See I agree too, but then my god son has a fatal birth defect and is going to die at 15 but is an amazingly sweet and smart child. He knows 7 computer languages and is a chess champion. And I'm just like crap but at least he got to live. ITS JUST TOO COMPLICATED!
I want to thank the guest who wrote this post. While i don't agree, i want to assure anyone who does feel this way, that you are in no way a monster. The desire to end suffering makes you compassionate, not heartless. But i do want to assure you that most people do not "suffer" with their disabilities, handicaps, diagnosis, or shortcomings. It may not be a life one is envious of, they have fewer choices in life. They have a lot less control and often must be reliant upon others the entire time they are alive. It is a different life. Not less of a life. Just different. Part of who my daughter is, is her diagnosis (Down syndrome). But i don't want her to be "normal". I love who she is, and she has value beyond what she isn't.
Specifically of fatal, and painful childhood diseases, like Tay-sachs, i feel like the only people qualified to decide between continuing in pain, or ending the pain, are the parents of the child. Only they truly understand the situation.
I think that's a highly personal choice, depending on how one values human life and quality of living - as well as a choice you have every right to make. Even within the term 'Down's Syndrome' there are sub-varieties though, so a debate or discussion on an issue such as this is sure to be extremely controversial.
This is the most sick thing I have ever read. I have friends whose siblings with Down Syndrome and they are the most happy people ever. And u should never be allowed to say someone with a disability should be slaughtered you sick monsters.
To the first guest: Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And while i obviously don't agree, i would like you to consider why you feel that way. Is there something inherently wrong with those that are different then you? Are people only valuable if they are the same as you? Why in a society that is trying to celebrate and value people who are different, (sex, race, religion, nationality, political views, LGBT, etc) why would you want to with hold that from people who are meeker than you. If our society is to move to one of acceptance, peace, and inclusion, no one should be left out. Those with disabilities deserve inclusion and respect just as much as anyone else.
Only someone who has never met or spoken with someone with Down syndrome could ever have your opinion. Your ideas come from ignorance, and i suggest you educate yourself by seeking a better understanding of those that are different.
Also, FYI secialagentjesus, there are no sub varieties of Down syndrome. That's a common misconception. You either have it or you don't. Although some people are higher functioning then others. Luckily, with therapy and modern medicine, more and more people with Down syndrome are attending college, living on their own, and working in higher paying jobs.
Not 'sub-varieties' as such, but there IS a spectrum, isn't there? Functionality can vary too - my experience with Down's Syndrome children is that there is definitely a varying level of, well, functionality, for lack of a better word. I'm not saying a great many can't live accomplished, happy lives as you say; however, not all do. Therefore I understand how, for some people, a Down's Syndrome child can be too much to take on and seem too much to handle, and so I can see why the guest may chose to abort such a baby (despite the guest's regrettably insensitive and candid language).
specialagentjesus: There's not a spectrum of Down's Syndrome. As saltlakesnark said, either you have it or you don't. Human beings are inherently different, which means most people live great lives while some don't. This isn't something special that only people with Down's Syndrome are. Now, about the abortion thing, I wouldn't want to raise a child with Down's Syndrome. I'd do it if I was forced to, but I wouldn't want to do it if I had a choice. This is my opinion, shared with the first guest (that's how I interpreted it, anyway). If I ever decide to get children I would have to adopt, and thus I get a greater choice and less of an ethical problem. I'm sorry that this sounds so blunt, but I would never adopt a child with severe diseases like Down's Syndrome or Alzheimer's Disease.
I actually used to work at an ALS pediatric clinic. I can tell you with absolute certainty that while many of those children did live with pain, they did not suffer through life. They loved it. It takes years and years for the effects of ALS to bring death to those who are diagnosed with it. An eventual death sentence and painful demise, yes. But each child lived a life worth living. ALS is not a diagnosis that would lead to termination of a pregnancy or a life at birth.
But it's a human being? Maybe if you detect and abort the baby, that would be ok, no pain to begin with. But it's a little life you are snuffing out. Sometimes, the ones who suffer the most, have the most to gain, are the strongest, and deserve the most.
This is in no dis respect to your opinions, this is just my own personal opinion.
You aren't able to detect any birth defects while in the first stages of pregnancy. If you were able to, it'd be too late, and illegal to abort due to the fact it can FEEL the abortion. However, when we have the proper science to diagnose which defects if any are present, then this post would be a logical idea to prevent human suffering.
