/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7415292
It must be a right to a peaceful death but it will be unlikely the case because of the principle of life from all humanist doctrines, doctrines which have been in power for the last centuries.

Until, of course, the feminists dicovered that abortions are alright and must be enticed by the states since from now on, the principle of pain is more valued (if you desire something from the society, you must say, from now on, that it makes you sad and oppressed). From this, there is no longer a justification to forbid a painless manner to give death to yourself, paid by the states.

With the declining population, only the euthanasia is considered. The state does not want to give too much liberties, especially in liberal societies. The humanists of today do not understand that the philosophical suicide can be considered, since all they see is through pleasure/pain. Plus, the naysayers say that it opens the door to the suicides in mass. This is really quite a dilemma for all those humanist societies who rely on consent, whereas they violate this consent on a daily basis already, even from your birth (think of your nationality where your state does not ask you if you wish to be part of it, where the states do nothing to favorize the stateless state (for individuals), or to move abroad etc.).

I think that in a few generations, probably after the century, we will come back from this life penalty, just like we came back from the death penalty. This statement is statistic, which means that a lot of countries will adopt this stance, but there will still be a few to refuse it)

the picture is the poster of an italian film on euthanasia and the last death is a form of philosophical suicide that so few understand.


I think that there is legitimate concerns over euthanasia. Typically, that we already abandon the old in some hospices with the result of them being sad and ill. The euthanasia/suicide-for-the-old would be a bad solution to a false problem.

>>7286694
Is should be a right to a peaceful death but it will be unlikely the case because of the principle of life from all humanist doctrines, doctrines which have been in power for the last centuries.

Until, of course, the feminists dicovered that abortions are alright and must be enticed by the states since from now on, the principle of pain is more valued (if you desire something from the society, you must say, from now on, that it makes you sad and oppressed). From this, there is no longer a justification to forbid a painless manner to give death to yourself, paid by the states.

With the declining population, only the euthanasia is considered. The state does not want to give too much liberties, especially in liberal societies. The humanists of today do not understand that the philosophical suicide can be considered, since all they see is through pleasure/pain. Plus, the naysayers say that it opens the door to the suicides in mass. This is really quite a dilemma for all those humanist societies who rely on consent, whereas they violate this consent on a daily basis already, even from your birth (think of your nationality where your state does not ask you if you wish to be part of it, where the states do nothing to favorize the stateless state (for individuals), or to move abroad etc.).

I think that in a few generations, probably after the century, we will come back from this life penalty, just like we came back from the death penalty. This statement is statistic, which means that a lot of countries will adopt this stance, but there will still be a few to refuse it)

the picture is the poster of an italian film on euthanasia and the last death is a form of philosophical suicide that so few understand.


I think that there is legitimate concerns over euthanasia. Typically, that we already abandon the old in some hospices with the result of them being sad and ill. The euthanasia/suicide-for-the-old would be a bad solution to a false problem.