(Reuters) - The Dutch lower house of parliament voted Tuesday to legalize euthanasia, the first country to do so, after decades of unofficially tolerating mercy killings. The vote was 104 to 40, a spokeswoman for the parliament told Reuters.

I think it's about time...

(p.s. - this isn't euthanasia as in, "let's kill all the old people," but rather having the right to die at your own will...)

i think they've set out on a one country crusade to make the world a groovier, less uptight place. and i'm all for it.

oh and if i was terminally ill, pengu1nn, i think that would take the mystery out of it for me

I think that somehow its somehow illegal for the shops to get hold of the stuff, but not to sell it to you.

I don't see how that could be though.

sure, flame me now.

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

And there's a meaning behind the phrase terminally ill. Usually that means you're not going to get any better.

Mattimeo, if an elderly person you care about was painfully rotting away on their death bed, and pleaded with you every single day to give them their pill jar so they could help themselves to eternal freedom, would you say no?

Would you want to have the last memories of your loved one's life be tainted with spite...for you, especially?

------------------
"I didnt know cows had boobs, I just thought they had that big nutsack with all the wieners hanging off it" - Beavis

Metal/Electronic/Ambient etc..
< http://www.mp3.com/fatbitch >

these are the criteria they're working on, anyway.

the dutch do seem to apply their famously relaxed attitude to their laws too. you're right duSTman, possesion with intent to supply is still illegal, but if you have a coffeshop licence, they won't actually bust you. they do come down pretty hard on street dealers though. by not legalizing it, they avoid giving drugs their tacit approval, but kind of admit that if you're not harming anyone but yourself, then what's the big deal. eerily consistant in their policies aren't they?
the dutch seem to have found a way to get round the stigma of these things that go on but no one talks about. and i can see their point - why turn a health issue into a social problem?

Therefore, we should think about a) whether or not our value judgements are affecting the personal privacy and rights issues involved in this topic, and b) the many other legal/tolerable things in society that actually carry similar selfish connotations.

I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, I just want to emphasize that I think the Dutch government really knows how to respect individual liberties...far more than we do in America.

The only reasonable response against suicide is that you would be damning your soul to hell, but the cathlic church is so fucked up I refuse to believe any of the shit that they say.

Sithiee, as far as suicide being selfish, so what. Most everything a person does in life is a selfish act. And what about those that want someone to live a life that they don't like. Isn't that a selfish act in itself?? Tell someone, no u can't kill yourself because I dont' want you to, selfish selfish selfish is all I can say.

Lifes a bitch. If you want to live with it then fine, but if you don't want to, then it is your choice. Not the choice of the government, friends, family or anyone else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
I just want to emphasize that I think the Dutch government really knows how to respect individual liberties...far more than we do in America.

---

odd for a bunch of committed socialists isn't it?

oh great, now ill get banned...

------------------
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. The thing I hate most is that I didn't have a better idea.

I agree that eliminating any particular group is fascist in nature, and essentially leads to genocide. Yet I cannot help but fancy the benefits to such an action.

Let me put it this way: notwithstanding sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, creed, or religion, instating a policy of genuine euthanasia may be of some benefit. Remember < Logan's Run >? Okay, maybe the age of 30 is a bit extreme, but life past 65 or 70 is truly nothing but a geriatric nightmare. And what about truly crippled/retarded folks? Just like the elderly, they do not work; these people just cost us money, time, and effort.

Of course, I am just egging on some reactions here. In actuality, I favor the argument that recognizes the wisdom and life experience of the elderly (take a look at the US Congress and former American Presidents, for example). Those who have aged are truly our link with the past. Moreover, if anything else, I respect the elderly for their contributions, be it labor, war, or past financial support.

There is a lot more to say, but I will just leave it at that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
I think Rhydant and Crafty have touched on an interesting point...perhaps we should make this thread a bit more interesting (and heated) by continuing in that direction?

---

Absolutely.. I'm good at getting heated and managing to disagree with everyone.

quote:

---

I agree that eliminating any particular group is fascist in nature, and essentially leads to genocide.

---

By definition, it is genocide.

quote:

---

Yet I cannot help but fancy the benefits to such an action.

---

Myself, I don't think there is any "should", but I have in the past stated my fondness for the idea of some kind of mass execution.

Society is made up of people, individuals.
Each person can see things differently and each person can be of a totally different mind, but we do not use this supposed freedom to the extent that is supposedly allowed, not at all.

People say that they have no problem with people that think differently from them and believe different things, but at the same time will condemn rapists and murderers as a reflexive reaction, with no real logical basis. Another thing I see on here a lot is the comdemnation of racism. The people that do this are actually being racist themselves towards racist people as a group, which in itself is what they supposedly detest.

You see, we cannot truly embrace a way in which there is no discrimination, no arbitrary judgements of what in other people is good or bad without not actually having any opinion, and not having a mindset of your own.

Logically, the liberalism that we find ourselves seeking in modern times cannot be achieved exactly, but the closest approximation we can make is that everyone stops trying to pursuade people to have different beliefs.

Another problem is come across here, is that attempting to alter other peoples beliefs is inherrent to our communication anyway: When my teacher told me hydrogen had one proton was he respecting my belief that hydrogen had 8 protons and three legs? no..

A similar piece of logic is what I apply to people who try to pursuade me to help other people. I don't think that by attempting to help people that you respect peoples diversity. For example, if someone is drowning and you save someone you have shown total disregard for whether or not they actually wanted to be saved, and automatically saved them because you thought it was right.. They might have thought completely different to you and have been of the opinion that drowning would have been a good thing...

I don't know... mabey I'm crazy.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

he was 76 years old when his doctor told him that he had terminal cancer. he made the decision to have no medical intervention, which meant the tumor would starve him to death. assisted suicide isn't legal in pennsylvania. so for eight months, he wasted away until he died. he believed that he had lived a good life, and accepted that he was sick and dying. he came to terms with his own death, and he was ready to go.

and i hate it that because of some stupid law, instead of him getting to make the graceful exit that would've allowed him to end his life with the same dignity he lived it, he had to suffer.

i hope some day, this country will follow the lead of the dutch.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

and Dustman, when you dislike someone because of the views they hold (i.e. racist) then you are being discriminatory, not racist. and its not quite the same, because while a racist wont like someone because of the color of the skin, something that cant be changed, disliking racists is disliking them because of their views. granted, thats not entirely acceptable, but i think disliking someone for disliking someone else is probably more acceptable than discriminating against, say, people who believe in god.

and dustman, when people are drowning, usually you can tell because theyre flailing about and/or screaming "help me! save me!" so thats not the best example, but i kind of understand where your coming from...

When they came for the communists, I said nothing, because I was not a communist.

When the came for the Union Workers, I said nothing, because I was not a Union Worker.

When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.

thats not entirely accurate, but the point is still there...

quote:

---

Originally posted by DuSTman:
People say that they have no problem with people that think differently from them and believe different things, but at the same time will condemn rapists and murderers as a reflexive reaction, with no real logical basis.

---

The rational basis for condemning rapists and muderers is that they have severely violated someone else's most basic right to choose what is/is not done to their body.

quote:

---

Another thing I see on here a lot is the comdemnation of racism. The people that do this are actually being racist themselves towards racist people as a group, which in itself is what they supposedly detest.

---

Racism is discrimination based on skin color, national origin, etc. There is no rational basis for hating someone because of their skin color--you can't choose your race. Racists are free to hold their opinions, but I have a right to disagree with them, to be disgusted by their actions, and to avoid them -- because of what they CHOOSE to do, not because of anything they were BORN WITH.

quote:

---

I don't think that by attempting to help people that you respect peoples diversity. For example, if someone is drowning and you save someone you have shown total disregard for whether or not they actually wanted to be saved, and automatically saved them because you thought it was right.. They might have thought completely different to you and have been of the opinion that drowning would have been a good thing...

---

They MIGHT have wanted to drown, but it's rather stupid to assume so. Most people would prefer NOT to die. And if they didn't want to die, then are you respecting them by letting them die anyway?

uhm... im not sure how to word this... but... if i were encapacitated and retarded and wheel-chair bound. and i couldnt move or talk, i wouldnt want to live. i mean... its just fucking crazy.

hrm...

------------------
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. The thing I hate most is that I didn't have a better idea.

It's easy to say "let's rid ourselves of the burden". Is the main thing that you folks fear the possibility that it could escalate beyond just the retards, or the logistical nightmare of this type of policy? If so, you're arguing up the wrong tree. It's easy to say "What about Steven Hawking" or give exception examples. The only issue at hand in this debate is the morality of choosing which folks aren't worthy of breathing our air.

I can't believe that a discussion like this could exist, but I (self-appointed forum nazi) will allow it... cretins.