Well, then let them live. Let them live to make the decision themselves. This is coming from someone who lost their little sister to something that couldn't have been prevented, and a little brother to a miscarriage. It's much easier to know the child then to just spend 9 hours to give birth and give up on him/her.
Well, I think they mean birth defects that will kill them within the first year or first few months.... If it's something that they can live with for years then sure let them live and try and help them.
Not to be harsh, unkind or accusatory in any way - though the mother may enjoy the time together, is it fair to bring forth and support a being that lives for a short time and with a pain it cannot hope to understand or control? In such a situation, isn't the mother putting her own happiness before the quality of the child's life?
3
deleted
· 10 years ago
here is the thing i wonder. I have personally known families that had children who doctors told them to abort, because they said the child wouldn't make it or would live a painful life. In one of these cases, the baby's issue practically went away! In another the child was born and survived and is now living happily. What about those cases. What about cases where that WOULD have happened?
I think on the question of the mother putting her happiness or wants before the needs of a sick and suffering child is interesting. I really doubt many mothers could actually hold their child in their arms and continue to allow them to cry and shutter in pain, just to satisfy their own needs.
Most diagnosis made at birth, that are actually fatal, come because the child has a condition that is incompatible with life. An inability to make their own blood, a malformed brain or spinal cord, organs that never developed. Rarely are conditions that are truly fatal like this, actually painful. In fact, one of the most painful conditions an infant or child can be put through is drug withdrawal or fetal alcohol syndrome. neither condition is fatal
Is it physical suffering we are looking to alleviate? Or perceived suffering when we see a child with a diagnosis or condition we don't want. that we would rather be dead then have?
Yes I see your very valid point. I agree that they should get a chance. Heck we gave Justin bieber a chance and with this idea we'd be killing people who could be the next Stephen Hawking
88rulz have you seen when the vacuum is going after the baby? The baby is moving away from the vacuum with its mouth basically in a screaming motion. To say they feel no pain is a lie from the pit of hell
Normally I would ignore a false comment like this, but I feel your strong, borderline-offensive language deserves a response: You misunderstand abortion; the foetus does not recoil, nor does it feel pain as it is removed from the body. (And before you start saying I don't know what I'm talking about - I do. You refer to the research of Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sunny" Anand, and his claims a foetus feels pain as it is removed after 20 weeks. However, his 'research' has practically no evidence to support it - let alone any that is actually believable. Current literature and belief states it takes until 24 weeks before the biological pathways for pain are even beginning to form, let alone be active. 24 weeks is also the time a foetus is viable outside the womb, so it is too late for an abortion at this stage anyway). So next time, before you start spreading your toxic rhetoric, do your research.
*another unpopular opinion puffin* I think people who claim that fetuses can feel abortion are not doing much more than shaming women who got abortions, despite their reasons of getting one to begin with
*sigh* I honestly fear when people are so happy to remain ignorant and hateful despite attempts to educate them. You offer no argument, discussion or counter-debate; you've just absorbed the pro-life propaganda and are unwilling to accept the true facts. I honestly don't know what to say to your stubbornness to remain wrong.
No you have let society and the feminist agenda hypnotize you in believing whatever they want you to believe. Son, someday you might want to take a history lesson and look the facts of actual doctors before you blast your crappy comments
it's indeed nice to discuss things in a polite, calm fashion for a change. also, don't think it will kill plenty if there's a slightly 'deeper' post every once in a while. i mean, i've seen people gone werewolf on each other because some stupid little thing as celebriti haircuts or mocking politicians... depending on reactions, everything could turn out controversial.
but anyways, i believe it's good to discuss things, if nothing else, we learn how to form our arguments. :)
2
·
Edited 10 years ago
deleted
· 10 years ago
I have given it some thought, and I guess it's ok as long as everyone is civil. I just remember from past posts people went bat shit crazy and were insulting each other, I thought this would turn out like that.
Well I believe it's your choice to make no matter what but the one thing that is bothering me is that unless you've been pregnant you wouldn't understand the bond between a mother and child because once you find out your pregnant, you get attached to that child physically/mentally I had a sudden miscarriage with my firstborn son and it destroyed me I can understand not wanting that child being put in misery because of something fatal but you can't just up and go make the decision to euthanize your child that's your baby
If they suffer in society, that is because society needs to learn love and acceptance of those that are different. The problem is not in the shoulders of the disadvantaged.
