Religion and Ethics Forum

General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on January 30, 2024, 03:03:34 PM

Title: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Steve H on January 30, 2024, 03:03:34 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/john-cooper-clarke-i-just-don-t-see-how-helping-people-die-improves-life/ar-BB1htOHZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3efb79aa848e4c63914da209e9833b53&ei=32
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 30, 2024, 05:58:47 PM
I'm on the other side from JCC but I think his concerns are valid, and can understand that position. I don't mind having different views from people I admire.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Nearly Sane on February 02, 2024, 08:34:10 AM
Matthew Parris on assisted dying. I don't think the comparison with gay rights works.


https://archive.vn/3zK9f
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Alan Burns on February 02, 2024, 02:40:34 PM
I respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, so I applaud John Cooper Clark for taking this stance.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Nearly Sane on February 02, 2024, 02:51:30 PM
I respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, so I applaud John Cooper Clark for taking this stance.
And yet you worship your genocidal god.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Alan Burns on February 02, 2024, 05:52:03 PM
And yet you worship your genocidal god.
I worship God who brought everything into existence
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Aruntraveller on February 02, 2024, 05:56:14 PM
I worship God who brought everything into existence

So you are worshipping the god who created the very diseases and illnesses that force people to choose euthanasia.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: jeremyp on February 02, 2024, 06:05:55 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/john-cooper-clarke-i-just-don-t-see-how-helping-people-die-improves-life/ar-BB1htOHZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3efb79aa848e4c63914da209e9833b53&ei=32

I disagree with his view, but I am not disappointed. I just accept that others might disagree with me.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: jeremyp on February 02, 2024, 06:09:46 PM
I respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, so I applaud John Cooper Clark for taking this stance.
Until fairly recently in human history, “natural death” meant death in child birth for one in four women. Many of the people who post on this forum would already be dead if we allowed death to occur “naturally”.

Be careful what you wish for, person who has almost certainly taken advantage of human produced artificial aids to getting old instead of dying horribly.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: bluehillside Retd. on February 02, 2024, 06:11:52 PM
AB,

Quote
I respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death...

Just out of interest, where do you stand on the death penalty?
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Nearly Sane on February 02, 2024, 06:24:20 PM
I worship God who brought everything into existence
Including the plague. You worship a mass murderer.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 02, 2024, 07:05:04 PM
Including the plague. You worship a mass murderer.
So you are including everyone who dies then? Where does that place people who assist death?
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Dicky Underpants on February 02, 2024, 07:08:22 PM
I respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, so I applaud John Cooper Clark for taking this stance.
With 40 to 60 per cent of fertilized human eggs being lost before birth, it would seem that God is the greatest abortionist of all:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/&ved=2ahUKEwixp_GCrI2EAxX69bsIHUEZCyYQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1MoP-6yAxu7bTzApSJ7ypj
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Dicky Underpants on February 02, 2024, 07:12:33 PM
It therefore follows that life does not have much value, let alone sanctity, at any stage. Objectively speaking.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Nearly Sane on February 02, 2024, 07:50:37 PM
So you are including everyone who dies then? Where does that place people who assist death?
I think you mean kills rather than dies? But the thing is I'm using Alan's position as defining murderer.  Are you saying people who are involved in assisted death are gods?
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Alan Burns on February 02, 2024, 11:43:06 PM
I think you mean kills rather than dies? But the thing is I'm using Alan's position as defining murderer.
According to your reasoning, all natural death would be seen as murder.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Alan Burns on February 02, 2024, 11:51:15 PM
Until fairly recently in human history, “natural death” meant death in child birth for one in four women. ....
Yes, it is good that giving birth is much safer now.
But now we have one in four babies deliberately killed in the womb.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Nearly Sane on February 03, 2024, 02:22:40 AM
According to your reasoning, all natural death would be seen as murder.
No, because I don't believe in a creator gpd that choosres to create the plague. It's a consequence of what you believe, and your position. It's the logical outcome of that. Your god choose to create the plague knowing it would kill millions. And you worship that.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Aruntraveller on February 03, 2024, 06:34:21 AM
Quote
But now we have one in four babies deliberately killed in the womb.

That doesn't include the ones that god chooses to abort, so the figure is higher. Thanks to your god.

You could view abortion as us following in god's footsteps.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: SqueakyVoice on February 03, 2024, 09:45:21 AM
I disagree with his view, but I am not disappointed. I just accept that others might disagree with me.
I think we may be in the same position. I have an older relative who told me (& the rest of the family). If she's stuck in a hospital and and cannot  move, we're allowed to "pull the plug". That was said a long time ago and I still regard it as a direct quote.
For me, I'm not scared of dieing, I'm more scared of my mind  (& my memory) disappearing and living through agony. I'd rather say good bye, with dignity.
(Don't  know why, but it did remind me of this quote,)
Quote
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my father. Not screaming and terrified like his passengers. - BOB MONKHOUSE
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Dicky Underpants on February 03, 2024, 01:35:08 PM
That doesn't include the ones that god chooses to abort, so the figure is higher. Thanks to your god.

You could view abortion as us following in god's footsteps.
Up to 60%. We'll done God, you really care for your creatures.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: Nearly Sane on February 03, 2024, 02:05:09 PM
I know I was the one to bring up Alan's god's penchant for death but in terms of most people on here and their beliefs on assisted dying, including John Cooper Clarke, are not based on Alan's logical contradictions.

I have to admit that while I remain in favour of assisted dying, the complete ineptitude of govts, and the lack of claity in existing legislation where it is allowed has meant that my support is less strong than it once was.
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: bluehillside Retd. on February 04, 2024, 07:25:32 PM
AB,

Quote
But now we have one in four babies deliberately killed in the womb.

By definition "babies" cannot be "killed in the womb". A baby is a neonate, not an embryo or a foetus.   
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: jeremyp on February 05, 2024, 09:35:52 AM
Yes, it is good that giving birth is much safer now.
Yes, but it's safer because of all sorts of non natural advancements made by humans. You don't like artificial stuff, so you should be against all of our life saving treatments.
Quote
But now we have one in four babies deliberately killed in the womb.
No. Did you not read
With 40 to 60 per cent of fertilized human eggs being lost before birth, it would seem that God is the greatest abortionist of all:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/&ved=2ahUKEwixp_GCrI2EAxX69bsIHUEZCyYQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1MoP-6yAxu7bTzApSJ7ypj
Title: Re: John Cooper Clarke's disappointing view on euthanasia
Post by: ProfessorDavey on February 05, 2024, 10:03:13 AM
I respect the sanctity of human life from conception ...
So you believe there is an instantaneous point at which full rights appear - so very orthodox catholic teaching.

Problem for you (and the catholic church) is that conception, or rather fertilisation to give it its correct embryology terminology, is a process, not a single point. So at which point in that process does the respect for sanctity of life arise AB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization

The RCC's official position on this is totally muddled as it is based on an assertion that an individual life begins at conception (well actually fertilisation) and that this remains the same individual life thereafter and distinction from the mother and father. But the argument is fatally flawed by identical twins - who are two people, not one, yet the RCC teaching suggests they must be one individual.