Deepblue, have you even entertained the option that for some people, death might be better than life? People have commited suicide for less (say, life in prison). Without even getting into the specifcs here, can you admit that there might be some merits to a mercy kill?
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Much as you may say it Trashman, in the event I doubt you would actually go through with it. Even in places where euthanasia is legal, the vast majority of terminally ill or badly crippled people do not opt for that route. This reflects a basic biological drive to go on living, regardless of circumstances. Even in horrible pain, a dog or cat never kills itself. Nor a dolphin or a sparrow.
Those who lose such a basic instinct worry us of the majority. They appear a dangerous aberration which must be controlled. Perhaps they are. Perhaps not. But that, not religon, is why your amendment will not pass. Religon merely cloaks the more fundemental reason.
First of all, AFAIK a dog or cat is physically incapable of killing itself. Think of the ways you can commit suicide. Then take away all those that involve opposable thumbs or higher intellect (such as drowning yourself, or jumping off a bridge). See what I mean?
And you have some nerve to call people who would choose death in such a circumstance an abberation. And what's more, they must be controlled. Seems to me like thats the very basic freedom: the freedom to with your own life what you will. Yes, survival instinct is a very fundamental force in human nature, but we also have that which other animals do not: dislike of discomfort and helplessness, and the conscious recognition that we are capable of ending our own suffering. Balance the pros and cons of continued living (assuming you were badly crippled or somesuch) and I don't find it at all stange that some people might simply feel that its not worth it. What exactly does Terry Shcaivo have to gain by living? Is there a real hope of recovery? It is unfortunate that she cannot communicate her thoughts on the matter, I'm sure it would be easier for everyone if she was conscious, but that's life.
What amazes me is that you seem to be advocating a ban on euthansia, even when the person is fully conscious and aware of their situation. You are in effect telling me: you do not control your own life, the State does. How exactly does that mesh with personal freedom?