Euthanasia

[truthaddict11]

What is your opinion on Euthanasia? Should people have the right to kill themselves if they are terminally ill? I believe someone should have that right . What do you think?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I agree. We would need some way of regulation to make sure the person really wants to die, and is not some kind of cover for greedy inheritants to bump the person off early, though...

[Nobody]

I think euthansia is a good idea. If you are dying, and there are some really horrible dieases out there, and you wish to end in it in a realitivly painless way, you should bve allowed to do so. If you get medical professional person to help you it is more likily that you will be sucessful. Nothing could be worse then trying to kill yourself, failing, and then having to live in even more pain.

[YKTMX]

I don't see a problem with it.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I do not think we will find many comrades here opposed to the idea of euthanasia. I want to repeat my concern: how do we make sure that no one gets away with murder by making it sound like euthanasia?

[Sasafrás]

Well, obviously, there needs to be some proof that the killed individual was sick in the first place. Maybe have the government get involved by creating a contract to be signed by the next of kin and the person with the disease. Or, if the person can't sign, have them dictate a statement and make sure it gets notarized or something.

Sometimes.... nevermind.

Good night,

Sassy

[Droes lee]

I'ts alright with me but you've goth to have a contract of the "patient" and familie becose if the patient is ill he or she doesnt know what they are saying but if they are with theyre mind you only need one contract....

[Invader Zim]

When I am so old and senile that I need help, or worse a bag, to take a shit then I will know it is time for an overdose of sleeping pills, and if a close family member wants to help me, then all the better.

[caliban]

The tough part is where to draw the line. Who do we say yes to and who is told no? Also, who says yes or no? Fuck sending it into the arms of a waiting commity that will drag their feet for months, prolonging the suffering of the person seeking permision to end their life. I for one remember very well looking down at a friend of mine dying of AIDS and wishing that he would die. The thought did enter into my mind of ending it for him but that would be cold murder to end MY pain, not his. If it were me lying there l wouldn't want to have my morphine doubled in one week to "stop" the pain, unable to speak in more than a choked whisper, unable to move or even fill my lungs with air without pain. But who decides? :(

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

I think it is acceptable, but you have to be VERY careful. I think its sweden where people are taking 'death holidays' as in suicidal or terminally ill people goin just to be killed.
Suppose the person is unable to comminicate, as in they r basically just a living piece of meat that cannot see, hear, speak or move, they could well want to die but you dont know that for sure, what would be done about this situation?

[crazy comie]

maybe you could say when your 20 what you want to happen to you.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 13 2003, 09:37 AM
I think it is acceptable, but you have to be VERY careful. I think its sweden where people are taking 'death holidays'
Switzerland, I believe.

[crazy comie]

yeah i herd about pepole going to switserland to kill them selfs.

[caliban]

what if you were inclined to believe that should you fall ill you might want something like that as an option, could you have it in a form of living will? they have genetic specialists who can tell you if you have genes for certain illnesses, and if so should you have the right at a certain age to write a living will stating your wishes at the onset or developed stages of certain diseases? we all want self determination and should have it <_<

[Don't Change Your Name]

I believe it&#39;s good.

If someone can&#39;t move, has a lot of pain, feels useless and the disease he has doesnt give him a good reason to keep living, and it also makes his family suffer, he should have the choice of doing that, by authorising his family.

[chamo]

I think that euthanasia should be a widely accepted system allowing terminally ill people to die in dignity. I am of the opinion that people should only be able to use it is they have a terminal disease with no chance of recovering and are not enjoying a full life. I wouldn&#39;t want such a system to be abused by people who want to commit suicide as they are depressed etc.

[Funky Monk]

As long as they&#39;re over 18 im fine with it. People should have the choice to whether they live or die.

The question is witht the doctors. Do we train a special core of them to deal with this? Do we change the hypocratic oath.

[crazy comie]

it don,t matter about the ages

[chamo]

I think it does. Young children aren&#39;t responsible enough to decide whether they want to kill themselves; young age is the time when you are most influenced by what is around you, plenty of psychologists can prove this. It is also easier to help people with their problems when they are still young, rather than them being stuck with them when they&#39;re older than having to "cull them".

[crazy comie]

true.

[caliban]

good point chamo

[RyeN]

Im not completley opposed to the idea because i belive you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesnt hurt others. Sometimes it saves from suffering but there are alternatives to Death. Giving up on life is such a waste because once you give up there is nothing else. What good does it do to get rid of the pain if your arent there to notice your gone. Never give up the hope to live. If i were in that much pain i could be completley paralized to the point where i cant feel pain but still able to think cognative thoughts. Any quality of life is greater than death.

[crazy comie]

i dissagre

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You can&#39;t stop someone who wants to commit suicide. So I think it should be fully legal.

[RyeN]

You cant make suicide illegal anyway, what are you goning to do lock the person up after they have killed themselves.

People who commit suicide are weak anyway. If there in a situation where they feel they need to end thier own life because they cant go on anymore they probably arent a worthwile and productive membre of societey so let them die I guesse.

[crazy comie]

how are they weak it isn&#39;t always there fault they have a shit life.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You cant make suicide illegal anyway, what are you goning to do lock the person up after they have killed themselves.

People who commit suicide are weak anyway. If there in a situation where they feel they need to end thier own life because they cant go on anymore they probably arent a worthwile and productive membre of societey so let them die I guesse.


Good grief, what&#39;s the matter with you?


People who commit suicide suffer from a strong enough neurological disorder for them to completely ignore a basic human instinct. You opinion that they are "non-productive" and "not worthwhile" is not only barbarically ignorant but is also quite stupid.


P.S.

Suicide is ALREADY ILLEGAL in most countries around the globe.



You can&#39;t stop someone who wants to commit suicide. So I think it should be fully legal.

Again, the people who do not suffer from a terminal illness that want to commit suicide are SICK. They need HELP not a license to clip themselves.

Those that are terminally ill have the right to be euthanised if they so choose.



how do we make sure that no one gets away with murder by making it sound like euthanasia

Good question. In matters where a beneficiary of an estate or life insurance policies, there would need to be a probate officer in contact with the doctor who will be performing the euthanasia and the patient. If the patient is in a comatose state with minimul time, then euthanaia is not the option as the design of it is to limit suffering and one that is comatose is not in a state of suffering. All in all, a person cannot be euthanised without their coherently giving permission to the MD in the presence of the MD&#39;s or hospitals lawyers, a state government official that is specifically tasked with officiating the process and any and all family attornies and probate officials.

It seems like a lot of "red tape" but we are talking about someone ending their lives here.


