17 year old dutch rape victim denied euthania starves self to death.

catefrances

mickeyrat said:

catefrances said:

mickeyrat said:

@catefrances seems we need to change the title.  turns out to have been misreported  by english language media.

it should read "17 ye old rape victim denied euthanasia, starves herself instead"

was posted earlier here...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/05/an-anguished-dutch-teenager-who-was-raped-child-is-euthanized-her-request/?utm_term=.4fc9208cc48e

thanks mickey.  fuckin' media.  guess i should cross fact check in future.  

credit @renfield , they found and posted first.

thanks @renfield

Jason P

There is so much that can happen in your 20’s that can turn your outlook on life around.   There is no turning death around.   

PJ_Soul

mickeyrat said:

Jammalambo said:

PJ_Soul said:

Mental pain and physical pain are really not that different at all. This must be what you are not not realizing. In fact, mental pain is often far worse.

There are debilitating physical illness that cannot be cured, and can only degrade with time. Mental pain, on the other hand, can be debilitating as well, but there's at least ALWAYS a possibility to recover from it. That's the difference you appear to not be realizing. 

with an equal possiblity of not recovering

Exactly. And the main point is that people should have a choice as to whether or not they WANT to suffer for an indeterminate amount of time before the chance - not promise - of recovering is realized. That is really the WHOLE point.

PJ_Soul

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

mickeyrat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:n

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

17 yr olds can join the military and go to war with parental approval.training to kill with a real possibility of being maimed or killed OR with TBI or PTS,  is this that much different?

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

cincybearcat

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/the-latest-research-suggests-we-dont-really-become-adults-until-our-thirties/

Interesting.  Science says it's later than 16.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.

You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough.  That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice.  It really does seem arbitrary.

If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science.  So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.  

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.

You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough.  That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice.  It really does seem arbitrary.

If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science.  So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.  

Obviously it's my opinion. Please tell me we're not back to this, where you're suggesting I have to literally qualify what I'm saying is an opinion, even though it is blatantly obvious that's what it is. But an opinion is not necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary means no defined or logical reason. I stated a defined reason. Whether or not that's just my opinion or not is besides the point, but I based that opinion on my own preexisting knowledge of brain development. I'm not offering scientific data for your sake. I just wish that every time I take a strong stance on something and disagree with someone you didn't turn it into a character flaw while conveniently forgetting every single thing I've ever said that shows your mean conclusions about me aren't true. I think it's really unfair of you.

As for the second point, well, that's just your opinion, lol. Obviously I disagree. And I'm not going to attack your character over it.

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

did she say a 16 brain was adult?

cincybearcat

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

did she say a 16 brain was adult?

No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself. 

So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.

You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough.  That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice.  It really does seem arbitrary.

If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science.  So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.  

Obviously it's my opinion. Please tell me we're not back to this, where you're suggesting I have to literally qualify what I'm saying is an opinion, even though it is blatantly obvious that's what it is. But an opinion is not necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary means no defined or logical reason. I stated a defined reason. Whether or not that's just my opinion or not is besides the point, but I based that opinion on my own preexisting knowledge of brain development. I'm not offering scientific data for your sake. I just wish that every time I take a strong stance on something and disagree with someone you didn't turn it into a character flaw while conveniently forgetting every single thing I've ever said that shows your mean conclusions about me aren't true. I think it's really unfair of you.

As for the second point, well, that's just your opinion, lol. Obviously I disagree. And I'm not going to attack your character over it.

It’s literally exhausting. 

Your definition of “arbitrary” is pretty weird. You call someone’s suggestion arbitrary and then provide not reason for yours. So either both are arbitrary or you are just saying they didn’t think about it, but of course you did.  So which is it? Both arbitrary or are you saying that the other person is not thinking about it as much as you?

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.

You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough.  That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice.  It really does seem arbitrary.

If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science.  So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.  

Obviously it's my opinion. Please tell me we're not back to this, where you're suggesting I have to literally qualify what I'm saying is an opinion, even though it is blatantly obvious that's what it is. But an opinion is not necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary means no defined or logical reason. I stated a defined reason. Whether or not that's just my opinion or not is besides the point, but I based that opinion on my own preexisting knowledge of brain development. I'm not offering scientific data for your sake. I just wish that every time I take a strong stance on something and disagree with someone you didn't turn it into a character flaw while conveniently forgetting every single thing I've ever said that shows your mean conclusions about me aren't true. I think it's really unfair of you.

As for the second point, well, that's just your opinion, lol. Obviously I disagree. And I'm not going to attack your character over it.

It’s literally exhausting. 

Your definition of “arbitrary” is pretty weird. You call someone’s suggestion arbitrary and then provide not reason for yours. So either both are arbitrary or you are just saying they didn’t think about it, but of course you did.  So which is it? Both arbitrary or are you saying that the other person is not thinking about it as much as you?

My definition of arbitrary comes out of the dictionary, lol. I have already explained my reasoning. Maybe you feel exhausted because you tend to pinpoint relatively irrelevant little details and then try to tear them apart, post after post, for no better reason, apparently, than to whine about how someone tried to make their point.

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

did she say a 16 brain was adult?

No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself. 

So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?

you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.

what does that really have to do with  the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?

cincybearcat

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Jammalambo said:

I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.

Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.

That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.

Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.

Hahahaha, I liked this...

"What is your arbitrary age limit??"

then

"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"

Seems you both have one.  I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound.  At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.

I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.

But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.

Of course yours isn't arbitrary.  Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary.  Don't worry I know how this works.

I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey.  I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.

Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.

I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?  

did she say a 16 brain was adult?

No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself. 

So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?

you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.

what does that really have to do with  the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?

I was just qualifying the article I found. That talked about brain maturation. They talked about “adult” in the context of brain maturation. Just typing what the article said.

so - you think a 16 year old is mature enough to make a decision to end his/her life? I mean - when a fatal illness is not involved...16? That seems really young to me. I’m sure their is the occasional 16 year old, but in reality most are no where near mature enough to make those kinds of decisions.