Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Strange story. In the UK, abortion is legal and the argument is that women have a right to do with their body what they want.

Yet here, a man paralyzed and wanting to do with his body what he wants was denied from dying on his terms in dignity in an assisted suicide by the state.

Sorry, this is one of those paradoxical views that make little sense to me.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/world ... ?hpt=hp_t3

I happen to be against euthanasia myself - as Islam teaches that suicide is a sin.

The logic is that if suicide is a sin - and that is a case where a person is in so much anguish or pain that they take their life, then there is no circumstance where another person helping a person end their life can be less painful/anguishful than the case of a suicide. I also take the point that euthenasia is the thin end of the wedge - and could be open to some abuse, with elderly people pressured (overtly or covertly) to end it and 'stop being a burden' on the family/society.

To me abortion is not the same as taking a life of someone who has independent existence. Some Christians do believe life begins at conception - and hence they equate abortion with murder, and some even justify blowing up doctors and nurses based on this belief. I don't share these views.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:I happen to be against euthanasia myself - as Islam teaches that suicide is a sin.

So you don't have a logical reason for your belief.

Judges and logically thinking individuals aren't interested whether suicide is a sin in Islam.

I started this thread with the oft repeated claim regarding abortion being legal because individuals should have rights over their body. If that's the case, then logically, this man should have the right to die (his body, his choice).

I don't know what to say with the rest of your post since it's the typical delirium I come to expect but was interested in more intelligent posters contributing to this topic.

You think abortion is murder - that's your view. I don't try and twist your belief.

I really don't see why you continue to post here and blatantly exude your anti-Muslim biases and hate. My post is clear and so is my logic - I assume you actually read what I wrote and not just what you quoted.

Your logic equating abortion with murder or assisted suicide is not one that others share. Abortion is not the same as murder. Hence why there is no paradox in people being pro-choice on abortion and anti-Euthansia.

This like you trying to convince me in your logic for believing in Talking Donkeys (you believe in them, because the Bible says so) - but ultimately I don't share your beliefs on talking donkeys. Similarly you're trying to find arguments to get people to agree with you that abortion should not be legal. You'll have the same success there as with Talking Donkeys.


Your continuing refusal to condemn your fellow American Christians who commit acts of terrorism in the US against doctors etc is quite chilling - and is what I think of every time you bring up your views on abortion:
dubai-politics-talk/for-rayznak-supporting-terrorism-t51238.html

Cheers,
Shafique

You think abortion is murder - that's your view. I don't try and twist your belief.

Sorry, but I don't recall basing any alleged belief of mine on religion. Are you really this dumb (yes, of course you are)?

Your personal belief (suicide is sin) is one thing but believing Western laws should be based on what you consider sinful is so patently stupid it needs no response.

Why should non-Muslims be prevented from Euthanasia because you believe it's a sin in Islam? If you believe it's a sin then don't do it yourself rather than enforcing this belief on others. More, if you're going to argue what is sinful should be outlawed, then why stop at Euthanasia? Why not prevent non-Muslims and Muslims from eating/drinking during Ramadan (a sin!) or worshiping idols? There's no limit at this point when you argue something being sinful should be outlawed and base your opposition entirely on its sinfulness in your religion.

Again, your stupidity is breathtaking.

Abortion is not the same as murder.

Circular argument. "Euthanasia is not the same as suicide"

This like you trying to convince me in your logic for believing in Talking Donkeys

No, this is actually like you whining when others base their views on the Bible and therefore reject out of hand the prophet hood of Muhammad.

Anyway, I'm only feeding the troll responding to you. I'm sure others at this point will have figured out how dumb your previous post was.

@EMZ, the comments at the CNN article were pretty interesting.

Most members can't understand the logic that if abortion is legal - "my body, my choice" - why Euthanasia isn't.

What happened to "my body, my choice"?

shafique wrote:You think abortion is murder - that's your view. I don't try and twist your belief.

rayznack wrote:Sorry, but I don't recall basing any alleged belief of mine on religion.

I didn't mention your religion when I stated your belief about abortion being murder. Your other views and logic stem from your belief that abortion is murder.

I've merely pointed out that this belief of yours isn't shared by others, and hence your logic does not apply in those cases. There is no paradox for those who do not share your belief to oppose euthanasia and be pro-choice.

I also note that you still have yet to condemn your fellow American Christians who commit terrorist acts based on their religious opposition to abortion. That does speak volumes.


Cheers,
Shafique

There is no paradox for those who do not share your belief to oppose euthanasia and be pro-choice.

Yes there is, "my body, my choice".

Have you not been following this thread or what?

My body, my choice in regards of abortion does not equate to 'my choice to end my life' - I see no paradox.

I see a paradox for those that believe abortion is murder and consider pro-choice to be pro-murder - but that is not the case for all those who are pro-choice.

(Oh, and there are many who are indeed pro-choice and pro-euthanasia, I'm just not one of them. Its a coincidence that many doctors are also pro-choice and anti-euthansia.)

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm pro-choice and pro-euthanasia, so long as there are some guidelines. The problem is, there is no consensus on the guidelines...

kanelli wrote:I'm pro-choice

For what reason?

The "it's my body, my choice argument", opens a whole can of worms. Think drug use and safety belt to name a few. The my-body-my-choice-argument might actually be more apt for a drug user than a pregnant woman, as a new life if involved.

--- Aug 23, 2012 ---

kanelli wrote: there is no consensus on the guidelines

I'm certain in many parts of the world there is.

--- Aug 23, 2012 ---

shafique wrote:I happen to be against euthanasia myself - as Islam teaches that suicide is a sin.

Is passive euthanasia considered a sin in Islam? What does your book say about letting a deadly wounded animal suffer who has only a few hours to live?

evitav wrote:Is passive euthanasia considered a sin in Islam?

No, a DNR order is ok under Islam to the best of my knowledge - and I have known a few cases where 'no heroic measures' were taken and the person allowed to die, and the death was managed with pain meds. Similarly a few cases where life support was switched off and the patient allowed to die. However, I wouldn't call this 'passive euthanasia' but rather - letting nature take its course.

I go hunting and have put wounded animals out their misery (wounded from hunting wounds)- and this is in line with Islamic values about animal cruelty (not allowed). Not sure what the Islamic stance is about putting down horses or other animals, but I would think it is ok too. With humans, it is ok to manage pain, but not ok to help them die actively.

ETA: Here it states that avoiding suffering to animals is paramount, a sick animal should be cared for first if possible, but if not then humane putting down is permissible:
http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-supp ... -pets.html

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:With humans, it is ok to manage pain, but not ok to help them die actively.

I prefer to let somebody who is in his last days or hours of his life to die with dignity, instead of letting somebody die screaming constantly because of the extreme pain for days...pain can't be always managed. There's also a grey area between managing pain and helping somebody to die. Morphine levels can be raised against the pain, until a certain level is reached.

shafique wrote:ETA: Here it states that avoiding suffering to animals is paramount, a sick animal should be cared for first if possible, but if not then humane putting down is permissible:

It's humane to end the suffering of an animal, but not the pointless suffering of a human. How illogical.

--- Aug 23, 2012 ---

shafique wrote:No, a DNR order is ok under Islam to the best of my knowledge - and I have known a few cases where 'no heroic measures' were taken and the person allowed to die, and the death was managed with pain meds. Similarly a few cases where life support was switched off and the patient allowed to die. However, I wouldn't call this 'passive euthanasia' but rather - letting nature take its course.

The medical term is passive euthanasia for that. So under Islam it's allright to let somebody suffering from a heart attack in the streets with a DNR sign die? In many European countries this is a crime. Just saying.

evitav wrote:It's humane to end the suffering of an animal, but not the pointless suffering of a human. How illogical.

It may be illogical to you, but in Islam (and most legal systems around the world) make a distinction between humans and animals.

evitav wrote:So under Islam it's allright to let somebody suffering from a heart attack in the streets with a DNR sign die?

I'll have to look up where in the Quran God says to first responders or paramedics that they need to check for a DNR on a patient suffering from an MI on the street.

