[XogGyux]

:eh: Well, there'll be always people who are too stupid to live and too stupid to die. I mean, the angle you need to hit your cerebellum, and the angle you need to hit your eye are quite different.

Some people...

Starting with the appropriate angle might help. However remember there are many people that survive a bullet in their brain or even larger objects (such as a rail road beam!)

[Frollein]

Well, if you want to be absolutely sure...

[Know It All]

Though I agree with the necessity of having a robust system for end-of-life/euthanasia I think the argument/reasons you are using are not the best. For one, you fall into the "slippery" slope argument that leads to all those dreadful "dystopian future" that we see in movies (e.g. kill those old "burden" people that are terminal and just a drain in society, kill those criminals/life sentence prisoners for the same reason and by that logic you could very well end up killing HIV patients, most type of cancers, some/most genetic defects, mentally retarded people, homeless, etc and before you know it you are in a genocidal society. In other words, I strongly disagree that "getting rid of burden people" is a reasonable argument at all.
.

This depends on the value you put on human life. I see us as no more important than a lion, hippo, or elephant. In actual fact it could be argued we are less important because there are so many of us. Human beings should be measured by what they put into society, and what they have previously put in. If it's considered that a criminal can not be rehabilitated, and will just continue to commit crime whilst costing the tax payer a fortune, why the hell should he be kept alive. That may sound harsh, but it's not any worse than destroying a dog that keeps biting people. Yes, the dog may be a different specie to us, it may not share the same level of intelligence, and it may have fur instead of skin, but the principle and it's right to live on this planet is exactly the same. I never accept the slippery slope argument when discussing anything, because I genuinely believe that nothing will ever change if we take that into consideration.

The planet has far to many human beings to worry about the loss of those who offer society nothing. That doesn't mean a degree of compassion can't be exercised, but this line of thought that determines every human life is sacred, has to stop, because frankly it's just wrong !!

[Rugoz]

I see us as no more important than a lion, hippo, or elephant. In actual fact it could be argued we are less important because there are so many of us.

You are a traitor to your own species.

I suggest you go cuddle a lion or a hippo in a nearby zoo.

[One Degree]

You are a traitor to your own species.

Specist!

[Know It All]

You are a traitor to your own species.

I suggest you go cuddle a lion or a hippo in a nearby zoo.

I have intention on cuddling any of the above animals, neither do I want to cuddle a human being (and that includes my wife)

[XogGyux]

This depends on the value you put on human life. I see us as no more important than a lion, hippo, or elephant. In actual fact it could be argued we are less important because there are so many of us.

I am going to go ahead and call the bluff on that. I don't for a second think you consider your life at the same level as other animal, in fact I will go further to say you don't consider your life to be as important as mine. If you had to choose right now between a stranger dying (in this case me) and yourself I am pretty sure I know what your choice would be, let alone an animal and yourself.
You might say that you don't think that your life has more intrinsic value (perhaps to some kind of higher power or to the universe) than any other animal. Although I would agree with you, it is probably for other reasons. For instance, I don't think life has ANY intrinsic value other than the one each and everyone of us puts ourselves.

In actual fact it could be argued we are less important because there are so many of us.

I don't think you believe that either. If you did then it would make sense that you would dedicate your life, rather than to raising your own children and living with your wife and working, to help/preserve one or all of the endangered species (panda bear?).

If it's considered that a criminal can not be rehabilitated, and will just continue to commit crime whilst costing the tax payer a fortune, why the hell should he be kept alive.

That is an interesting proposition.
1. Would you also agree to kill mentally ill patients that cannot live independently and are a burden to society?
2. What about those who are a bit more independent, can live on their own but still need some kind of supervision and help from society (subsidized labor or medicaid/SS benefits?)

The planet has far to many human beings to worry about the loss of those who offer society nothing.

Perhaps it is precisely because of the degree of compassion and caring for other humans beings that there are so many of us. Perhaps (likely IMO) if we did not care at all our species would have gone extinct soon after its beginning. This is actually true for all animals and not simply human beings. Animal instinct and genetic code is such as to preserve their species (a rudimentary "emphatic" system).

That doesn't mean a degree of compassion can't be exercised, but this line of thought that determines every human life is sacred, has to stop, because frankly it's just wrong !!

I agree human life is not sacred. I don't think god(s) exist so that word is meaningless to me. But you cannot dismiss compassion and more importantly our instincts of self preservation. As a species there is no way that you can eliminate that "we are more important than other species" without putting our whole existence in danger. We care about US (more accurately our genes) more than we care about anyone else (or any other gene) that is why we care about our family more than our friends (more similar genes with our family than with our friends) and our friends more than strangers and strangers more than animals and so forth.