Abortion and Assisted Suicide

[Solzhenitsyn]

A friend of mine offered a unique take on abortion in which she claimed abortion was just a cynical ploy by governments to reduce social spending payouts. She argued that assisted suicide was the upshot of Europes greying population and the countries with the largest median ages are the one pushing assisted suicide the hardest (ie. the Scandinavian and Benelux states.)

She offered the fact that abortion legalization always follows massive new social spending programmes or leftist economic reforms in as little as two years but never does abortion legalization precede social spending. She studied for a while in the Netherlands were abortion is pandered to every 8 year old that can read by Amsterdam.
She thinks assisted suicide has the same cost reduction calculations behind it driving the debate. Interestingly, the increasingly popular immigrant reductionist political groups have support in the various beauracratic institutions in large part because the same razor is being applied to immigrants. The fear is that immigrants are more expensive for the state than newborns because most of the them will not become "productive" enough in their lifetimes to contribute more to the economy than they take in the form of welfare.

[synthesis]

I honestly do not understand why anybody could have a problem with assisted suicide. When the government tells you that you can't do what you want with your own life to the extent that you can't even decide when to end it, what follows from there?

[Solzhenitsyn]

The question is not suicide qua suicide, but suicide as a government policy. At what point does the welfare state hand a 62 year old a syringe full of barbituates and say "You've served us well for 62 years it's a shame we can't afford to care for you anymore. So here you are. Kill yourself to prevent being a burden on the rest of us."

[synthesis]

Well, perhaps I'm just uninformed about the European assisted suicide laws. I assumed it was the same as the American end-of-life care, where it is a personal decision that the person and only the person is allowed to make and only in a clear state of mind. If you can prove to me that it is somehow forced upon its recipients in any European countries (which I find hard to believe) then I would reconsider my position.

[commiecrusader]

I think I may be wrong, but I believe assissted suicide (and euthanasia) are illegal in most EU countries. UK for sure.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Someone must have just watched Logan's Run.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:15 AM
At what point does the welfare state hand a 62 year old a syringe full of barbituates and say "You've served us well for 62 years it's a shame we can't afford to care for you anymore. So here you are. Kill yourself to prevent being a burden on the rest of us."
If it's not voluntary, then it's not suicide is it ? It's murder. So long as the government does not force you to "commit suicide", there isn't a problem.

[trex]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2005, 07:31 PM
Someone must have just watched Logan's Run.
Good times!

In my personal opinion, I believe that human life belongs to nobody but the owner of it and God, and should not be taken from them. For this reason, I think abortion is wrong, and is a way for the government to cut thier spending, while allowing for underage, non-parental consented, nonstop sex.

Euthanasia is a different thing. Do people really need laws to tell them not to kill themselves? I mean, if you're gonna do it, and get away with it, what will they do, throw you in prision? Besides, it's a pretty common thing for humans to have something like 'self-defense', that keeps them from hurting themselves.

Every person who has jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge and survived said that they regretted what they did the second the left the Bridge.

I'm pretty solid against suicide, except in the case where you're trying to save someone else through it.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Moneybags,

What if the Euro governments with socialized medicine start denying health care for quasi terminal diseases in hopes that they'll off themselves and save them a load of money? To say nothing of the fact that most potential suicides lack the prerequisite rational mind to make such a decision. Like a said before the question is not suicide qua suicide but assisted suicide as a goverment cost reduction strategy.

[Hate Is Art]

Voluntary Euthanasia is legal in Switzerland and the Netherlands, I think the UK has started to prepare for the legalisation of Voluntary Euthanasia or is at least considering it.


To say nothing of the fact that most potential suicides lack the prerequisite rational mind to make such a decision. Like a said before the question is not suicide qua suicide but assisted suicide as a goverment cost reduction strategy.

I don't think this is part of the for/against VE debate at all. It is about who has rights over their body or should the government partake in the ending of life. Cost isn't an issue.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Solzhenitsyn+--> (Solzhenitsyn)A friend of mine offered a unique take on abortion in which she claimed abortion was just a cynical ploy by governments to reduce social spending payouts.[/b]

So what? If you're a pregnant woman who needs one, would you give a rat's ass about the government's motives? You just want it to be safe, cheap, and convenient.

The point is that pregnancy and delivery should be voluntary and not "left up to nature" (or to "God").


She thinks assisted suicide has the same cost reduction calculations behind it driving the debate.

Again, so what? When your aging body punks out on you, is there any point in remaining alive just to suffer? Not only pain, but the loss of human dignity that comes with hopeless decrepitude.


trex
In my personal opinion, I believe that human life belongs to nobody but the owner of it and God, and should not be taken from them. For this reason, I think abortion is wrong, and is a way for the government to cut their spending, while allowing for underage, non-parental consented, nonstop sex.