EDIT:

I forgot this GEM;


Im not completley opposed to the idea because i belive you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesnt hurt others. Sometimes it saves from suffering but there are alternatives to Death. Giving up on life is such a waste because once you give up there is nothing else. What good does it do to get rid of the pain if your arent there to notice your gone. Never give up the hope to live. If i were in that much pain i could be completley paralized to the point where i cant feel pain but still able to think cognative thoughts. Any quality of life is greater than death


You would not be saying this if you were suffering from end-stage Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia. YOU have no right to speak against a subject you pray you will never have to deal with. Your ignorance is astounding.

[crazy comie]

comrade raf is right you know

[Danton]

Anyone has a right to speak on this subject, even those not suffering from terminal disease...

Suicide is and will always be the cowards way out, assisted suicide is understandable but should never be condoned by law, perhaps tolerated in throughly investigated scenarios....Many of these people are in no fit state to make any decisions, especially life-ending ones....

[crazy comie]

What you would rather have neuro disseseis than die.

[Danton]

Is that a question?

No I&#39;d rather not have any disease thank&#39;s, why, are you offering it?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21 2003, 09:53 AM
Again, the people who do not suffer from a terminal illness that want to commit suicide are SICK. They need HELP not a license to clip themselves.

Those that are terminally ill have the right to be euthanised if they so choose.



how do we make sure that no one gets away with murder by making it sound like euthanasia

Good question. In matters where a beneficiary of an estate or life insurance policies, there would need to be a probate officer in contact with the doctor who will be performing the euthanasia and the patient. If the patient is in a comatose state with minimul time, then euthanaia is not the option as the design of it is to limit suffering and one that is comatose is not in a state of suffering. All in all, a person cannot be euthanised without their coherently giving permission to the MD in the presence of the MD&#39;s or hospitals lawyers, a state government official that is specifically tasked with officiating the process and any and all family attornies and probate officials.

It seems like a lot of "red tape" but we are talking about someone ending their lives here.
I agree with all points quoted here from Comrade RAF.

I would like to add one thing about people in comas. I think there should be a form one could sign after reaching adulthood (possibly pending a psychological evaluation) that said "If I am in a coma for ____ days (possibly give the man or woman a choice in how long) and I am showing no signs of improvement, I give my family the right to tell the doctors to pull the plug."

[Vinny Rafarino]

Danton you are clouding the issue with a bourgeois sense of "honour". Tell the 60 year old man suffering from a cancer so vast that his stomach, pancreas, lungs, liverand intestines are all cancerous. The man is in incredible pain and has 4 months to live. You&#39;re going to actually sit there and talk of "cowardice"? If I wanted to hear preaching I would watch Billy Graham.


MIN,


"Pulling the plug" requires that the individual only be remaining alive through a life support system. These forms are already available. A living will that allows for your family the power of attorny required to request assisted suicide would only be available (in my eyes) if you are in a comatose state due to a degenerative disease that is terminal. Individuals in a comatose state that are not on life support and do not suffer from a terminal illness should not be granted euthanasia. You never know when someone will come out of a coma.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

RAF,
I support the "living wills" you spoke of, but I do not know that they are available everywhere.

"Individuals in a comatose state that are not on life support and do not suffer from a terminal illness should not be granted euthanasia. You never know when someone will come out of a coma."

There are a great many who never wake up from a coma. Who is to say that someone who has experienced head trauma and has been in a coma with no promising brain activity in six months, a year (pick any amount--does length of time matter to you at all?) could not ask in a "living will" or a comparable legal document that they be euthanized to bring closure to their family?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Living will are available to anyone. Just see an attorney.



Comatose individuals that have suffered severe neurological trauma are not candidates for euthanasia and here is why;

It must be said that not all all comostose individuals will be in a vegetative state due to severe neurological traumabut regardless of that, the euthanasia concept is to end the lives of those "in pain". A person in a coma is not in pain, they also cannot advise that they agree that being euthanised is what they want.

As it could be possible to repair neurological damage and the patient is not suffering from chronic pain, there is no logical reason to allow euthanasia to be a prospect for these people.

[FabFabian]

I guess I am the only one who disagrees with Euthanasia. I have a few problems with it. It isn&#39;t as simple as saying one chooses to die because they are ill or that they are simply commiting suicide.

Suicide has its roots in mental illness. It is the final step to relieve a person from the constant mental anguish and despair they experience. However, their perception of life is greatly altered due to a chemical imbalance in their brain, which if it was alleviated they would not go through a suicide.

Now, many say that a terminal illness is good enough reason to let someone end their life. What exactly do you mean by terminal? Diabetes is at present a terminal illness as is Arthritis and some forms of Cancer. Where exactly is the line drawn? You can&#39;t walk without assistance? You can&#39;t speak? You have to use a cholostemy bag?

Euthanasia has nothing to do with pulling the plug on someone either. When someone is hooked up to life support, with no brain waves that is just ending a physical life that has ceased to exist. There is no hope for recovery in that instance.

One&#39;s sense of a worthy life is individual, but to allow a law where by everyone has to sign a document is going to be chaotic. You can&#39;t predict the future and people do have evil relations. I don&#39;t want to see society get to a point where I have to wear a sign saying "Please don&#39;t kill me."

What needs to be done is pain management with no sense of heroics. We need a decent hospice system where people can have some dignity in an ill state. With people living longer and the boomers getting older this is a subject that is going to be a major problem sooner rather than later.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are creating argument where there is none.


Diabetes is not a terminal illness. If you follow the MD&#39;s prescription you will leve a normal life.

A terminal illness is an illness that will end your life in a finite amount of time and cannot be cured with any treatments. End stage Leukemia is a terminal illness. A very painful terminal illness.

Thoughts of suicide are GENERALLY caused from neurolgical disorders within the brains neurochemical system. That does not mean that all cases of suicide are due to a neurological disorder. A 5-HT imbalance can be created within the brain due to extreme bodily trauma and realisation of impending death allowing for a person with normal neurotransmitter levels to happily clip themselves. The "comfort" instict will smply overpower the "survival" instinct when nothing else can be done. You have "instinct" due to certain neurotransmitters causing specific synaptic response in emotional related suytems, such as the amygdala.

Saying "who draws the line" is simply not a logical response. We know when a person will enevitably die due to illness. If that illness is causing GREAT PAIN and will kill the person in a relatively short amount of time then there is no moral objection. The people making these options available are DOCTORS. It&#39;s not like the clerk at 7-11 is going to ever decide what is and what is not appropriate in terms of terminal illness.

We are talking about people who have weeks or months to live. Nor someone who had been diagnosed with cancer and if the disease progresses normally, they will have several years to live. This is a very specific study, generalisations ave no application.