Considering I pay my child's bills, as do every parent with a disabled child, your point is invalid. Would you advocate the death of the homeless, veterans who are handicapped and can't work, or foster children? Your logic is heartless. How a person treats those meeker and more vulnerable then them says more about that person then any words can. The fact that you choose to post as a guest shows that you don't want your opinion associated with you. Maybe change it instead of hide in anonymity.
This is absolutely appalling. My brother was born healthy, then given a routine vaccine. He immediately started having seizures and the drs said that there was no way that he would make it to age 5. He will be celebrating his 26th birthday this year and I don't know of a happier boy. He has the mental capacity of a 1 year old and is total care. He, and the special needs community, have been such a blessing and delight to our family. It breaks my heart that people deem it 'the right thing to do' by euthenizing them. Attend a function with people with defects and you will meet the most loving and happy people. And yes, a lot of them do have pain, my brother suffers from 10-15 seizures a day, but they all love life and are MEANT to be here. I love him more than words can say.
Look up Joni Eareckson Tada. Paralyzed at a young age, now making a difference in the special needs community.
Thank you! I loved reading your words! I think this may be an issue only truly understood by those who experience life alongside those who are different.
Part of the issue is how that disabled individual copes with life, but I think it is equally relevant how the parent feels about the child. If the parent hates the idea of having a disabled child they have every right to terminate the pregnancy. In fact it is only a relatively recent occurence that disabled children could be kept alive at all, nature used to take care of it. This may seem callous, but it is an equally valid viewpoint.
Unfortunately, you are correct about aborting a special needs baby. In the US alone, when it is found out that a woman is pregnant with a down syndrome baby, 8 out of 10 (if i remember correctly) choose to terminate. It's a sad fact that this is closer than we think. Euthenasia is even legal in Belgium.
And there are many aspects of life 'nature used to take care of' but we, as an intelligent society, used our knowledge, to bring a better way of life. These people would be strapped to beds and have unthinkable things done to them. Don't you dare tell me that they don't deserve better. To be able to live a happy life! It amazes me that this is even an issue.
to the guest: i absolutely agree that parents do have to agree to raising a disabled child. And because i understand the differences and hardships with a disabled child, i am pro-choice, even though it isn't an option i would ever choose. Yes, 20 years ago, a much larger majority of those born disabled or with severe medical conditions would have died at birth. But that's what makes modern medicine so wonderful. Were able to not just preserve life, but improve the quality of life for all. And through research and therapy, we as a society understand disabilities and complicated medical diagnosis better.
I understand the idea of accepting the responsibilities of a disabled child. and of not. My now ex-husband could not deal with having a disabled child and chose to not be a father or husband. I get it. But people, just because they are not "perfect" do not deserve to be discarded. And hopefully our society can get to a place where we can see value in the different, the imperfect
Then wouldn't it be the child's opinion. If they want to be put out of misery or live meanwhile they can to see earth's beauty. And it is their lives. So we should p roblably ask them first because i know some will admit that they do want to die but others will rather suffer meanwhile they experience something
If we can put that decision in the hands of children, why do they have to be of age to vote, to drink, and to drive? Choosing weather or not to kill yourself is a heavy burden to put on a kid. If they are having a bad day, the answer might be yes, but if it was a good day they might want to live still. Children aren't allowed to make life altering decision for a reason.
Plus in the grand scheme of things, no child has any measurable "worth" when it is born. Nature doesn't care whether anyone lives or dies, or if they are happy. It seems like most of the arguments against the idea is "what if they grow up to have a good life?". So what? Nobody can know that in advance. And why does being happy mean they deserve to live? In case you missed my point, this goes deeper into existential issues than just the superficial cliches everyone else seems to be spouting.
Just because YOU don't value life, doesn't mean others don't. The point about them being happy is to try and show that people are more then their diagnosis. It's about putting a face on the issue instead of dehumanizing people who are different. Why are you more deserving of life then someone born with a genetic condition? People are complex. You can't know anything in advance. You don't know if the person sitting next to you in a theater will create a life saving device or rob a bank. It isn't about unknowns. It's recognizing the individuality of each person born and not refusing them a future.
There's a little thing in the natural world called.... natural selection. We have ruled out this in our safe, and sheltered lives. It basically means those with the lowest fitness (i'm not talking lacking muscle or something, but ones with the worst characteristics for their niche). Naturally, if these children were born with these defects they wouldn't make it if we lived with natural selection? So why should we continue to allow it? I was thinking about this earlier, and i'm surprised someone posted it!
Thank you!
As someone who has a child who would have died at birth without medical intervention, I don't think you understand how hurtful your words are. The post is at least from an idea of limiting suffering. Your "natural selection" is actually more along the line of eugenics. Should we rid the worth of vaccines? Emergency medicine? Life saving cancer treatments? These are all things that save lives that "natural selection" would have taken out 100 years ago.
Life has value beyond perfection and your definition of expected potential.
Life has no inherent value. The desire to live is just a mix of self-preservation and vanity. That is one of the most basic tenets of life. That is why vaccines exist; to reduce the suffering of people who know they are suffering, or prevent suffering in people who know they have the capacity to suffer. They also allow us to prolong our pleasure-seeking activities; this is the hedonistic impulse. Life is not as special as humans make it out to be.
I understand the idea behind this post. But I do disagree. Just because a life is short and painful doesn't mean it doesn't contain happiness and isn't meaningful. Your trying to simplify a humans existence into how you define a life worth living. Just because a life has limited potential, limited movement, harder choices or is short, doesn't make it not worth living. I have a friend who's daughter suffered a brain bleed at birth, then again at 6 months. She is now 16 and has severe cerebral palsy and is very much filled with pain. But she is more then her diagnosis. More then her pain. She is a person with ideas and interests and emotions. And her life is happy because she is happy and her family and friends love her.
Those that are born with birth defects or genetic conditions still have value beyond their diagnosis. They are still people. They still deserve to experience the good in life, even if it means pain or a very short life span.
Cont.
My daughter was born with Down syndrome and a severe heart defect. She was 5 weeks early and her lungs couldn't function on their own. We spent almost 3 months with ER I the hospital before we were able to take her home. We met many other families and heard their stories. A few knew they were never going to be able to take their babies home. But those children were loved and cherished while alive. And they gave so much to those who loved them.
A life that is different, that doesn't contain the same potential as all of us, is still a life worth living. Our lives have more worth then just who we are. There is worth in those who we love, who love us, and the impact we have on those around us thru out our whole lives. No matter how short that life may be.
i think it's mostly parents that are suffering if the baby is going to die soon after birth. if not, if it's like the guest there said about their godson.....well, that's not fucking suffering, that's having a life. even though that kid knows he won't live to be adult and everything, that's still something, still a nice (short) life. kids die of hunger and infectious diseases every day, I'd say this particular godson has a better life and his parents/doctor did right not to just euthanize him at birth.
I feel like this post is more related not towards the cases where there is still a survival chance, but more towards those cases where death is inevitable. I know for a fact there are many cases where the baby born has some sort of bodily defect that, without heavy medical attention, will kill them. The baby then lasting 6 days in incredible pain until he/she inevitably dies. I feel like this is where the user who posted this confession was aiming for. Granted I'm not a fan of euthanizing in general, so I have no opinion on the subgect, but I believe the user has his heart in the right place, and I respect them for their opinion
See this is what I'm saying. A lot of people seem to be thinking it's referring to mental or physical disabilities that someone could live with when the meme clearly says "fatal", as in they're going to die and there's not much you can do other than make them last just a bit longer. My grandmother had a daughter born with a heart defect that killed her a week after she was born, and when I say that I think children born with defects should be euthanized, that is the type of defect I'm talking about.
you're both rather right and thiking straight but i can't scroll by without mentioning... FATAL means it kills you. techinically, life kills you in the end so maybe there should be another expression used, like, 'incompatible with life'. It just makes things more clear because you know, AIDS is fatal but euthanazing people who are seropositive isn't such a great idea, know what I'm saying? :)
There are some genetic defects that medical personel recognize will kill the newborn at least with in the first six months of life and encourage parents to put the child on a DNR ( do not resusitat) so they can die naturally. I totally agree with this method
Because it is about a child with a deformity who learns to be happy after overcoming struggles. He makes friends and is as capable of being happy as any other kids. I believe that my opinion has changed upon reading this book. A month ago I might have agreed with this picture, but now I do not.
Just because I have read a book and it has changed my opinion does not mean I am easily persuaded. Considering you may or may not have read this book, it tugs at your heart strings and it can persuade a person to think differently about a subject. And, just because I disagree that people that have been born with deformities does not mean that I think anybody with a differing opinion is a "monster". That is your opinion and I respect that.
