person 1 may not choose for Person 2, because again, when it comes to life and death, bodil
    So, just to be clear on this, you're saying that someone who cannot decide for themselves does not have the right to death with dignity? At no point and under absolutely no circumstances can someone else decide that it is more kind to end their lives than to force them to keep living while enduring great suffering? I'd just like to be clear on this.

    As for your question, I haven't ever said, nor will I ever say, that someone with the capacity to consent should ever be overruled in terms of what they can do with their own bodies, particularly when it comes to a life or death decision. When consent is possible, I don't think there are many people who would disagree that it's absolutely necessary.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 208 Pts
    I haven't read the bill, and don't plan to. I'll leave it to the people of Delaware, it's their bill, their thoughts. Maybe the SCOTUS will look at it differently. Myself, I don't want to suffer needlessly, I think few do. If your religion requires it, well ……. ? YOUR religion shouldn't be allowed to make choices for others. I wouldn't want a dog or cat to suffer until some kindly god thinks they've had enough. I'm sure I like them more than some humans, but, humans shouldn't suffer needlessly either, while waiting for … um … judgement day ??

    I WOULD, though, if it stands that these retarded ( I don't like the term, but he uses worse), folks can be euthanized, I would advise the current occupier of the White House to kind'a "circumvent" Delaware in the future. Someone could mist … um … confuse him for one in …  need.?? ;-)
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • Sound like a very good idea, but you know you are being dishonest, because you claim it is euthanasia which i'd be for but you know it isnt anything of the sort crazy catholic lady
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @whiteflame prove your god exists stop talking like this invisible friend of your is real you really are crazy arent you?
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • So what if they kill off the useless eaters?
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • I am all for it, why suffer useless eaters ?

    Image result for water hitler

    Zombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch