The whole subject of what constitutes 'life' and 'death' is a thorny one.
Personally, I am against the deliberate killing of anyone, at either end of their existence. I am also against the deliberate keeping 'alive' of anyone at either end of their existence.
In my opinion, survival of the fittest, nature's way of ensuring a strong gene pool, makes sense. Just because humans have found ways to thwart nature, it does not follow that they should do so, any more than knowing how to destroy the planet should lead to it's deliberate destruction.
Anyone who has seen the torture inflicted upon premature babies, many of whom only survive as deaf, blind and otherwise damaged individuals would have to have a heart of stone to condone the practice of 'saving' them. In my opinion it is an abuse.
Temporary life support, used when an individual has been injured but can recover, is a good thing.
Keeping a person alive who cannot ever be expected to survive without life support is, in my opinion, an abuse of that person's right to cease existing.
On the other hand, terminating the life of someone prematurely is murder in my opinion, regardless of who does it or how.
If you believe, as I do, that each of us exists to fulfil a purpose, whether we achieve it or fail to, then interfering with the survival or demise of an individual who could not otherwise sustain life or would not die naturally is wrong.
If you look around the globe at the approaches of different cultures to these matters, it becomes evident that those of the 'Western' or 'First' world are peculiarly impersonal. Science 'saves' people because it can, not because it cares about those individuals.
Refusal to allow the natural expiration of a life which can never be sustained without artificial intervention should be as much of a crime as the deliberate curtailing of a sustainable life.
If one is considering the question from an economic point of view, those who live longer than the average are more than balanced out by those whose lives end before they have had the opportunity to claim the pensions for which they have paid contributions all their lives, especially now that 'unexplained', i.e. vaccine injury, deaths are so prolific.
Why would anyone bother to work all through their best years just to be terminated at the first sign of decrepitude?
Just my tuppence-worth, as people used to say back in the days of the shilling...
The whole subject of what constitutes 'life' and 'death' is a thorny one.
Personally, I am against the deliberate killing of anyone, at either end of their existence. I am also against the deliberate keeping 'alive' of anyone at either end of their existence.
In my opinion, survival of the fittest, nature's way of ensuring a strong gene pool, makes sense. Just because humans have found ways to thwart nature, it does not follow that they should do so, any more than knowing how to destroy the planet should lead to it's deliberate destruction.
Anyone who has seen the torture inflicted upon premature babies, many of whom only survive as deaf, blind and otherwise damaged individuals would have to have a heart of stone to condone the practice of 'saving' them. In my opinion it is an abuse.
Temporary life support, used when an individual has been injured but can recover, is a good thing.
Keeping a person alive who cannot ever be expected to survive without life support is, in my opinion, an abuse of that person's right to cease existing.
On the other hand, terminating the life of someone prematurely is murder in my opinion, regardless of who does it or how.
If you believe, as I do, that each of us exists to fulfil a purpose, whether we achieve it or fail to, then interfering with the survival or demise of an individual who could not otherwise sustain life or would not die naturally is wrong.
If you look around the globe at the approaches of different cultures to these matters, it becomes evident that those of the 'Western' or 'First' world are peculiarly impersonal. Science 'saves' people because it can, not because it cares about those individuals.
Refusal to allow the natural expiration of a life which can never be sustained without artificial intervention should be as much of a crime as the deliberate curtailing of a sustainable life.
If one is considering the question from an economic point of view, those who live longer than the average are more than balanced out by those whose lives end before they have had the opportunity to claim the pensions for which they have paid contributions all their lives, especially now that 'unexplained', i.e. vaccine injury, deaths are so prolific.
Why would anyone bother to work all through their best years just to be terminated at the first sign of decrepitude?
Just my tuppence-worth, as people used to say back in the days of the shilling...