That is awful. They deserve at least a chance to live. Children are not animals and can not just be euthanized with or without a birth deffect. Kids with defects such as Down syndrome are some of the nicest people you will ever meet and honestly they know they have they disease but they are happy and have feelings as well. Everyone needs and deserves a chance to live so yes I think that very one of you who said that are monsters and I hope to God you never have to joy of having a child.
This post isn't about killing babies rather than trying to keep them alive. This post is about euthanising children who suffer from fatal illnesses and are in pain - so children that will definitely die and be in agony until they do. There is no 'trying to keep them alive' as their ailments are fatal. It argues that life for life's sake is pointless, and ending their lives is an act of mercy. I do not think you fully understand the post as you seem to be arguing the wrong point.
sweethearts, it's true what you're saying, murder is murder. BUT, considering what I've seen sometimes euthanasia would come handy. it is true though, that the measures and laws regarding it would have to be terribly complex... hence we don't practice it.
as for what horros i have laid my eyes on... it doesn't matter i'm studying medschool, it's simpler than that. my gradpa had cancer and in the last stages it was so horrible, he'd put a gun in his mouth if he could. overdosing him with morphine would be mercy. it would be a relief. so sometimes euthanasia is similar to taking aspirin when you have a headache. sure, you can go without it but why suffer pointlessly when you can choose not to?
it is dangerous, though, to make killing people legal... complex and complicated but purely theoretically, it should be an option.
this is bs. my best friend was born with heart problems and they weren't sure if she was going to live. if they had euthanized her then they would be giving up on her ever getting better. should we euthanize old people so they don't suffer? what about Stephen hawking? there are so many people who do wonderful things regardless if their disabilities. this is judging people by their disabilities and not letting them get a fair chance at life because of this. whoever wrote this has no idea what the hell they are talking about. truly living is breaking past the limits and standards society holds against you
This post isn't about euthanising children who have an ailment that lowers their chance of survival. The post is about euthanising children who have NO chance of survival - note the 'fatal birth defect' term used. It is also not about removing limited people from society; it is about mercifully euthanising babies (emphasis on "babies", not old people or general disabled people) that are only going to suffer a short and painful life - in this way, it argues life's sake is pointless, and ending their lives is an act of mercy. I do not think you fully understand the post as you seem to be arguing the wrong point.
Oh my gosh specialagent you need to shut up. Murder is murder. You get one psycho and he can say anyone has a birth defect. Even if they did they should be given a chance. Plus babies are just as much human as you, me, and old people so your argument is hypocritical
No you need to shut up confederacy. This is called a "grey area" issue for a reason. Taking away the pain of someone suffering is not murder. Let me give you this example. When I was about 7 me and my family moved from Nevada to ohio. We had a dog who was about 13 years of age. We got in a terrible accident that left my dog with several broken bones and would only lead to her suffering in pain for the rest of the time she had left. So our options were let her live in immense pain or put her down. Are you going to say I murdered my dog?
I'm not talking about possibly fatal ailments, I'm just saying you're not giving infants a fair chance at life. Also, there are many people and infants alike that will have diseases or complications believed to be fatal who get by. And when I mentioned Stephen hawking I was simply pointing out that he had complications but still managed to do remarkable things.
Edit: Btw thank you confederacy!
I don't know why your comment has dislikes because you're right. There have been so many instances where people are told they're going to die but end up carrying on anyways, nothing is guaranteed.
Dogs are living beings too. A life is a life no matter how many limbs or how much fur. You can't just look at one situation as black and white and then change your tune when the same situation had different variables.
I have 2 dogs and I love them to pieces but that doesn't mean that they are the same as human beings. also nothing is guaranteed, and an illness believed to be fatal could end up less devastating
Well the thing is people are trying to be optimistic and they are hoping that their child will be the one in a million kid that survives that defect. Just wanted to explain everyone's reasoning.
In Mexico they have this facilities that are called CRI and CRIT, its for children who are born with mental and physical disabilities. Each therapy only costs like 100 pesos(or are free) which is about 8 to 10 dollars. And these facilities really do work. They help kids walk talk kids that doctaors gave no possabilities to ever do this things. You can google it and you will see so many stories of kids and sometimes adults who have been helped. it is not funded by the government they go on TV for 72 hours straight to raise money each year. They aways pass their goal. Their goal is always the amount they got the previous year plus one dollar. Last yaer in december they made i think around 14 to 20 million dollars. Teleton( which is what they are called) is building one in texas and may build one in L.A.