[crazy comie]

i agree with raf

[Danton]

Comrade Raf...

Since when did the bourgeois have any honour? I&#39;m not going to call anyone a coward - least of all a suffering old man, I called the act of suicide cowardice which is probably an inadequate word.... We all suffer, there are many levels of pain, physical, mental or emotional and many exotic and slow ways of dying. I am not a callous man and not without my own tribulations. True, I cannot imagine the sufference some go through but all is relative....

This is my view and though I know you can&#39;t agree I hope you can respect it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

All men are equally honourable when facing inevitable death.

[Sabocat]

Why is it people have no issues about "putting down" a beloved pet that is suffering and terminally sick, but yet when it comes to people, family members etc, all of a sudden it&#39;s cowardice?

You wouldn&#39;t want a dog to suffer, why would you want a parent or loved one to? The only reason that this is an issue in the U&#036; is because of the AMA. They of course would love to have you languish (pain or no pain) until death in a hospital, where treatment can cost as much as &#036;5000 dollars per day. It&#39;s their business. Why wouldn&#39;t they?

It&#39;s a personal decision. If a person wants to go on his own terms, with a little dignity, before succumbing to endless pain and suffering, what&#39;s the problem?

Tell someone with Multiple Myoloma (a terminal cancer that basically makes your bones disintegrate) that he&#39;s taking the cowards way out. I don&#39;t think you can begin to understand that level of pain.

[Soul Rebel]

I have no problem with it. Who are we to tell people that they cannot kill themselves if they are suffering. I find it sick that rather then allow someone to end their suffering we (society) would rather have them continue living even though they are in pain. Its just sick- its not humane.

We, as family members and friends, dont want to see someone kill themselves for very selfish reasons. We rather have them (the patient) suffer so we dont have to suffer over the death of that person. I just dont get it. Wouldnt you feel better knowing that they were no longer suffering or sick?

[FabFabian]

RAF: Pain Management.....u didn&#39;t address that. That is a big issue concerning terminal illness.

Terminal : Dr. &#39;s are hardly psychic when it comes to determining the end. I know someone who is apparently "terminal" who should be dead and keeps chugging along. Terminal is an awkward word to use anyway. U can&#39;t define the end. Diabetes does have an end if you don&#39;t use treatment.

Suicide : Have you been suicidal? Do you know anything about mental illness? Suicide is temporal unless someone is successful.

[RyeN]

Ive been thinking about it and I stick to my guns. No one should every chose death over life. Any amount of pain is better than death. In death there is nothing. Not a good nothing but actual 100% nothing because you dont exist. Pain would become joy as compared to non existance.

Quote: "All men are equally honourable when facing inevitable death. "

Not to twist your words because they are perfectly clear, but is the serial child molestor who is being executed equaly as honorable as Che when he died?

Crazy Commie get your own opinion eh&#33;

[crazy comie]

surly nothing is better than unberable pain

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 06:29 AM



Quote: &#39;Ive been thinking about it and I stick to my guns. No one should every chose death over life. Any amount of pain is better than death. In death there is nothing. Not a good nothing but actual 100% nothing because you dont exist. Pain would become joy as compared to non existance.&#39;

Right.......for starters how exactly do you know that there is nothing after death? I dont really see how you feel that you know this as a 100% certainty.

Secondly I was wondering if anyone else here thought it to be a bit odd that euthanasia is considered completely immoral by law and yet having an abortion is perfectly OK

[Vinny Rafarino]

What about it? Eventually the pain from most terminal illness become so great that the dosage of even the maximum dosage of the strongest opiate (morphine) pain killer will not completely deaden the pain.


You are also not completely considering the fact that the teminally ill would prefer to have several lucid days with their loved ones to say goodbye then 6 months of non-lucid opiate hazed euphoria where they cannot even make sense.

The fact remains that I endorse this because what someone else chooses to do with their own lives when they are dying has no affect on me whatsoever. It would not be then rational then to think that I have any recourse at all to pass judgement upon them.

[Danton]

Disgustipated;

Again, I dont need to tell anyone whatever their particular ailment that suicide is the cowards way out - I am stating my own opinion on a web-based community, that is all. I&#39;ts an emotive topic and one where personal judgment can become easily clouded....The comparison with animals is interesting if irrelevant, I doubt an animal would choose quick painless death over continued instinctive will to live to the last breath....Something us pampered, sanitized humans are losing continually...

Turning it into a evil capitalist profit related conspiracy is plain ludicrous...It&#39;s a moral and emotional issue....Besides here in Blighty we have free health care even if it is likley to kill you quicker than a razorblade to the wrist...

If pain is truly unbearable then you die, naturally.. If someone chooses to kill themselves beforehand that&#39;s their business but I dont belive Euthanaisia should or will be legalized in the U.k or the U.S for that matter..Recent high profile test cases have proved this.....

Lenin24;

The way you talk of life after death and the immorality of destroying an un-born feotus is reminisant of a certain religion which is inappropriate in a disscussion on serious, real issues....

[Sabocat]

The comparison with animals is interesting if irrelevant, I doubt an animal would choose quick painless death over continued instinctive will to live to the last breath


The comparison is only irrelevant if the word "humane" is not clearly understood.

Only out of pure selfishness would someone deny a person a dignified, painless death to end prolonged suffering. If there is an instinctive will to live, then obviously a person choosing to terminate his life is equally instinctual.

Animals, will wonder off, deliberately not eat, a mother will devour sickly young. I would consider that euthanasia in the animal kingdom. Since an animal cannot choose quick painless death, that statement is irrelevant.


Turning it into a evil capitalist profit related conspiracy is plain ludicrous...It&#39;s a moral and emotional issue....Besides here in Blighty we have free health care even if it is likley to kill you quicker than a razorblade to the wrist...

To deny that the medical practices in the U&#036; aren&#39;t self serving and profit driven is naive. The most powerful lobbies in Washington are the Pharmaceutical companies. What other purpose could possibly be served by keeping a suffering terminal patient alive with machines and medications, when left on their own they would perish in half the time or less? It&#39;s an industry just like any other. A highly specialized one, but one none the less.

[Danton]

Suicide is never instinctual among any creature other than the lemming - it is a premeditated act.

I dont for one minute deny that U.S healthcare is profit driven, I seriously doubt however that life is deliberatley preserved to that end....


An alternative purpose for keeping a suffering/terminal patient alive?
They want to live....The vast majority of these people dont give in until their number comes up...

[crazy comie]

What is right is not neacercerly instinctive.

[Danton]

I never said it was. Congratulations though on bravely venturing a thought(of sorts) before Comrade Raf has sanctioned it....

