Firstly, we were not designed. Secondly, we take life all the time. Billions a day. We are apex predators, killing machines. We evolved socially to hunt in packs, we evolved big brains to use tools to kill. I'm not saying killing is as simple as that, but it's absolutely not true that it goes against our nature. It's the reason we exist. My response to anti euthanasia arguments is always very simple. You don't respect life if you force it be endured rather than lived. How can you?
Yes, we are predators. Of animals for food. Not of humans to humans. This is my point. We are different. We didn't hunt each other. I agree wars have been fought, but it is clear the impact on humanity when humans kill humans is on show for all to see.
Ask someone who has killed another person whether it is the same as killing an animal for food or squashing a lizard in your car by accident. It is a very different thing.
That
is my point. Human life
is different. It therefore must be treated differently.
Disagree on the design bit but we both know why.
I honestly don't even understand how this is a question. Of course humans have the right to take their own life. Quite frankly it's nobody else's business, as much as some select groups like to try and make it their business.
This is the bit I want to explore though. Why do we feel like that?
So do you think someone going through immense pain and suffering shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily end their own lives? Just because it wouldn't fit in with how you think things are supposed to go? I'm guessing (/hoping) you don't, but just checking. Are you actually morally opposed to it or does it just clash with your beliefs?
I am not saying they can't, and I am not morally opposed to it (the courage to take your own life is enormous, don't get me wrong) although I don't think it is the answer. I am also not saying they shouldn't be allowed either. Choice is choice. I'm asking
should they take their own life?
It is a very permanent solution. Pain and suffering can (although not always) pass in time for everything but chronic and terminal illness. When one gets to that point where it is an option, should we simply have a 'hands off' approach and allow them to do it? Or shouldn't we as a society attempt to alleviate their pain and suffering with what methods we have and support them through it?
not saying we need to abort the baby, more asking where the conception fits into the scheme of things - its technically what we were designed to do (re populate) but it has come about via a violation..
The question you pose is excruciating in its complexity. I can only look at it objectively rather than through experience or emotionally.
I genuinely don't have an answer though. I don't know what one can think about it that is 'right'.
Ah, but what gives 'them' any control over me at all? I didn't ask to be born in Country A, nor was I ever sat down and informed of the conditions of being there. I was not given the option not to pay taxes if I didn't wish to avail myself of government services, nor have I ever been given any say in where my money goes, what laws I think should be passed, or the like.
The simple answer is if you don't like the circumstances you find yourself in, then when you are capable of it, you leave.
The complicated answer is that the change of circumstance is the only way proper government actually works. Don't like your circumstances? Advocate for change.
Of course, the alternative is anarchy, but it raises an interesting moral question. When did any of us really agree that somebody was 'better than us' and should tell us what to do and how to live? It happened so long ago (and probably with good reason) and it's just become a self feeding status quo ever since.
I disagree. Good government represents the people's best interests even when the people do not see the entire big picture. Poor government, as we have now, does not.
Also, the change you're describing puts you close to JM's model of government. Ask him a little about what he thinks the government should be involved in. If you are passionate about healthcare, for instance, you might notice the style of government you are talking about doesn't offer it. Or gun control (eh JM?). You've been very passioante on FB about the shootings in America.
'Since when did their government have the right to tell them how to live with guns?' is what you are effectively saying.
Someone must represent the community's interests, and then establish a set of rules for those around to follow to protect that good.
Government is a corporation that looks out for itself as an institution first, its representatives second, its richest constituents third, and everybody else comes in somewhere well behind the pack.
I would disagree with you again. Classing the government as a corporation is misguided, IMHO, and elicits an understanding of how government is
now, as opposed to what it
should be. One cannot ask for government to be idyllic, but one can work to push the government forever in that position.
The responsibility of the people is to actually keep the government in check. We want them to govern properly, for our sake, but if we 'don't care' as so many Aussies haven't for a number of years, then the encroachment of poor governing happens and we are left with the situation as it is now.
The media also plays a role. That's another topic.