It's been around for I believe ten years maybe longer it has helped a lot of kids out it not an idea its happening which is good
Reply
deleted
· 10 years ago
Well I think it's just disgusting to kill a child because they have a birth defect, they an still live full and happy lives and it's not our choice to end that life. Who are we to weigh up the value of someone's life based on their health or defects?
What happens if you have a bad doctor and you think it's going to be fatal but it's not? What happens if your child is the one in a million that survives? No parent wants to give up on their child like that and nothing is guaranteed.
When we say fatal, do we mean a few days, or decades? I wonder what someone with a birth defect would say when asked whether they wished they never lived. If everyone said they would rather die, I could see this as justified.
When you reach an age when you can understand the decision and consent to it, I believe euthanasia should be a legal option for adults who live in terminal agony. It shouldn't be forced - as you discuss - but I think the option to 'leave' peacefully should be available to those who want to avoid incredible amounts of pain and disability; forcing them to be euthanised (as you discuss) is just as abhorrent as forcing them to live.
Look it's one thing if the kid is born with Down syndrome, in which case yeah, it deserves to live, but being born with something that will constantly cause it to suffer, and then just make it continue living with that suffering isn't exactly fair. Yes it would break my heart if someday I had to do that, but I would sleep better knowing that they didn't have to suffer any longer
crashbandicoot: So people should be forced to give birth to and raise a child with Down Syndrome if they didn't want to? Should the abortion be illegal if the child has Down Syndrome, but not elsewise? Your comment confuses me. I'm absolutely pro-abortion, but I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to say.
Specifically of fatal, and painful childhood diseases, like Tay-sachs, i feel like the only people qualified to decide between continuing in pain, or ending the pain, are the parents of the child. Only they truly understand the situation.
Only someone who has never met or spoken with someone with Down syndrome could ever have your opinion. Your ideas come from ignorance, and i suggest you educate yourself by seeking a better understanding of those that are different.
This is in no dis respect to your opinions, this is just my own personal opinion.
Most diagnosis made at birth, that are actually fatal, come because the child has a condition that is incompatible with life. An inability to make their own blood, a malformed brain or spinal cord, organs that never developed. Rarely are conditions that are truly fatal like this, actually painful. In fact, one of the most painful conditions an infant or child can be put through is drug withdrawal or fetal alcohol syndrome. neither condition is fatal
Is it physical suffering we are looking to alleviate? Or perceived suffering when we see a child with a diagnosis or condition we don't want. that we would rather be dead then have?
but anyways, i believe it's good to discuss things, if nothing else, we learn how to form our arguments. :)
Look up Joni Eareckson Tada. Paralyzed at a young age, now making a difference in the special needs community.
And there are many aspects of life 'nature used to take care of' but we, as an intelligent society, used our knowledge, to bring a better way of life. These people would be strapped to beds and have unthinkable things done to them. Don't you dare tell me that they don't deserve better. To be able to live a happy life! It amazes me that this is even an issue.
I understand the idea of accepting the responsibilities of a disabled child. and of not. My now ex-husband could not deal with having a disabled child and chose to not be a father or husband. I get it. But people, just because they are not "perfect" do not deserve to be discarded. And hopefully our society can get to a place where we can see value in the different, the imperfect
Thank you!
Life has value beyond perfection and your definition of expected potential.
Those that are born with birth defects or genetic conditions still have value beyond their diagnosis. They are still people. They still deserve to experience the good in life, even if it means pain or a very short life span.
Cont.
A life that is different, that doesn't contain the same potential as all of us, is still a life worth living. Our lives have more worth then just who we are. There is worth in those who we love, who love us, and the impact we have on those around us thru out our whole lives. No matter how short that life may be.
as for what horros i have laid my eyes on... it doesn't matter i'm studying medschool, it's simpler than that. my gradpa had cancer and in the last stages it was so horrible, he'd put a gun in his mouth if he could. overdosing him with morphine would be mercy. it would be a relief. so sometimes euthanasia is similar to taking aspirin when you have a headache. sure, you can go without it but why suffer pointlessly when you can choose not to?
it is dangerous, though, to make killing people legal... complex and complicated but purely theoretically, it should be an option.
Edit: Btw thank you confederacy!