Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A life not worth living?
BBC News ^ | 9/25/09 | BBC News

Posted on 09/27/2009 10:19:41 AM PDT by wagglebee

New guidance has been issued to clarify the law on assisted suicide in England and Wales - but it offers no guarantees against prosecution.

Instead the Director of Public Prosecutions has spelled out the range of factors that will be taken into account when deciding on cases.

The move has been welcomed by 33 year old Kelly Taylor from Bristol who is terminally ill.

In 2005 she tried to starve herself in the hope she would end her pain.

"I think the new guidelines are a breakthrough, as it gives people the knowledge when and where they're going wrong and when they could be prosecuted. It also gives people like me greater patient choice."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: assistedsuicide; euthanasia; moralabsolutes; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 next last
To: goat granny; wagglebee
Rant about me all you want, just don't ping me, I am not interested...Same goes for the rest of the moral absolute group....God Bless and have a great Sunday....

Same to you, and buh bye!

161 posted on 10/04/2009 2:57:40 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("I apologize to hookers for having associated them with the House of Representatives.--Jim Traficant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: cerberus
So I guess, "Thou shalt not kill", for example, is not a moral absolute. It appears to qualify under some circumstances and not under others. Sounds a lot like "situation ethics" to me.

Again, the original word in the original text was not "kill", it was "murder." There is a difference between killing wrongdoing in a lawful manner sanctioned by the state, and murder. That is the issue here.

162 posted on 10/04/2009 3:25:01 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("I apologize to hookers for having associated them with the House of Representatives.--Jim Traficant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Again, the original word in the original text was not "kill", it was "murder." There is a difference between killing wrongdoing in a lawful manner sanctioned by the state, and murder. That is the issue here.

It sounds like you are disputing the infallibility of the Bible. Am I correct?

163 posted on 10/04/2009 3:32:43 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: cerberus

No, you are not correct.


164 posted on 10/04/2009 3:40:30 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("I apologize to hookers for having associated them with the House of Representatives.--Jim Traficant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Can you explain that please? At what point should one stop believing what the Bible says and why. With all due respect, it sounds to me like a convenient rationalization.


165 posted on 10/04/2009 3:52:05 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

I wonder if those who oppose the existence of moral absolutes realize that the ONLY alternative is absolute moral relativism. This means that ANYTHING is acceptable if a person’s conscience permits it, this would include murder, rape, terrorism and treason.


166 posted on 10/04/2009 4:01:48 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I wonder if those who oppose the existence of moral absolutes realize that the ONLY alternative is absolute moral relativism.

The problem is that your moral absolutes are, in practice, a kind of moral relativism.

We (and I'll include all of us here) interpret these things according to our convenience. Now, if the commandment says, "Thou shalt not kill", I will assume that is what it means. Now, let's suppose, that no one kills i.e. not criminals, or murderers, citizens, police or soldiers of any kind....that would be a good thing, in my opinion. However, we always say, "You did it first so I am justified." Another excuse is "God is on our side" so therefore we are justified or "I am good and you are evil". Personally, as much as I support our troops, I cannot go so far as to claim that the god of this vast universe is on our side as comforting as that may be.

Ironically, since I am less of a literalist than many of you, I believe that the commandment means what it says. However, we (and I must regrettably include myself) are not willing to live by it.

167 posted on 10/04/2009 4:25:49 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: cerberus; Zionist Conspirator
It is my understanding that the Hebrew word that we translate as "kill" is "ratsach" and it more precisely means murder.

It therefore would not apply to capital punishment as that is clearly permitted by Mosaic Law; nor does it apply to just war because in war the objective is to defeat an enemy, not kill the individual combatants.

However, both euthanasia and abortion (assuming you believe that life begins at conception) are deliberate acts of murder.

Here is an interesting editorial on the subject written by a rabbi:

'Assisted suicide' amounts to a licence to kill (UK)

(I pinged Zionist Conspirator because his knowledge of Hebrew and the Torah is far superior to mine.)

168 posted on 10/04/2009 4:42:56 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
nor does it apply to just war because in war the objective is to defeat an enemy, not kill the individual combatants.

You've got to be kidding!

For awhile I thought that maybe God was onto something with this, "Though shalt not kill thing".

And, pray tell, who decides what a "just war" is?

That's always us right?

I'm sorry but I can't reduce God to a tool of our personal, national or political cause.

169 posted on 10/04/2009 4:56:22 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: cerberus

The just war theory has been a long held Christian principle. It goes back to Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.


170 posted on 10/04/2009 4:58:43 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The "just war" is always relative depending on which side you are on.

Right now I can't think any war that was not just to someone or other.

171 posted on 10/04/2009 5:05:43 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cerberus

What about World War II, would you agree that the allies were operating under the doctrines of just war in fighting the Nazis?


172 posted on 10/04/2009 5:07:15 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I may personally agree, as I do, that WWII was an appropriate cause and served the best interests of a large portion of humanity of which we are a part, but that does not mean that the commandment was not violated on a massive scale by both sides.


173 posted on 10/04/2009 5:12:12 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: cerberus

The Commandment was certainly violated, but the prosecution of the war by the Allies did not because it was to protect innocent life.


174 posted on 10/04/2009 5:14:14 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The commandment does not say, “Thou shalt not kill except to protect innocent life.” How many innocent German civilians were killed?


175 posted on 10/04/2009 5:16:22 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: cerberus

How many innocent Germans were INTENTIONALLY killed? Murder is a crime of intent, this is one of the main differences between murder and manslaughter.


176 posted on 10/04/2009 5:18:53 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Not to defend the Germans, but I would say that in the bombing of Dresden a lot of civilians were intentionally killed however you want to split hairs about it.


177 posted on 10/04/2009 5:21:54 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: cerberus

I would agree with that and I think even most military historians would concede that the bombing of Dresden was immoral although it might have been partly due to inaccurate Allied intelligence.


178 posted on 10/04/2009 5:27:38 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Let's remember how this debate got started.

It was over whether or not the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" as well as the other commandments should be taken literally. Although I am not a moral absolutist for the most part and also not a believer in the absolute infallibility of the Bible, I do, admittedly ironically, believe that this commandment means what it says and that, ideally at least, the world would be a better place if it were followed.

It seems ironic to me that what I believe to be absolutists here have disagreed and argued for moral relativism in the interpretation of the commandment and the moral relativist (me) has argued for absolutism.

If I have mischaracterized you on this, please forgive me.

All the best,

cerberus

179 posted on 10/04/2009 5:40:32 PM PDT by cerberus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: goat granny; cerberus
My first reply on this thread was NOT to any moral absolute person....But its seems that some of you hit the abuse button on me and as the moderator said, this is a site for grown ups and if you don't like what someone writes on an open thread, get over it...

I don't know why you're giving me flak. I was not the person who pushed the abuse button. I was ready to have a rational conversation (and despite your hypocrisy we had been, I thought), but if you want to turn on the hysterics and run out of the room, that's your decision.

So please do take your "It's wrong to judge who isn't and isn't a Christian, and that's why I'm using so busy judging who is and isn't a Christian" routine elsewhere.

180 posted on 10/04/2009 6:15:39 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (We're right! We're free! And we'll fight! And you'll seeeeeeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson