NationStates Jolt Archive

Forgive me if this topic has ever been broached before, but I am curious. Has anyone a good explanation as to why it is "morally correct" to save/preserve lives but it is not to end them?

Selfdetermination.

Every human being has the right to do as he/she pleases with his/her life. By saving/preserving that life, you ensure that the other can continue in this right.
By ending it, you take that right away from another person. That is - in my eyes - not permittable under ANY circumstances (meaning that I will never do that, not that I will force others to refrain from it, i e soldiers, executioners, people in self-defense...)

It wasn't always. Christians in particular opposed effective medicine as it was a perversion and thwarting of God's will. The people who were most adamant in that view, died. Stupidly. Early. Painfully. People, even ideologues, know a bad idea when they're holding vigil over it.

In general, people seem to prefer being alive to dying painfully. Hence, saving lives is better.

I think they are referring to euthanasia. Which I support, as long as the person agrees and isn't depressed(or have some other pyschological problem).

I think they are referring to euthanasia. Which I support, as long as the person agrees and isn't depressed(or have some other pyschological problem).

Which would be in line with self-determination, too. It is each individual's right to decide what to do or what not to do with their lifes. So, if it is the will of a person to die, you can try to dissuade him, but you should respct his decision and shouldn't stop him.

Hmm. Kind of. Euthanasia is definitely part of it, and personal choice is certainly something I uphold.

Here is a random example: Why do people get upset over other people's choice to say not have blood transfusions, even for their children. I admit, I also get upset about it, but what basis do I have to complain? If the child believes...

Forgive me if this topic has ever been broached before, but I am curious. Has anyone a good explanation as to why it is "morally correct" to save/preserve lives but it is not to end them?
I don't think it is considered amoral to end lives in American society, (I don't know where you are from) Those generally considered "moral" in the US, i.e. those of the right wing, generally advocate the taking of lives in a variety of situations from the death penalty, to launching agressive unnecessary wars, to the right to bear and use arms and so forth. However, threaten to end the existence of a fetus or brain dead vegtable and oh boy they will let you have it..

Those generally considered "moral" in the US, i.e. those of the right wing, generally advocate the taking of lives in a variety of situations from the death penalty, to launching agressive unnecessary wars, to the right to bear and use arms and so forth. However, threaten to end the existence of a fetus or brain dead vegtable and oh boy they will let you have it..

Permit me a wry smile. Yes, it is that kind of... I hesitate to use the word "hypocrisy" because it is somewhat derogatory but you get my general drift... that I find confusing. In both in the "Right to Life" and "Right to Death" arguments...

I think what a lot of you people miss in this debate is that you focus on the individual as if they have no responsiblities in life.

Euthanasia is a cop out that only a coward would take to try to deflect their responsiblities of a being human being.

A father or mother has the responsiblity to be a dad/mom. An offspring has the responsibility to being a daughter/son. To a smaller effect every person has a responsibility to their world. Removing yourself effects the chain as a whole.

I believe that is a major problem seen in the Western World today, people have become too focused on individual rights. With a majority of these new freedoms being nothing more then a right to shirk your responsiblities.

I don't think it is considered amoral to end lives in American society, (I don't know where you are from) Those generally considered "moral" in the US, i.e. those of the right wing, generally advocate the taking of lives in a variety of situations from the death penalty, to launching agressive unnecessary wars, to the right to bear and use arms and so forth. However, threaten to end the existence of a fetus or brain dead vegtable and oh boy they will let you have it..

Your bias destorys your entire arguement. As stated earlier in my post above i think for some people it is all down to an issue of responsiblity. The death penality is a "right" that you have earned through nefarious acts thereby making it justified in the views of supporters. I support the putting down of brain dead people or veggies as you call them because they would have died or would die given the course of nature. But the killing of a fetus is nothing but a shirking of responsibity by the mother and isnt a "right" earned by the fetus through any nefarious acts.

I believe that is a major problem seen in the Western World today, people have become too focused on individual rights. With a majority of these new freedoms being nothing more then a right to shirk your responsiblities.

Interesting. Could you explain what my responsibilities are as a human being? And how they affect the Right to Life and Right to Death arguments?

For example, you indicate the Euthanasia is shirking those responsibilities. Is it my duty as a human being to tie up other people's resources keeping me alive on expensive medical equipment? Not to mention the time of the medical staff who could be attending others who have more chance of living unaided?

But the killing of a fetus is nothing but a shirking of responsibity by the mother and isnt a "right" earned by the fetus through any nefarious acts.
It isn't just the shirking of a responsibility, you could view it as being responsible by not bringing a child into the world that you can't possibly hope to take care of. I don't know what world you live in, but in the world I live in, a person has a very difficult time rasing a family without a college degree, child care is expensive, welfare no longer really exists, and health care is prohibitively costly for millions of families.

If a young woman, say in highschool or just out of highschool gets pregnant and having a baby means abandoning her quest for an education, and resigning herself and her baby to a life of struggle and hardship then in my view given the consequences, I'd say having the abortion is the responsible course of action.