Severin, indeed the "culture of death" is a misconception (and most likely a deliberately engineered one) to try to slander people who don't like the idea of spending the last few weeks of my life in hospital and don't like the idea of bringing unwanted children into this world, as some kind of odd morbid individuals.

If you want a REAL debate on the two issues, try the Rational Skepticism Forums, there are highly intricate arguments debunking the rubbish copy-and-paste arguments Rhys and co. gave, and actually more logical arguments against that actually came from exploring options, as opposed to a lobbyist trying to spin the issue.

I'd actually paste more here, if it weren't for limited post count and the fact that no opposition has even dared to answer the existing arguments put down already.

Tere, (for ANYONE to read) there have since been whole new arguments and hypothesis, instead of ones debunked ages ago.

Your majesty,

<<Euthanasia- I've clearly wasted my time going into so many reasons why the "slippery slope" label is dishonest rubbish.>>

Now that we are starting to get to the meat and potatoes of this discussion - the elimination of people with advanced Alzheimer's, and who are otherwise incapable of making decisions - I think that, yes, we are starting to look at a very slippery slope.

It's puzzled me, as an atheist, about who supports the hoary principles of other-induced euthanasia. Since there is nothing after death, I have assumed that believers would be much more casual about topping someone - after all, if you've been good, their illusion is that you go somewhere desirable afterwards, so surely, I thought naively, the sooner the better ? That religious people would be more likely to support euthanasia ? But no. Weird.

Those with longer memories may recall the actions of the Nazis in eliminating the unwanted (mentally deficient, senile, insane, etc.)from the outset of their rule. I'm not suggesting that those on this thread who in favour of 'easing the burden' for other people are all Nazis, but surely even they can see that there is indeed a slippery slope, with the eugenic solution of the Nazis at the bottom of it ?

The right to suicide - call it what you like - yes, with counselling. It is an act of personal autonomy, personal choice. The right to do it 'for' somebody ? Precisely NOT if they insensate, incapable, unaware - without any afterlife, this is our only shot at being in the world, and nobody should have the right to take that one chance away.

Joe

In most species, it’s common for all females to be fertile the same time of the year which results in a common mating season. In humans and some other primates, sexuality is far less related to the timing of fertility. More precisely, the entire year is a mating season since most primates have a chronic interest in sex. However, the number of other primates on the planet are drastically diminished because most primates (similar to other non-humans) are slaughtered, one way or another, by homo-sapiens.

Pro-lifers are reluctant to acknowledge that millions of human embryos are conceived through sexual desire alone without any desire to bear children. Millions of unwanted children are born each year into a hell undreamt of but the same pro-lifers are the vociferous humans who object to birth control.

Some pro-lifers are so adamant about their own beliefs that they blow up abortion clinics, killing patients, foetuses and medical staff. Pro-lifers appear to suffer from moral inconsistency. And why does a sperm cell and egg have more rights than a blood cell - more particularly a sperm cell or egg which is genetically abnormal but has resulted in a pregnancy?

Pro-life ego-centric humans remain indifferent to the fact that animals and humans suffer alike but they do not die alike. Embryos (and humans) in civilised societies are killed for compassionate reasons but pro-lifers refrain from witnessing a calf scream, seeing the calf suspended live from the rafters, witnessing the blood brutally spilt by humans, witnessing the baby being taken away from its mother or witnessing the look of terror in an animal's eye.

Alas, the 'superior' homo-sapien enjoys engaging in the suffering of non-humans for human prosperity, thrills and cheap hamburgers.

Only “the righteous man regardeth the life of his beast” but the ever-increasing up-swell of ego-consciousness of human beings remains a fabrication - much of it perpetuated by religious zealots - an exclusive invention of humans for their own interests and perhaps, eventually, their downfall?

Wachyu talkin' about, Protagoras ?

Rhys Jones:

Nowhere in your article do you even consider the rights of people over their own body. You and the church feels that you have the right to force someone to endure misery.

A new article of interest. A foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/human-foetus-feels-no-pain-before-the-age-of-24-weeks-says-new-study/story-e6frg6so-1225884262939

Loudmouth, if you stopped living up to your namesake and actually listened once in a while I wouldn't have to embarrass you. Allow me to outline why by repeating what I already said on page 5 and shouldn't even have to say again just because you couldn't be bothered reading it the first time;

If a person is under a debilitating disease preventing them from making the decision at that point, then there would have to be a requirement of PRIOR (that means BEFORE if that word is too confusing) will to be euthanized, and no noticable change of heart since.
If the person never expressed any will to die before, there can be no basis to assume they had now changed their mind- but if they asked up till the point of of losing the ability to convey themselves, and made it undoubtedly clear that they would rather not continue living in a debilitating condition, then I think that would be a fair basis to judge.

What is it with this forum? I'm repeating the same arguments just to have others pretend not to read them.
Maybe it's the latest online debating trick by playing dumb by those that can't answer questions in the hopes the others will lose interest?