I'd love to read any more weird hypotheticals you can come up with.. but it won't change the answers already given, or their logic.

Cheers,

Shafique

Why do you assume I don't eat what I hunt? If you do a quick search, you'll find that it is not haram after all.

I'm amused at how many people keep cropping up who are more interested in my views and actions rather than the topic at hand.

Cheers,
Shafique

I see a paradox for those that believe abortion is murder and consider pro-choice to be pro-murder - but that is not the case for all those who are pro-choice.

That would be a consistent line of logic rather than a paradox.

Murdering is wrong.
Abortion is murder.
Abortion is wrong.

There's no "paradox" in that line of argument.

I think you should understand the terms you use before using them.

My body, my choice in regards of abortion does not equate to 'my choice to end my life' - I see no paradox.

"My body, my choice" means exactly what it says; a person has a right to do with their body as they wish.

You don't seem quite capable of explaining why Euthanasia should be outlawed. Claiming it's a sin in your dark ages book (but concubinage and slavery aren't) means absolutely nothing to rational thinking individuals.

You disputed the fact that there was no paradox for those who don't believe abortion is murder - your quote above was from my response to that belief of yours. I'm saying that there is only a paradox IF you believe abortion is murder, are pro-choice and anti-euthanasia. If you don't believe abortion is murder, then there is no paradox.

In the OP:

rayznack wrote:Sorry, this is one of those paradoxical views that make little sense to me.

shafique wrote: I didn't mention your religion when I stated your belief about abortion being murder. Your other views and logic stem from your belief that abortion is murder.

I've merely pointed out that this belief of yours isn't shared by others, and hence your logic does not apply in those cases. There is no paradox for those who do not share your belief to oppose euthanasia and be pro-choice.

And my logic was clear from my first post:

shafique wrote:The logic is that if suicide is a sin - and that is a case where a person is in so much anguish or pain that they take their life, then there is no circumstance where another person helping a person end their life can be less painful/anguishful than the case of a suicide. I also take the point that euthenasia is the thin end of the wedge - and could be open to some abuse, with elderly people pressured (overtly or covertly) to end it and 'stop being a burden' on the family/society.

To me abortion is not the same as taking a life of someone who has independent existence. Some Christians do believe life begins at conception - and hence they equate abortion with murder, and some even justify blowing up doctors and nurses based on this belief. I don't share these views.

You may not agree with my logic, but you can't blame me for not being clear in my first post on this thread. And note that not considering abortion to be murder is not something I've linked to Islam - I've just said that those who don't share this belief of yours and who oppose euthanasia (for whatever reason) aren't holding a paradoxical view.

Logic would be something like:
Murder is wrong.
Euthansia is murder.
Euthanasia is wrong.
Abortion is about choice about what to do with +part of a+ woman's body, and not murder/ending of an independent life.
Abortion is not related to Euthanasia.
No paradox to be pro-choice and anti-Euthanasia.

I don't agree with many of your stated views either - such as equating abortion with murder (or talking donkeys). I could also argue that your view of talking donkeys or that Christians who believe life begins at conception base their view on 'your dark ages book' - but that would be to descend to your level of name calling - and that wouldn't be helpful here, would it?

Cheers,
Shafique

If you don't believe abortion is murder, then there is no paradox.

Uh, no. The paradox has nothing to do with murder but with doing with your body what you want.

Reiterating this point to you is going to be as successful as teaching a rock to read.

And my logic was clear from my first post:

Your "logic" is never clear. At best, you're capable of saying something is logical and then quickly descending in circular arguments and other fallacies.

To me abortion is not the same as taking a life of someone who has independent existence.

Wow. That's some deep insight.

Let me try: "To me, abortion is the same as taking a life of someone who has independent existence".

And by independent existence, you of course mean someone who's so dependent on others to live he can't kill himself beyond refusing food.

Or someone with a pacemaker.

Or an eight month fetus before his/her alveoli produce detergent to allow independent living.

Your views are based on ignorance and circular arguments; please stop misusing the word "logical" to describe your delirium.

Abortion is about choice about what to do with +part of a+ woman's body, and not murder/ending of an independent life.