For the record, I'm pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-darwin, pro-freedom. (funny how that works)

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
In my opinion, you guys may have serious problems in the head. It may be that due to a political correctness issue, you don't want to tell how you really feel... ie. that you really are in favor of eliminating those folks.

---

the value of human life is totally subjective. that is the point i was making in a fairly half-arsed way. i cannot morally justify wiping out a group of ppl simply to improve the quality/relative sanity of my life. but that's the thing - i don't have to. it's arbitrary whether you live or die. and what could be more arbitrary than a whim of mine sitting at my PC. i've read your post a couple of times and i'm still not quite certain what your point is, so i'm going to concentrate on clearing up misunderstandings. i do not think my priviledged western situation puts me in the 'top percentile' and so more worthy of life than some other ppl. my life is just as insignificant as anybody else's. i'm sure there are plenty of ppl who would put me on their list. and they would be well within their rights to do so. i just want ppl to admit that this is how we think, and not to get caught up this asinine morality. we wiped out the neaderthals - going to feel guilty about that? or perhaps a better example give that you're pro-life would be abortion doctors - if you had to make a choice for the good of the planet - you'd fry them first wouldn't you? we make these kinds of rationalisations all the time. it's no big deal. learn to live with the fact that your life doesn't matter shit to anyone except to you and a couple of other ppl and you'll feel better.

btw as for the whole 'pro' thing - pro-life and pro-death? get a brain. and MattimeoZ80, you don't get a choice about Darwin i'm afraid. there are no better alternatives.

This message has been edited by Crafty Butcher on December 01, 2000 at 03:49 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crafty Butcher:
the value of human life is totally subjective. that is the point i was making in a fairly half-arsed way. i cannot morally justify wiping out a group of ppl simply to improve the quality/relative sanity of my life.

---

My main point is that if we are to have a discussion about eliminating folks, don't argue on the basis of it getting out of control or the logistics. The only issue at hand should be whether it is right for any folks to make a sweaping heavy handed judgement on humanity.

quote:

---

i do not think my priviledged western situation puts me in the 'top percentile' and so more worthy of life than some other ppl. my life is just as insignificant as anybody else's.

---

The top percentile crack referred to being able to walk, think, talk, work, form rational thoughts, feed yourself, and are probably not totally poor. When you're the group in control, it's easy to underestimate the worth of other people. I do it all the time... it's that easy!

quote:

---

btw as for the whole 'pro' thing - pro-life [b]and pro-death? get a brain.[/B]

---

This one's easy, stupid head. Pro-life: I think the baby should get a say in whether they live or not, and they aren't legally able to make that decision until they are 18. Pro-death Penalty: duh... when applied correctly (again, logistics is not an arguement about whether it is morally right or not), it is good vindication for folks who take a/many life(s). No real contradiction there.

Perhaps the secret is to enforce something that is NOT open to subjective debate? i,e- avoiding stuff like you favor abortion...die! and focusing on the euthanasia aspect: you're 60, happy birthday...die!

i don't think i was making any arguments based on logistics, askheaves. i was trying to de-bunk the conventional morality that always rears it's head in this kind of theoretical debate. Morals tend to get in the way of facts. I am myself, of course far too nice and constrained by this morality to start advocating the genocide of undesirable social groups. even on bad days when i get stuck on the tube for 50 mins during rush hour when the option of taking out ppl who don't wear under-arm deodorant becomes mightily attractive. but if you were talking about the survival of the species (and i admit we weren't particularly) and a decision had to be made, it would be made on practical - not moral - grounds. you'd start off with old ppl, then the disabled or whatever. whoever was most easily expendable. having morals is a luxury, like having choices. not nice, not moral, but evolutionarily sound (sorry MattimeoZ80).

and i'm kind of sorry about being quite so simplistic on the pro-life thing - i was taking the piss a bit. it's just that from my point of view, pro-life is about the sanctity of life (i could well be wrong about this, not many pro-lifers round my way to ask) and that doesn't sit very well alongside govt-sanctioned murder. plus i think the idea of consulting ppl who aren't born yet whether they want to live is pretty fucked up. if the parents aren't in a position to raise a child properly, then they should have the option of not doing so...anyway this thread's got fuck all to do with abortion - i shall divert myself to the rants for that, but i will say that if ppl were a bit more responsible about bringing kids into the world, the argument for wiping out sections of the population wouldn't be quite as strong.

i'm repeating myself i think.