Sometimes when I read posts like that, I wonder if time-travel may exist after all...and some asshole is bringing people forward from the 17th century to post on this board. :o

So, trex, when you return to the 17th century, please pass along this message.

1. There is no "God".

2. Therefore, it doesn't "own" anything.

3. Abortion is not "wrong".

4. Once a person reaches puberty, they are "ready" for sex. That's what the word means. There's no such thing as "under-age" sex.

5. "Parental consent" is not required to have sex...unless you're planning to have sex with one of your parents. :o

6. There is also no such thing as "nonstop sex"...even the best of us (in our best years) had to rest up for a bit before we were ready for more. :)

As the folks of your century were rather intolerant on these matters, I'd advise you to deliver this message anonymously.

Thanks.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[synthesis]

What if the Euro governments with socialized medicine start denying health care for quasi terminal diseases in hopes that they'll off themselves and save them a load of money?

What if American private health care does that anyways?

That's not so "hypothetical."


To say nothing of the fact that most potential suicides lack the prerequisite rational mind to make such a decision.

Assisted suicide isn't really "suicide" in the sense that it's most often used. It's constituted by the elderly going through extreme pain and not being able to end it.

Even then, American assisted suicide laws do require a "rational mind" to approve of the procedure; for example, Alzheimer's patients are denied the ability to request assisted suicide.


Euthanasia is a different thing. Do people really need laws to tell them not to kill themselves? I mean, if you're gonna do it, and get away with it, what will they do, throw you in prision?

As pertaining to the above, it's not the victim who'll be prosecuted but the doctor who ends their pain.

[Solzhenitsyn]

It is about who has rights over their body or should the government partake in the ending of life. Cost isn't an issue.

Does the right to do with my body as I may please include the right to engage in dueling? Does the right for people to sell themselves into chattel slavery exist? There are plenty of perfectly reasonable restrictions on self-ownership. No reasonable basis exists for a person to claim a right to engage in such behavior.

[synthesis]

Ludicrous comparisons. The right to sell oneself into slavery or to fight to the death with other humans has nothing to do with the right to peacefully and painlessly end one's torment in clarity of mind.

[Solzhenitsyn]

Ludicrous comparisons. The right to sell oneself into slavery or to fight to the death with other humans has nothing to do with the right to peacefully and painlessly end one's torment in clarity of mind.

While slavery and trial by combat may shock your conscience, it doesn't follow that substantive difference exists between those acts and euthanasia. None of these three pose a physical hazard to non-participants. Can you be a little more exact why we should treat it any differently?

[synthesis]

The reason we don't allow people to sell themselves into slavery is because then (and now) there are people whose economic conditions were so poor that they would have been forced to alienate themselves from their right to freedom. The reason dueling is outlawed is because the death or injuries are not voluntary. Your comparisons are indeed ludicrous.

[Xvall]

I support both Abortion and Assisted Suicide. Not only do I think that there is no problem with either of the two, but I encourage it.

[all-too-human]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:26 AM
Does the right to do with my body as I may please include the right to engage in dueling?
It sure does!

[Professor Moneybags]

Moneybags,

What if the Euro governments with socialized medicine start denying health care for quasi terminal diseases in hopes that they'll off themselves and save them a load of money?

If you get rid of socialised medicine, they can't make that desicision. And all the money people save by not being forced to contribute to this white-elephant scheme can go towards their own private healthcare.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:13 AM

What if the Euro governments with socialized medicine start denying health care for quasi terminal diseases in hopes that they'll off themselves and save them a load of money?

What if American private health care does that anyways?

That's not so "hypothetical."
Who'd be silly enough to join a private healthcare scheme that has a policy of killing you ?

[bur372]

An abortian could be viewed as murder. What happens if you start to view an embryo as a human life. Do we have any right to end someone else's life to make you life better? Surely the woman could put the child up for adoption. Or at least thay would be able to in a comunist society.

Why do women have abortians anyway. because they don't think that they will be ready to have a child, they don't have enough finacial security. Does it make it justified to end someones else's life for these reasons.

I really don't know if I agree with these reasons but always good to have a second point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4065719.stm

This has to do with stem cell research a lot of the issus are still relevent.

[Xvall]

An abortian could be viewed as murder.

It could be, but it really shouldn't.


What happens if you start to view an embryo as a human life.

You're considered insane by most rational people.


Do we have any right to end someone else's life to make you life better?

If that someone else's life is putting our own life at risk, giving us medical complications, and leeching nutrients off of our body; yes, we do.


Surely the woman could put the child up for adoption. Or at least thay would be able to in a comunist society.

Yes. They could. But they shouldn't be forced to.


