What might be some examples of involuntary/voluntary active and passive euthanasia? Do we need to know this for the test? I also agree with Rachel that as part of H.U., allowing a person to live in pain and suffering when recovery is realistically possible, should not be permissible. I feel that Down's syndrome infants should be given a chance, but in case of a digestive defect, being starved to death is passive but doing nothing to me is just as bad as letting them suffer through the procedure. I also agree with Steinbock when she addresses that there will be more suffering without active euth. but we can't minimize all suffering.
With voluntary euthanasia, the person gave permission for it in advance, and with involuntary, this is not so. For instance, the person may be in a coma from an accident and may have never discussed her views with anyone on euthanasia, and if they remove her support, this is involuntary.
I am a big advocate for Peter Singer's proposal on famine, affluence, and poverty in application of H.U. I feel that as Americans we need to help ourselves out before other countries. I do agree however that there is suffering everywhere, and I do realize that one person can feed the hungry there will always be 5 children hungry to that 1 person, so the elimination of poverty almost seems impossible. I really believe that our government officials should donate more to help out America before any other third world country. I do however take on Garnett Hardin's theory that there are not enough resources to help everybody in the world, and this view is unrealistic for most of us! We should we work, work, work and then achieve nothing out of it? And lastly, why should we give food and supplies to those countries when there population is out of control so this would create a vicious cycle because it would reap more children that need help too!
I don't agree with Warren's take on abortion; that abortion is morally permissible whenever the mother chooses. I especially advocate the moderate view that abortion is a qualified option depending on the circumstances:such as rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, although in most ordinary cases, I think that the right to life generally overrides the right to control one's body. Killing in most cases is wrong, therefore killing an unborn fetus is wrong, because they have potential flo, but so does the mother, where is her flo? We often take life for granted, and the taking away one's flo is closely tied into murder. Why should we murder a potential person with great flo to die mercilessly? And that is a worst of crimes argument indeed. However, Marquis replied, I'm not making a right to life argument. Certainly not, but potential people have no rights because they have no conscious interests and aren't aware of flo, well neither does a sleeping person! No wonder why the Catholic church is so opposed to birth control, because it robs a person of potential flo and contraceptives does not allow couples to procreate and share the flo, which the church disagrees with. Thomson argues that abortion is based on the perception of a fetus as a human being, thus it is too tricky to draw the line when the line when the fetus becomes a person and is like an acorn to an oak tree. The violinist proposition is clearly akin to rape, thus life is impermissible. The people seeds she describes that it is more permissible if the woman has more of a hardship and has been raped, it is more permissible than impulsive sex or pregnancy. Does anyone else think it THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY WRONG WITH A PREGNANT WOMAN TO TERMINATE PREGNANCY SO SHE CAN TAKE A TRIP TO EUROPE? I think this is very selfish.
What might be some examples of involuntary/voluntary active and passive euthanasia? Do we need to know this for the test? I also agree with Rachel that as part of H.U., allowing a person to live in pain and suffering when recovery is realistically possible, should not be permissible. I feel that Down's syndrome infants should be given a chance, but in case of a digestive defect, being starved to death is passive but doing nothing to me is just as bad as letting them suffer through the procedure. I also agree with Steinbock when she addresses that there will be more suffering without active euth. but we can't minimize all suffering.
ReplyDeleteWith voluntary euthanasia, the person gave permission for it in advance, and with involuntary, this is not so. For instance, the person may be in a coma from an accident and may have never discussed her views with anyone on euthanasia, and if they remove her support, this is involuntary.
DeleteActive euthanasia - giving drugs to speed up death
DeletePassive euthanasia - someone is going to die of ex. coma so you withdraw their respirator
I am a big advocate for Peter Singer's proposal on famine, affluence, and poverty in application of H.U. I feel that as Americans we need to help ourselves out before other countries. I do agree however that there is suffering everywhere, and I do realize that one person can feed the hungry there will always be 5 children hungry to that 1 person, so the elimination of poverty almost seems impossible. I really believe that our government officials should donate more to help out America before any other third world country. I do however take on Garnett Hardin's theory that there are not enough resources to help everybody in the world, and this view is unrealistic for most of us! We should we work, work, work and then achieve nothing out of it? And lastly, why should we give food and supplies to those countries when there population is out of control so this would create a vicious cycle because it would reap more children that need help too!
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Warren's take on abortion; that abortion is morally permissible whenever the mother chooses. I especially advocate the moderate view that abortion is a qualified option depending on the circumstances:such as rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, although in most ordinary cases, I think that the right to life generally overrides the right to control one's body. Killing in most cases is wrong, therefore killing an unborn fetus is wrong, because they have potential flo, but so does the mother, where is her flo? We often take life for granted, and the taking away one's flo is closely tied into murder. Why should we murder a potential person with great flo to die mercilessly? And that is a worst of crimes argument indeed. However, Marquis replied, I'm not making a right to life argument. Certainly not, but potential people have no rights because they have no conscious interests and aren't aware of flo, well neither does a sleeping person! No wonder why the Catholic church is so opposed to birth control, because it robs a person of potential flo and contraceptives does not allow couples to procreate and share the flo, which the church disagrees with. Thomson argues that abortion is based on the perception of a fetus as a human being, thus it is too tricky to draw the line when the line when the fetus becomes a person and is like an acorn to an oak tree. The violinist proposition is clearly akin to rape, thus life is impermissible. The people seeds she describes that it is more permissible if the woman has more of a hardship and has been raped, it is more permissible than impulsive sex or pregnancy. Does anyone else think it THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY WRONG WITH A PREGNANT WOMAN TO TERMINATE PREGNANCY SO SHE CAN TAKE A TRIP TO EUROPE? I think this is very selfish.
ReplyDelete