Actually, a fetus/embryo is not a "part" of a woman's body. Were you ever taught biology?

Logic would be something like:
Murder is wrong.
Euthansia is murder.
Euthanasia is wrong.
Abortion is about choice about what to do with +part of a+ woman's body, and not murder/ending of an independent life.
Abortion is not related to Euthanasia.
No paradox to be pro-choice and anti-Euthanasia.

The phrase "my body my choice" has nothing to do with murder and exactly with what it actually is - the freedom for a person to make decisions for their own body rather than the state.

and not murder/ending of an independent life.

I'm sorry, what? So it's now "independent life" when you were just babbling on about embryos/fetuses not having +any+ life?

It seems you can't even keep straight what you're trying to argue.

And based on what you just said, you must be arguing that aborting an 8.5 month fetus is therefore murder regardless of the circumstance.

I don't agree with many of your stated views either

Until you can present logical and reasoned arguments for *your* views, I suspect no one will support your belief that euthanasia should be banned because you think it's a sin.

But hey, if you want to ban what you consider a sin, then why not start with idolatry or enforce fasting during Ramadan? A lot of things should be banned based on what you or every joe somebody consider sinful.

But I guess that obvious point never occurred to you.

rayznack wrote:Uh, no. The paradox has nothing to do with murder but with doing with your body what you want.

That's your way of looking at the issue.

Another way is to view Euthanasia as killing and therefore distinct from other actions which do not result in killing oneself. Hence, no paradox for those who don't share your view.


You don't support abortion, and don't even condemn your fellow Christians who blow up abortion doctors and nurses. Yet you take issue with my stance to oppose Euthanasia for the reasons given in my first post (both secular/moral and religious reasons, note)?

This whole thread is really about you presenting what you see as a paradox, and I've just pointed out that people opposed to Euthanasia can also be pro-choice AND that this is not paradoxical at all. You may disagree with the distinction that Euthanasia is killing and abortion isn't.. but for those who don't share your views, there is no paradox.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm going to chime in here and say that I think people should be able to decide if they've had enough suffering and to end their life. I know I certainly wouldn't want to be a burden on family/friends etc if I was in a situation where I was incapable of looking after myself and constantly suffering. People should be allowed to end their suffering with dignity, not kept alive by lawyers and judges who cannot for one second imagine what these people are going through.

Secondly with regards to abortion, I don't like the sentiment that 'it's a women's right to do with her body what she wishes' because at the end of the day, you're effectively terminating ANOTHER life, nothing to do with your own. At the point at which a foetus becomes viable, then in my mind it's murder, plain and simple and with today's technology the time at which a premature baby can survive is becoming earlier and earlier. The second there is a heart-beat, that child feels pain just like anyone else. I only accept abortion in extreme cases where it might be necessary to save the life of the mother, or the child would not have any kind of decent life due to abnormalities etc. How many illegal abortions take place here? At 7,8 or even later months? Horrific! Perfectly healthy children that would have survived.

Thanks Chocs, you make your points well. If I understand you correctly, you are pro-euthanasia but 'anti-abortion' - which is indeed another valid viewpoint. K is pro-euthanasia and pro-choice, I'm pro-choice and anti-euthanasia.

I'm also with you about late-term abortions, the crucial point being 'when the foetus becomes viable'. To me whilst a foetus cannot independently live, it is not an independent life. I therefore disagree with those who say that 'life begins at conception' and who consider even early abortions to be equal to murder.

I think that late abortions are indeed killing a life, and can only be justified if it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Most countries don't allow elective late abortions anyway.. the discussion about when this limit is set is on-going and should indeed be set according to medical advances. There are those who would advocate banning all abortions - and base it on moral or even religious grounds.

My opposition to euthenasia is based both on a religious viewpoint and the secular/practical concern over the potential abuse of the system, and even where a person +says+ they don't want to be a burden, I'm not sure that some/many won't be pressurised in some way to make that decision. To avoid abuses, I say it is better to let nature take its course. There will always be exceptions that tug at the emotional heart strings, but because of the potential for abuse I come down on the side of those opposed to euthanasia.