[Sabocat]

So if the vast majority (and I&#39;d have to see proof that this is the case) of people suffering with terminal disease don&#39;t give up and want to fight it out to the end, that means absolutely that someone else that doesn&#39;t want to fight it out to the end in agony, all at astronomical cost to their families for no ends, should be made to suffer until they expire?

All that will encourage is for people to commit suicide on their own with shotguns, carbon monoxide from their cars, hanging themselves or some kind of overdose. The awful part of that of course is that in most cases a family member has to come home and find them. Not a great way for a person to remember a family member. Not a lot of dignity in splattering your brains all over the living room walls either.

I would suggest that forcing someone to live with excruciating pain until death is nothing more than torture.

[Danton]

There&#39;s as much dignity in splattering your brains all over the wall as there is in being put down like a lame beast...

So the minority should take precedent here is that what your saying?

[Sabocat]

No, I&#39;m saying that there shouldn&#39;t be a precedent at all. It should be the choice of the individual. Period.






You wouldn&#39;t by any chance be pursuing a career in medicine would you? I have a friend that is a doctor and he reacts the same way to this topic.

[Danton]

The individual already has that choice and if physically able can easily and quickly dispose of him/herself without anyone noticeing.... We do not need hasty, irrational and unpopular legeslation to deal with it.

I am far to queasy to be a doctor and my bedside manner sucks as you could imagine.

[Sabocat]

I am far to queasy to be a doctor and my bedside manner sucks as you could imagine.

:lol:




The individual already has that choice and if physically able can easily and quickly dispose of him/herself without anyone noticeing.... We do not need hasty, irrational and unpopular legeslation to deal with it.

What if their not physically able? What then? Have a family member blow their brains out? What happens if they botch the attempt, and it only adds to their suffering? Why not let them go peacefully in a sleep after saying goodbye to friends and family?


I don&#39;t believe that it&#39;s something that needs to be or should be legislated at all. It should simply be a matter of personal choice.

It sort of reminds me of that pro-choice bumper sticker that I saw years ago...."If you disagree with Abortion....don&#39;t get one"

I feel the same way about doctor assisted suicide. "If you disagree with doctor assisted suicide, don&#39;t have one"



But to quote FightClub....Well hey...that&#39;s just me, I could be wrong. :D

[Danton]

Then we are in agreement - no legislation.

It&#39;s true, if they are physically unable to top themselves they are fucked, if they have a willing manslaughterer then they are placing the responsibility with that person along with any consequences - legal, moral or otherwise...
Doctors should not be placed with that burden....

[dopediana]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 12 2003, 08:00 PM
I do not think we will find many comrades here opposed to the idea of euthanasia. I want to repeat my concern: how do we make sure that no one gets away with murder by making it sound like euthanasia?
euthanasia is generally requested by the person in question or the family of someone in a coma, on life support, etc. euthanasia is an alternative offered usually only when the person has a terminal disease for which the death will be a terribly painful thing or if they are so disabled they don&#39;t feel like living is worth it anymore. a murder can never be passed off as euthanasia or assisted suicide. assisted suicide is done with the compliance of a doctor.

[the SovieT]

in many cases.. death becomes more bearable than life..

in those cases i endorse the use of euthanasia....

[RyeN]

Now im no doctor but dont we have the technologie to sever the pain receptors in the spine if the pain gets that bad. I mean people who are paralized below the neck cant feel pain bellow the neck. Why not recreate that and let your mind live. Stephen Hawkins is one of the worlds most Intelectual people and he doesnt feel pain bellow the neck. However if the pain is in the mind give me hallucinogens. Fact of the matter is Id rather spend out the rest of my days paralized or tripping out on hallucinogens than killing myself.

Or what about Cryogenic frezzing? Put me on ice and thaw me out when there is a cure. Anything is better than death in my opinion.

Im 100% posotive there isnt life after death. You can be too if you just look at the facts. Have you ever seen a dead body? Its not alive is it. In most instances the body turns to dust. or is burned to ash. Either way there is no concious mind there. Why fool yourself.

[crazy comie]

Well it is just becuese your scared of littrilly nothing.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 10:46 AM


Or what about Cryogenic frezzing? Put me on ice and thaw me out when there is a cure. Anything is better than death in my opinion.

Im 100% posotive there isnt life after death. You can be too if you just look at the facts. Have you ever seen a dead body? Its not alive is it. In most instances the body turns to dust. or is burned to ash. Either way there is no concious mind there. Why fool yourself.
Firstly I never actually said I believed in life after death, actually I find it quite unlikely. What I meant was that whilst it may be unlikely you cannot completely rule out the possibility. Although it cannot be proven there is nothing to directly disprove the concept as most people see it.

Secondly while I appreciate the fact that you claim anything is better than death you cannot possibly see things from the perspective of someone who is for example; completely paralysed or in incurable pain. If someone wants to die I feel that they should at least be allowed that basic right to die.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 10:46 AM
Now im no doctor but dont we have the technologie to sever the pain receptors in the spine if the pain gets that bad. I mean people who are paralized below the neck cant feel pain bellow the neck. Why not recreate that and let your mind live. Stephen Hawkins is one of the worlds most Intelectual people and he doesnt feel pain bellow the neck. However if the pain is in the mind give me hallucinogens. Fact of the matter is Id rather spend out the rest of my days paralized or tripping out on hallucinogens than killing myself.

Or what about Cryogenic frezzing? Put me on ice and thaw me out when there is a cure. Anything is better than death in my opinion.

Im 100% posotive there isnt life after death. You can be too if you just look at the facts. Have you ever seen a dead body? Its not alive is it. In most instances the body turns to dust. or is burned to ash. Either way there is no concious mind there. Why fool yourself.
To begin with, why would anyone suffering from a disease that will KILL THEM in a matter of weeks to month go through a VERY EXPESIVE procedure that will allow then to witness their bodies decaying right before their very eyes? I know, lets add "quadrapalegic" to the list. It&#39;s not like Leukemia was bad enough. That should REALLY make their final days comfortable.


Well, cryogenics still has to conquer MANY issues. (I think that it&#39;s a pipe dream personally) First and foremost, the disease that killed the patient. Second and most important is solving the fact that once biological tissue is frozen, ice crystals form withing the tissue itself effectively puncturing millions of holes in the cellular walls. The result is a MASSIVE trauma to the tissue once it is thawed out. (try freezing a banana until it is completely frozen and then allow it to completely thaw) "snap freezing&#39;" (the theory that if you remove all of the heat fast enough by dropping the tissue in liquid nitrogen, ice crystals will not have enough time to form) with the use of a cryoprotectant will work. Sucrose solutions that are over 1.6 M are a good cryoprotectant for these tissues, but I&#39;m not sure if this has been done on such a macro scale as a complete human body. I would need to have to research it and get back to you.

[Hate Is Art]

one quick point, when hitler decided he didnt want any jews in germany he euthanised them, euthanasia is someone choosing someone else to die, your all talking about voluntary euthanasia, which is still wrong.

in principle it all seems a&#39;ok, but like abortion, it will all start out ok, then the process will speed up and you will be able to walk into a special clinic and then 20 minutes later after telling a doctor you&#39;ve thought about you can sit on a bed and take a couple of pills. In a few years someone will be deciding for you whether or not your life is worth living.

One last point if you have terminal cancer and so does some one else, when that someone else chooses to die, how will you feel? that your life isn&#39;t worth living?

Also someone said something about dieing with diginity, well someone who lives in a wheelchair fully paralysed doesnt have diginity? someone waging a war against cancer doesnt have dignity? yes they do.

[Vinny Rafarino]

in principle it all seems a&#39;ok, but like abortion, it will all start out ok, then the process will speed up and you will be able to walk into a special clinic and then 20 minutes later after telling a doctor you&#39;ve thought about you can sit on a bed and take a couple of pills. In a few years someone will be deciding for you whether or not your life is worth living.



this is a completely preposterous view of events that will happen. It is complete subjective fantasy. Not even realistic fantasy at that.


One last point if you have terminal cancer and so does some one else, when that someone else chooses to die, how will you feel? that your life isn&#39;t worth living?



the choice of someone else is of no consequence to you. Again pure fantasy. Unless Miss Cleo is sitting by the bedside of every cancer patient, they are not going to be aware anyone has "chosen suicide". And furthermore, as they are DYING I don&#39;t think they will give a rats arse one way or the other anyhow.


one quick point, when hitler decided he didnt want any jews in germany he euthanised them, euthanasia is someone choosing someone else to die, your all talking about voluntary euthanasia, which is still wrong


Hitler&#39;s genocide has nothing to do with this conversation at all. This statement was merely an attempt to have anyone reading your post sub-consciously attach Hitler with the concept of euthanasia in the hope they will instictively agree with you after making the connection. This tactic only works on dumb people. Sorry but we are not buying it.

Now, why don&#39;t you show us how euthanasia is "still wrong". I would not like your opinion in this matter, I would like to find out why it&#39;s wrong. If you have completely made up your mind that it is "wrong", then you should have some sort of empirical evidence beyond your subjective morality yes?

[Hate Is Art]

euthanasia is someone choosing your life isnt worth living e.g. hitler and the jews, voluntary euthanasia is you choosing to end your life because it isn&#39;t worth living.

and you can say it isn&#39;t even realistic fantasy well it happened with abortion, when it was first made legal you had lots of forms a long wait now you can walk into a clinic and walk out 20 minutes later having muredered your baby.


the choice of someone else is of no consequence to you. Again pure fantasy. Unless Miss Cleo is sitting by the bedside of every cancer patient, they are not going to be aware anyone has "chosen suicide". And furthermore, as they are DYING I don&#39;t think they will give a rats arse one way or the other anyhow.



how do you know they won&#39;t be affected by this? if someone with the same condition has chosen to die then it devalues your life.

It all destroys the sanctity of life, we don&#39;t have the right to take away life, because IMO it trivializes it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

and you can say it isn&#39;t even realistic fantasy well it happened with abortion, when it was first made legal you had lots of forms a long wait now you can walk into a clinic and walk out 20 minutes later having muredered your baby.



Maybe on Pluto, but in THE REAL WORLD this is an unfounded and completely ludicrous description of legal abortion clinics.



voluntary euthanasia is you choosing to end your life because it isn&#39;t worth living.


Exactly and it&#39;s also immeasurable painful.



how do you know they won&#39;t be affected by this? if someone with the same condition has chosen to die then it devalues your life.



And how do YOU know it will? Especially when other individuals dying from the same disese will NOT KNOW ABOUT IT nor will they even care. And how does it "de-value" your life? Because YOU say so? Well forgive me if I trust logic and rationality versus your "almighty word".



It all destroys the sanctity of life, we don&#39;t have the right to take away life, because IMO it trivializes it.


And that&#39;s your opinion on the subject. Thanks for sharing. NEXT&#33;

[Hate Is Art]

Maybe on Pluto, but in THE REAL WORLD this is an unfounded and completely ludicrous description of legal abortion clinics.



i don&#39;t want to go into a whole abortion debate, but conditions have laxed, and it it clearly killing innocent children.


And how do YOU know it will? Especially when other individuals dying from the same disese will NOT KNOW ABOUT IT nor will they even care. And how does it "de-value" your life? Because YOU say so? Well forgive me if I trust logic and rationality versus your "almighty word".


it de-values your life because someone with the same condition is choosing not live. how can you tell that sometime someone wont decided that after a certain point your life isn&#39;t worth living, now i can&#39;t say it will happen but i think its safer if euthansia is never legalised so that this can never have a chance of happening.

[Vinny Rafarino]

i don&#39;t want to go into a whole abortion debate, but conditions have laxed, and it it clearly killing innocent children.



:lol: I think I heard Ruch Limbaugh say the same thing once....

I must have forgotten about that abortion clinic that just opened up in Disneyland...



it de-values your life because someone with the same condition is choosing not live. how can you tell that sometime someone wont decided that after a certain point your life isn&#39;t worth living, now i can&#39;t say it will happen but i think its safer if euthansia is never legalised so that this can never have a chance of happening.



Again, you are escalating the concept to the realm of PURE FANTASY. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges.
Again, just because YOU think an unrelated persons life is "de-valued" by someone in the world choosing to be euthanised does not make it so. It&#39;s a purely subjective point of view. I&#39;m touched you feel that way, now undersstand that we DON&#39;T.

I give you a little hint here amigo, if there ever was another individual or group of individuals that wanted to commit genocide, no "law" against euthanasia is going to stop them. Why do you keep bringing this up? It a completely different topic.

[Hate Is Art]

im just telling you the difference, cos im all for the legalisation of having someone else choosing me to die.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Number one, I have already stated that I condone euthanasia when the party being euthanised makes the decesion THEMSELVES. The only other time it&#39;s acceptable is when you are in a vegetative state with no brain activity and are surviving due to the assistance of a life support system.


At this point you body has already CHOSEN TO DIE but you are being kept alive by human and mechanical intervention. Therefore no one will be CHOOSING for you to die.

Try that one on for size smartie-pants.

[Hate Is Art]

anyone remember the hillsborough incident at sheffield wednesdays football ground, one boy 15 years old was in a coma because of it, he was on a life support machine, but he could hear and he heard his parents and doctors discussing whether or not to turn of the life support machine, they decided not to and 2 days later the boy came out of the coma and lived a normal life, now if comrade RAF had his way, that boy would be dead.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You have chosen to ignore this portion of my statement "with no brain activity" to attempt to give your argument merit.


Caught ya&#33;

[truthaddict11]

if I had a debilitating disease and was in constant pain I sure would want to continue. And if I was in a coma and wouldnt be able to be revived from that state or suffer severe brain damage as a result of the coma I would want someone to pull the plug too.

[Hate Is Art]

the boy had no apparent brain activity, he was living off a life support machine, also if he had maybe said if he went into a coma with no brain activity then he would like to be euthanised, well how would you fell if his parents pulled the plug days before he was due to recover.

In a coma you can&#39;t change what you said and how can you make a decision before hand if you dont know what it is like for it to happen to you.

[Funky Monk]

I know this doesnt apply to coma cases but;

2 months councelling mandatory prior to Euthanasia?

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 28 2003, 07:42 AM
the boy had no apparent brain activity, he was living off a life support machine, also if he had maybe said if he went into a coma with no brain activity then he would like to be euthanised, well how would you fell if his parents pulled the plug days before he was due to recover.



In a coma you can&#39;t change what you said and how can you make a decision before hand if you dont know what it is like for it to happen to you.

its called a living will secondly coma patients arent euthanized when they "pull the plug" they remove life support systems such as helping someone breathe or feeding tubes

There is a difference in being in a coma for 2 days then there is for 20 years

[Hate Is Art]

18 years and 363 days :P

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 28 2003, 12:42 PM
the boy had no apparent brain activity, he was living off a life support machine, also if he had maybe said if he went into a coma with no brain activity then he would like to be euthanised, well how would you fell if his parents pulled the plug days before he was due to recover.

In a coma you can&#39;t change what you said and how can you make a decision before hand if you dont know what it is like for it to happen to you.
I don&#39;t think you have your information straight my friend. I suggest you do further research into this case. Not that it matters.



2 months councelling mandatory prior to Euthanasia?


To begin, a very large portion of the prople who would choose assisted suicide do not have two months to live. In addition, why would 2 months of counseling be required or even necessary in these cases? Obviously there is no need to counsil the person on how this decision is going to affect their psyche in the future, so what would be the point? To find out if they are in the right "frame of mind" to make this decision? THEY ARE DYING. Their frame of mind is not going to change.

[IHP]

"Im 100% posotive there isnt life after death. You can be too if you just look at the facts. Have you ever seen a dead body? Its not alive is it. In most instances the body turns to dust. or is burned to ash. Either way there is no concious mind there. Why fool yourself."

Really? You are 100% sure. Do you want to prove that life doesn&#39;t exist after death? The basis of your 100% is that the body decomposes, correct? Ok, you would be aware also, that the body is a just a vessel for your soul. After death you soul lives on. Now I&#39;m 100% positive that&#39;s true. Prove me wrong.

[RyeN]

you dont have a soul

[RyeN]

Ok that first reply was a little vauge.
Elaboration.

What is a soul? Is it that thing inside you that you cant see or feel but its what makes you who you are. Your thought proccess, your feelings, your morals and conscience? I know you want to belive that you are made up of a powerful energy that has mystical powers to exist beyond the realm of mater. Its a much better reality than the bleak doom of death.

All these things and more that you atribute to a soul are actualy in your brain. You were corect with one thing that you said, when you wern&#39;t quoting me. Your body is a vesel. It caries our most important part, the brain. Everything that you are is based at first genetics with other influences like the pregnacy cycle. But after you escape the whomb. Everything you sense and learn subliminal or directley. The enviroment you grow up in and the food you eat. Everything you have done has helped develop who you are today.

The brain is like a hard drive proccessor and OS all in one. Before you say wait the brain is nothing like a hard drive your wrong too. Research for better ways of storing digital information has combined laser light with single celled amoeba. Using the laser to charge the cell either light or not you can read 1 and 0 and store digital information. Visualization, To fill the area consumed by a dime with amoeba you would have Terabytes of information that could be stored in a small area. Our brain is certainly more complex than some amoeba, so its capable of doing much more and storing much more.

Now our body is the vesel that we have evolved to in order to compliment our brain. You need to eat and be nourished in order to provide the body with sustinance. This food gets broken down and feeds the sytem that keeps our brain alive.

When your die the machine stops making the life flowing energy of your soul, which is actualy small electrical charges in the brain. The flesh and cells that held you together rot or dicintagrate. Or if your frozen I learned your cell walls burst and dont function properley. Like a hard drive after its been exposed to dust you cant read the information, or use it at all.

In conclusion and im sory to say but, you wrong there is no life after death. So unless you have some proff of a soul that youve been hiding from the rest of the scietific commitie prove me wrong. But start a new threat entiled I have a soul by Jesus christ or some shit like that.

Hey El Marko I was crazy high when wrote this one too eh&#33;

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Sep 29 2003, 12:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Sep 29 2003, 12:27 AM)
Digital [email protected] 28 2003, 12:42 PM
the boy had no apparent brain activity, he was living off a life support machine, also if he had maybe said if he went into a coma with no brain activity then he would like to be euthanised, well how would you fell if his parents pulled the plug days before he was due to recover.

In a coma you can&#39;t change what you said and how can you make a decision before hand if you dont know what it is like for it to happen to you.
I don&#39;t think you have your information straight my friend. I suggest you do further research into this case. Not that it matters.



2 months councelling mandatory prior to Euthanasia?


To begin, a very large portion of the prople who would choose assisted suicide do not have two months to live. In addition, why would 2 months of counseling be required or even necessary in these cases? Obviously there is no need to counsil the person on how this decision is going to affect their psyche in the future, so what would be the point? To find out if they are in the right "frame of mind" to make this decision? THEY ARE DYING. Their frame of mind is not going to change. [/b]
A large proportion of potential Euthanasiacs are not in life threatening situations but are merely disabled.
People in this situation may be inclined to take hasty action and may not consider the potential their lives hold despite their sitation. In this case councelling may halp someone to realise that they have a more enjoable life ahead of them and as such will not resort to Euthanasia. Those who, after 2 months councelling still want to try Euthanasia will therefore be people who have considered the consequences carefuly and not impetuous.

[crazy comie]

pepoles so called soles are just the electrical and chmichal processes of the brain.

[Hate Is Art]

mozart was nearly blind you can call that disabled yes, well look what he did, a person who is disabled can lead a full life can&#39;t they?