Why do women have abortians anyway. because they don't think that they will be ready to have a child, they don't have enough finacial security. Does it make it justified to end someones else's life for these reasons.

They're not ending a peron's life, because embryos, fetuses, and sperm aren't people. No law in any country classifies them as people. Fetuses do not have names, social security numbers, passports, or birth certificates. They are not recognized by the government at all. They don't have rights, they don't have the ability to make decisions. They don't do anything other than slowly grow inside of their mothers' wombs. I don't really see how they're people at all. I do not know of any country that classifies a fetus as being a citizen eligible to civil liberties.

I personally feel that a fetus is no more of a 'life' than a sperm or egg. I consider them to be parasites, and am also encouraging people to take the notion of overpopulation into consideration.

[Solzhenitsyn]

It could be, but it really shouldn't.

Why not?


You're considered insane by most rational people.

Only if most rational people consider sluggishly progressing schizophrenia a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis.


If that someone else's life is putting our own life at risk, giving us medical complications, and leeching nutrients off of our body; yes, we do.

None of these scenarios you envisage (except the last) are at all common. The vast majority of pregnancies are uneventful. The number of abortions that are performed for the physical health of the mother are proportionally minute.


They're not ending a peron's life, because embryos, fetuses, and sperm aren't people. No law in any country classifies them as people. Fetuses do not have names, social security numbers, passports, or birth certificates. They are not recognized by the government at all. They don't have rights, they don't have the ability to make decisions. . . . I do not know of any country that classifies a fetus as being a citizen eligible to civil liberties.

Like all communists, you've only replaced a traditional understanding of God with goverment. In otherwords, government is your god. Just because your god doesn't recognize the fetus as a human in its sacred texts doesn't make that decision moral or right. Didn't several colonial governments classify aboriginal peoples as "vermin" and unworthy of protection of law?


They don't do anything other than slowly grow inside of their mothers' wombs. I don't really see how they're people at all.

All I can say is go back and read any basic biology text to find out what happens to a fetus in approximately 9 months,


I personally feel that a fetus is no more of a 'life' than a sperm or egg. I consider them to be parasites, and am also encouraging people to take the notion of overpopulation into consideration.

You considered wrong. Parasites technically reproduce in(or on) the host. Thats why mesquitos aren't considered parasites and ticks are. Malthus was wrong, it's time to kill his cult.

[Xvall]

Why not?

Because I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.


None of these scenarios you envisage (except the last) are at all common. The vast majority of pregnancies are uneventful. The number of abortions that are performed for the physical health of the mother are proportionally minute.

I'm well aware of that, and never said that all pregnancies put the mother at great risk (though all put the mother at some small degree or risk regardless).


Like all communists, you've only replaced a traditional understanding of God with goverment. In otherwords, government is your god.

I don't worship a government. I don't see how understanding how citizenship works is in any way similar to being devoutly religious. My basis for fetuses not being human beings extends beyond the realm of politics as well.


Just because your god doesn't recognize the fetus as a human in its sacred texts doesn't make that decision moral or right.

I don't believe in god. Concepts like morality are meaningless to me. I don't recognize the fetus as a human being because it hasn't developed into a fully operational human being yet.


Didn't several colonial governments classify aboriginal peoples as "vermin" and unworthy of protection of law?

Yes. But there is a tremendous difference between entire societies of fully grown and developed people and a fetus.


All I can say is go back and read any basic biology text to find out what happens to a fetus in approximately 9 months,

This is arguing on the basis that a fetus has the potential to become a human. Yes. It can develop into a fully developed human being; but until it is a human being, I will not consider it to be anything other than a parasite. A lot of things have the potential to become something else. Why stop at fetuses. Sprem can quite possibly develop into a human being under the right circumstances. Is ejaculating and wasting semen murder?

What I feel would be an excellent example (Although the two things are entirely difference, the logistics are essentially the same) is installing software on the computer. If you abort the installation process part of the way through, you really aren't deleting the program because until everything has been transfered and decoded from the disk to the computer, it isn't a program yet. In this same way, an embryo is not a human being until it is no longer dependant on it's mother, in the same way that the collection of files isn't a program until it no longer relies on the source disk to exist.

Most importantly, the fetus can only develop because it is stealing nutrients from it's host. Alone, the fetus can not survive on it's own.


You considered wrong. Parasites technically reproduce in(or on) the host. Thats why mesquitos aren't considered parasites and ticks are. Malthus was wrong, it's time to kill his cult.

Technically, I may be wrong. But the definition of a parasite is not what is important here. The point is that the fetus can only survive through the assistance of it's host body, and is incapable of doing anything by itself other than growing. As long as it is in the womb, it is part of it's mother, and she can do whatever she feels fit to her own body. And important aspect of a lifeform is the ability to survive, and this is impossible for a fetus to do on its own.