From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Euthanasia as edited by Ayzmo (Talk | contribs) at 12:51, 29 November 2011. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Euthanasia is opposed by religious leaders because it involves people acting directly to terminate a life before its natural end, despite the suffering that a terminally ill person may be undergoing. It is held that this privilege belongs to God, whose will should prevail in the matter of suffering and death. And yet we prosecute for cruelty people who do not terminate the life of an animal who is in terminal suffering. Do we assume that God has no will concerning the suffering or life span of animals? It just strikes me as an anomaly.--Britinme 09:39, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between human beings and animals. Humans have responsibility and free will. Suffering, and our response to it, are moral/ethical issues.
Animals have only instinct. They have no responsibility as such, although dogs can be trained to help watch sheep. The dog has no choice whatsoever about whether or not to became a watchdog; the human being is his master.
Each human being is his own master.
It's not a matter of caring less: it's complicated. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book about this; see The Problem of Pain. --Ed Poor Talk 12:57, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

"They are convinced that the rule of law in democratic societies prevents excesses such as the euthanasia program of Nazi Germany." Godwin's Law has been invoked, I see. Barikada 14:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Is there not a need here for a distinction between direct action taken to end a person's life (active euthanasia) and refusal or withholding of medical care that results in death (passive euthanasia)? Dadsnagem2 15:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Regarding the word choice in this article

I think the use of any adjective regarding the morality of Euthanasia displays an unbelievable bias. If an action is truly "sinful" or "just" the facts alone should be enough to convince someone of it. Facts, not bias should be the only thing present in this article. - Nomanuno 12:08 CST 7/30/08


Many Religious leaders vehemently oppose Euphanasia, on the grounds that it interferes with the will of God. However, most patients considering Euphanasia would already be dead if it were not for the intervention of modern medical care upon the natural ailement they had suffered. Surely this is hypocrasy to say that it is wrong to save a persons life from the will of God, and then also claim it's wrong to end the same persons life? Entheogenicorder 15:31, 28 August 2008 (BST)

"the euthanasia program of Nazi Germany"

To what does this phrase refer? If the genocide committed by the Nazis, then this is an egregious misuse of the word "euthanasia". ChrisFV 14:10, 19 November 2009 (EST)

The numbers

The numbers for the study don't quite add up and I'm not sure if it is a simple math error on someone's part or not. If you add up all of the numbers in that section it is higher than the number listed as the total. If whomever added that could clarify it would be helpful. Ayzmo :) 11:51, 29 November 2011 (EST)