[IHP]

"you dont have a soul"

Prove it. You have explained why you think there is no soul, and you have come to that conclusion. You haven&#39;t proved anything.

What is a soul? Is it that thing inside you that you cant see or feel but its what makes you who you are. Your thought proccess, your feelings, your morals and conscience? I know you want to belive that you are made up of a powerful energy that has mystical powers to exist beyond the realm of mater. Its a much better reality than the bleak doom of death."

Again this is conclusion that you have come to. This does not prove that a soul doesn&#39;t exist. Your soul is more than your morals etc. While you are correct in including those apsects of reality, it is much more. It is the immaterial you.

All these things and more that you atribute to a soul are actualy in your brain.

How do you know this? Again you have no real evidence that this is so.

You were corect with one thing that you said, when you wern&#39;t quoting me. Your body is a vesel. It caries our most important part, the brain.

Yes it is. But you are saying that the body is a vessel for the brain. Whereas I believe the brain is yet another aspect of your body.


Everything that you are is based at first genetics with other influences like the pregnacy cycle. But after you escape the whomb. Everything you sense and learn subliminal or directley. The enviroment you grow up in and the food you eat. Everything you have done has helped develop who you are today."

I think you misunderstand the concept of a soul. Are you saying that your soul is based on one attribute learned at conception? That at that moment (should your soul exist) it is how it is and ever will be?

The brain is like a hard drive proccessor and OS all in one. Before you say wait the brain is nothing like a hard drive your wrong too. Research for better ways of storing digital information has combined laser light with single celled amoeba. Using the laser to charge the cell either light or not you can read 1 and 0 and store digital information. Visualization, To fill the area consumed by a dime with amoeba you would have Terabytes of information that could be stored in a small area. Our brain is certainly more complex than some amoeba, so its capable of doing much more and storing much more."

Sorry, buckaroo, you&#39;re changing the argument here. Get back on track. Also, don&#39;t assume my stance on things ie. &#39;you&#39;re wrong too&#39;

Now our body is the vesel that we have evolved to in order to compliment our brain. You need to eat and be nourished in order to provide the body with sustinance. This food gets broken down and feeds the sytem that keeps our brain alive."

This is again where I have to ask, what is your concept of soul? You aren&#39;t making any sense in regards to that.

"When your die the machine stops making the life flowing energy of your soul, which is actualy small electrical charges in the brain."

Prove it. Show me the document supported by scientists that have weight, that understand the workings of the brain. And then show me where they conclude that these are your soul. You can&#39;t.

The flesh and cells that held you together rot or dicintagrate. Or if your frozen I learned your cell walls burst and dont function properley. Like a hard drive after its been exposed to dust you cant read the information, or use it at all."

Again you are placing the material with the immaterial. You are arguing that there is no life after death, in fact you are 100% sure. Yet even the basics of zen thought have not been shown here.

"In conclusion and im sory to say but, you wrong there is no life after death."

That&#39;s it That&#39;s you evidence that there is no life after death?&#33; Sorry, but that had no substance excpet for some scientific reasoning behind some brain movement.

"So unless you have some proff of a soul that youve been hiding from the rest of the scietific commitie prove me wrong."

Nope. You made the statement that there is no life after death. The burden of &#39;proff&#39; is on your shoulders. I ask you again; "Prove it"

But start a new threat entiled I have a soul by Jesus christ or some shit like that.&#39;

Ok, I had some respect for you until I read this part. Are you saying that because I believe in a soul, that I&#39;m a follower of Jesus Christ? What&#39;s your reasoning? Just as you assumes many thing in this post, you assume my spirituality. Sorry, boy, you&#39;re wrong. I have never been nor will I ever be a Christian.

[IHP]

Sorry, I missed this from Crazy "comie."

pepoles so called soles are just the electrical and chmichal processes of the brain"

I just replied to post about this. Prove it.

[RyeN]

Quote: "Again this is conclusion that you have come to. This does not prove that a soul doesn&#39;t exist. Your soul is more than your morals etc. While you are correct in including those apsects of reality, it is much more. It is the immaterial you."

A soul may be "more than your morals ext." but it still all takes place in the brain. Im sory if i neglected to mention every attribute that makes a person unique eh&#33; What is this I have no evidence. It is an undisputed fact that people have brains. Also that the electrical impulses created in our brains, sent through the spinal cord to the rest of our body is what makes us move our fingers or legs. Also by stimulating different portions of the brain you can affect different parts of the memory. Thats more prof than your thesis of the soul is the Inmaterial you.

I didnt misunderstand the concept of a soul, There are no souls. I also never implied that the soul was made up from one Instance at conceptiion. I was trying to ilistrate all of the differing aspects that go into what makes us who we are. Thats the complete opposite of what I said.

The brain is just another part of the body however it is the most immportant part. Hence the question raised about Euthanizing someone who is brain dead. You dont kill your father if he loses his arms in a horible accident. Also people without function of thier bodies, example quadraplaegics still do live life. However people who lose thier brain get Euthanized.

Im sory if you think I was getting off track but its hard enough to explain this too you already and I thought the use of a visual would help make it more realistic to you. Its also an accepted fact that people can relate to something better if you give them visuals. Do I have to highlight the puck in neon for you bumbaclot.

Now why is it that you are asking me what my impresion of a soul is. I thought I made that clear with the You dont have a soul comment. I didnt mean that like your a bad person, I meant no one has a soul. The only soul I know is Sole music. Different spelling

I cant show you any documents linking the electrical impulses to the brain with a soul. That is corect because once again there is no soul. However there is research that shows what I stated earlier about the brains function.

"Thats it"? what more do you need? I can prove it to you only one way my freind, Thats with your untimley demise, and the revolution has lost far too many comrades for me to want that.

I didnt explicitly assume that you were a Christian either. thats what the "or some shit like that." part was for.

For anyone who does have faith in something greater dont take this a direct atack to you. Its great to belive in something. Everyone else has belived in something that wasnt true at one time or another, the thing is to learn from your errors

[Sabocat]

Human&#39;s creation of a "soul" is because we&#39;re afraid of death and it&#39;s finality. I believe that the concept of the soul, like all good fairy tales, is to lend to the belief that when you die, you&#39;re not really dead, that your soul carries on...blah, blah, blah.

Only man&#39;s arrogance could possibly believe that we&#39;re so important, that we have a "soul" that continues on after our death.


Oh...and....


The only soul I know is Sole music.


