Should a person’s right to life depend on how well they can function?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this in Religion? Is there some faith that advocates this?

Yes, secular humanism.

[Anonymous]

I assume you mean the opposite, the right to end their life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this in Religion? Is there some faith that advocates this?

Don’t people who believe in God (or Allah) believe in the sanctity of human life?

[Anonymous]

No one should make that decision for a person. We should put it in writing BEFORE we get so decrepit that we can’t wipe our own asses. I know that’s when I want to be put down. And so does my family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should make that decision for a person. We should put it in writing BEFORE we get so decrepit that we can’t wipe our own asses. I know that’s when I want to be put down. And so does my family.

What about your baby - who can’t wipe her own ass?

Did anyone really want to wipe your ass when you got to be born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just heard this interesting question...

No!

People with disabilities are already so vulnerable. I worry we’ll start euthanizing them and taking their organs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you asking if a person who is profoundly depressed, sought and received treatment and still feels their quality of life is unacceptable should have the right to die?

I think OP is reacting to the news article about men killing their ill wives and then committing suicides.

[Anonymous]

The question is, should someone ELSE need to give up THEIR rights in order to support the non-functioning person. If someone would survive just fine on their own while obeying the rules where they are, then there's no reason for someone else to pass judgement. But if you're essentially demanding that someone else to give up things, whether it's their time (even a lifetime, in some cases) or their emotional health or their freedoms or their money (when there are other things that they would rather spend the money on) then that's the tricky part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is, should someone ELSE need to give up THEIR rights in order to support the non-functioning person. If someone would survive just fine on their own while obeying the rules where they are, then there's no reason for someone else to pass judgement. But if you're essentially demanding that someone else to give up things, whether it's their time (even a lifetime, in some cases) or their emotional health or their freedoms or their money (when there are other things that they would rather spend the money on) then that's the tricky part.

As a society though, there’s no need for anyone to give up their rights so that someone else can live. Divorce your spouse with dementia and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should make that decision for a person. We should put it in writing BEFORE we get so decrepit that we can’t wipe our own asses. I know that’s when I want to be put down. And so does my family.

What about someone who isn’t decrepit and is totally unhappy with their quality of life? Should they be able to choose — with or without mental health treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is, should someone ELSE need to give up THEIR rights in order to support the non-functioning person. If someone would survive just fine on their own while obeying the rules where they are, then there's no reason for someone else to pass judgement. But if you're essentially demanding that someone else to give up things, whether it's their time (even a lifetime, in some cases) or their emotional health or their freedoms or their money (when there are other things that they would rather spend the money on) then that's the tricky part.

Curious if this PP votes Democrat and thinks the rich don't pay their "fair share."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is, should someone ELSE need to give up THEIR rights in order to support the non-functioning person. If someone would survive just fine on their own while obeying the rules where they are, then there's no reason for someone else to pass judgement. But if you're essentially demanding that someone else to give up things, whether it's their time (even a lifetime, in some cases) or their emotional health or their freedoms or their money (when there are other things that they would rather spend the money on) then that's the tricky part.

Curious if this PP votes Democrat and thinks the rich don't pay their "fair share."

I'm the PP. I actually consider myself a moderate, although by DCUM standards I'm definitely a conservative.

[Anonymous]

Feel free to call me a monster, but here is my opinion. I believe spending millions of dollars on someone that will contribute nothing to society shouldn’t be supported by society. This includes babies born with devastating genetic or other malformations that require millions of support just to keep alive.
I would also include those children that are ruinous to the education of rest of society through violence, psychosis, etc. We should not be spending millions to educate a kid that will offer no more than grocery bagging as an adult.
I believe those dysfunctional people that have murdered and caused mayhem at a young age are not worth the money to keep them in polite society or given the luxury of jail sentence with a cot and three hots. Bad apples should be thrown out.
End of life care should be ethical but also measured. Heroic measure for 90 year olds is a waste of money and resources.

[Anonymous]

Well someone like Stephen Hawking didn’t “function” very well by many standards. But the world would have been denied a great mind had he not lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should make that decision for a person. We should put it in writing BEFORE we get so decrepit that we can’t wipe our own asses. I know that’s when I want to be put down. And so does my family.

What about your baby - who can’t wipe her own ass?

Did anyone really want to wipe your ass when you got to be born?

I don’t think babies are classified as decrepit. They are in fact the opposite.