Cheers,

Shafique

Chocs, and Shaf, I hear you about late-term abortions. Personally, I think abortion should be legal only in the first trimester for any woman, and in second or third trimester only if the mother's life is at risk.

As for euthanasia, if a person is competent enough to make the decision to have a qualified medical person help them to end their life, they should be allowed to do it. When I say this, I always have in mind physical diseases that are causing people to suffer badly. The complicated part for me is cases of mental illness, because drugs and treatment can do wonders to improve someone's quality of life, whereas that isn't the case for people dealing with illnesses that will have them suffering for a long time until they die a painful death.

If god doesn't believe in abortion or euthanasia, why does he even allow people to conceive out of wedlock, and why does he give people terrible diseases that they suffer long and painful deaths from? Seems pretty cruel to me.

kanelli wrote:The complicated part for me is cases of mental illness, because drugs and treatment can do wonders to improve someone's quality of life

I wouldn't know, but if you say so.

Oops, forgot to add another troll alias to the foe list!

I agree, if someone is capable of making a sounds decision for themselves then I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. I don't like it when religion is brought into things as very often it can ditract from what is actually right for the person in question. But there needs to be steps taken, processes as Shaf states, so that it would not be abused.

I agree Chocs!

Its easy to talk flippantly of euthanasia when one is talking in the the third person.
Dr. Christiaan Barnard was a South African surgeon, who performed the first human to human heart transplant back in the 60's. He became very famous naturally.
He was a great proponent of euthanasia. I heard him once proclaim in an interview that he had a pact with his mother that if either one of them reached the stage where their lives had to be maintained by life support machines, then they had full permission to ask the concerned people to just pull the plug.
However, when the time came, they both decided to fight it out to the bitter end.
Ask yourselves: would you do it to someone near and dear to you? Like your own mother say? I couldn't bring myself around to it. I may never be able to forget what I had done for the rest of my life!
Someone asked the philosopher Goethe what LIFE was, and he said "Life is the name of endless suffering!" And yet, despite all this suffering, we dont want to end it, but to hang on to it, hoping......... for something.
I am aware that there are a small number of people who have opted for it. There are some countries and some states in the US where "Voluntary Euthanasia" is legal. But I dont think that euthanasia is going to become a widespread phenomenon, although intense research is being carried out.

FF - excellent points.

It illustrates the issue in the tricky situation where a person may have given permission earlier on, but may not be in a position to indicate whether they had changed their mind or not when their conditions worsen. Barnard and his mother could communicate their change-of-mind, but imagine if you were conscious, had changed your mind, but could not communicate this to the people around you.

You also point out the psychological that those who have to carry out/agree to the killing of their loved ones have to go through.

Society has to balance the management of suffering whilst alive and the taking of the life to 'end the suffering'.

Cheers,
Shafique

FF, that's why I said a qualified person should be doing it. It shouldn't be the average person euthanizing their family members.

So how do you guys feel about a living will? Plenty of people have legal documents that say who they want to make decisions about their care if they are in a coma or aren't of sound mind to make decisions for themselves. Some people ask for a do not resuscitate order but then aren't in a position to change their mind when they are in the thick of dying. So do you think those shouldn't be allowed? Technically other people are in charge of someone's death by deciding to pull the plug or not resuscitating when they have the means to keep someone alive for longer.

shafique wrote:Society has to balance the management of suffering whilst alive and the taking of the life to 'end the suffering'.

I agree.

Kanelli - I don't have an issue with a living will that stops short of euthanasia.

The issues I have against 'living wills' which call for euthansia is brought out by the experience of Dr Barnard and his mother - what may seem like a good idea, or a thought-out decision may not be what you really want when the time comes to face the people who will end your life.

The problem for me is that if the people were capable of suicide, they'd have that as a recourse - but euthanasia implies that they are not in complete control of their bodies and may not be able to communicate their actual wishes at that time. It is because I think that any system may be abused that I feel it is best that it is not allowed. Doctors can administer pain meds and make the patient feel comfortable - and they may indeed take measures that approach euthanasia, that is for their concience - and I feel that is enough flexibility within the system for me.

Cheers,

Shafique