It&#39;s Soul Music.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sole Music is where you tap your feet annoying every1 else in the room

[ElRuso1967]

I suppose the only way to really know if a soul exists is by dying&#33; :lol:

[crazy comie]

It is very unlikly there is a soul

[Hate Is Art]

we don&#39;t know and thats all their is to it, i&#39;d like to believe in a sould or rein-carnation but i guess we wont know for a while (hopefully) and when we do we won&#39;t be able to tell anyone.

[IHP]

RyeN,

Once again you clumsily dodge the proof I requested for the argument that you are 100% positive that you don&#39;t have a soul. Please do so.

I have already answered to your scientific reasoning, which is a theory, nothing more. It does not prove anything. Remembering that you made the statement that there is no life after death.

Yes, you did assume I was Christian.

I would go more into this, but I have to go to work.

[RyeN]

Clumsily? I thought that was prety good my friend. As I stated I am 100% posotive that there is no life after death. However something was pointed out to me that its true I cant prove anything 100% no one can. However I am still 100% sure of it. Its up to you to decide for yourslef, I wont judge you either however as a commrade I will still try my best to show you the errors of your thoughts. Peace out Krakr

[IHP]

RyeN,

Fair enough, if you want to remain stoic in declaring only one single viewpoint on such a complex idea, then carry on. The point I only wished to make was that you can&#39;t be 100% sure. I think that point has been proven.

Crazy "Comie,"

So now you&#39;re changing your argument. So now, in your opinion, there&#39;s a possibility of a soul? Take a stance and stick to it, Bucko.

Disgustipated,

No, not arrogance. It&#39;s a recognition that we are all different from one another, and that environment and other aspects of life only lend to change your physical body.

[RyeN]

Quote: "Fair enough, if you want to remain stoic in declaring only one single viewpoint on such a complex idea, then carry on. The point I only wished to make was that you can&#39;t be 100% sure. I think that point has been proven."

I stand firm on the fact that there is no life after death however I have more than a single view point on the matter of life. I actualy dont plan on dieing. I sugest you read my upcomming thread in Theory : Imortality Faith in Science

Its much more plausible than an afterlife.

[crazy comie]

A possibilty of about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000001

[Danton]

Proof is in the pudding....

The onus of proof lies with those who beleive in abstract notions and concepts such as the soul or the spirit, sounds like a lot of bad buddha noise....

[IHP]

Says the eugenist. Danton, the proof lies with the person that declared that there is no life after death. Therefore, it is his upto him to prove why an alternative is wrong, which has not happened. Down to attacking my faith? Low, and intentionally provocative. Yes, I am a buddhist. Zen buddhist specifically. This is irrelevent.


Crazy Comie, where did that statistic come from? Based on what exactly?

RyeN, Ok, I will have a look at that thread. Although, you say here you don&#39;t plan on dying? And that, in your mind, is more plausible than a soul?

[Danton]

Eugenist? Where the fuck did that come from? Misconstrued and misunderstood drunken comments on a summer evening in London.....

Take it back&#33; You know it&#39;s bullshit, what I was talking about that night was completly different from eugenism and has no place here.... Really, I thought better of you. I won&#39;t continue until you take that comment back.

[crazy comie]

well becuse thats about the liklyhood of pepole living after they stop working.

[RedAnarchist]

[B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][COLOR=red]

I think that it should be legal. Why should the Government impose a law that is so obviously theological (Christians may see it as suicide and murder, things they consider sins) on the people?

If someone is terminally ill, they should be allowed the choice

[IHP]

Danton, and I thought better of you. Take back your intentionally provocative comments about buddhism and I will take back the intentionally provocative title I granted.

Crazy comie, once again you fail to make any sense what so ever. Tell me again where that statistic cam from and how it was ascertained. Or were you just making it up?

[Danton]

Buddhism. The sound of one hand clapping.....

I can&#39;t see where I&#39;ve said anything derrogatory about your adopted faith IHP....

If it&#39;s words like abstract or esoteric that offend you so - I hereby retract them, they were the mildest I could summon to describe your beleifs

I&#39;m sure nothing I&#39;ve said could rank with your flippant and flagrently absurd bandying about of Eugenism..

What if I called you a rascist?

[crazy comie]

you can only say what you think becuse you can&#39;t prove there is or there isn&#39;t.

[IHP]

"The onus of proof lies with those who beleive in abstract notions and concepts such as the soul or the spirit, sounds like a lot of bad buddha noise...."

You know what you meant. Don&#39;t play the innocent. Saying "sounds like a lot of bad buddha noise" invites an escalation of debate. You attack my beliefs (yes, in a derogatory manner as you demonstrated here), I will attack back. Hence following the escalation. Ever heard of the expression "kitchen-sinking"?

You can call me racist all you like. I know it isn&#39;t true, that&#39;s all I care about.

Crazy comie, finally a little bit of sense. This is the point I&#39;ve been trying to get across. You cannot be "100% positive," I&#39;m not 100% that you have a soul, but I believe it very strongly. That&#39;s all.

[crazy comie]

i wasn&#39;t saying i was a hundred percent i said 99.999999999999999.

[IHP]

Bloody hell. Crazy comie, please stop posting on this topic. I was referring to RyeN&#39;s 100% stance. I never said you had a similar stance. But you are making up rediculous statistics based on no actual data. Please stop it.

[Danton]

And I know I&#39;m no Eugenist... I&#39;ve retracted my statements obviously your not big enough to do likewise..
So I&#39;ll let you debate this with people you can relate to... Crazy commie etc...

[crazy comie]

ihp is getting moody

[IHP]

No, Danton, you said you retracted them, but you went to say "they were the mildest I could summon to describe your beleifs" Which was a continuation of your derogatory regard for buddhism. I do, however retract my statement about eugenism.

Crazy comie, make some sense and maybe some people will take you seriously. And I&#39;m much meaner than I&#39;ve been with you.

[Danton]

OK, I unequivocally retract what I said - It wasn&#39;t meant to offend you, it was more jokey but I can see that it may have sounded flippant....

I am an admirer of Buddhist ethics and philosophy, particularly zen and have in my time read and practised some zen teachings.... I even meditate now and then..

We&#39;ve lost track of this Euthanaisia thing maybe I&#39;ll think of something later, in the meantime I hope we can put this ugly little episode behind us it&#39;s bad karma for us both :D

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 10:46 AM
in the meantime I hope we can put this ugly little episode behind us it&#39;s bad karma for us both :D
... Bad call, mate, really bad...

That call will bring you years of bad karma

[crazy comie]

Hasn&#39;t this all deaveated slightly from the topic of disscussion.

[IHP]

Ok, I agree. This should be put behind us. I suppose I got offended because I didn&#39;t realize you were joking. Let&#39;s move on to drinking ourselves into a stupor in a London pub.