Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

Hello again! You begin by saying that you never stated euthanasia is murder but instead the opposite. I am curious, what is this opposite you are mentioning? You can see the confusion your argument brings. Euthanasia is killing; we have already agreed on this. So why are you saying it is now the opposite of killing? Remember, even though a person may consent to their own killing, the act of euthanasia is still killing; specifically it is murder. Also, regarding the "logic" you wonder why I fail to see in your arguments, you should of re-thought statements such as "you have no right to say that suicide is bad" because that begs the question: how do you have more of a right than me to say that suicide is good? It is quite silly if you don"t mind me saying. I hope that you can understand that even though human beings can physically fulfill all of the necessary requirements to give life to another human being, God is the ultimate decider of whether that person will be born or not. However, this leads many people to wonder why God could allow persons with severe imperfections, deformities, syndromes, etc. to be born; but in the end, it is all part of the divine mystery of God. Suffering is related to this in a very similar way; the goods and redemptive qualities suffering can bear are all part of a larger mystery we can only trust in God to understand when pass one day (hopefully by his own will, not by ours). It is my fault if I was incorrect on the specifics regarding the time condoning of euthanasia in modern society had taken place but I was ultimately hoping that you would use both of the questions I challenged you with in rhetorical way to view euthanasia differently, to see the act is one which is gravely and noticeably wrong on so many different levels (such as the example of society only condoning it until recent times). To be progressive and open to the changing of one's morals and values (most unfortunate to the point to view that life is not worth living when suffering occurs) can be gravely detrimental to our soul (Keep in mind, the word "soul" is not a religious term in and of itself, but rather an intrinsic and unique quality of every human being given to an individual during conception). You are very right, as our society has changed throughout so many years so to have the views and morals of so many people! However, is this necessarily a good thing? This is where the slippery slope begins. (Read Carefully) When a society accepts the killing of those who suffer, it is only a matter of time until that same society will accept the killing of those who do not suffer. I encourage you to keep this is mind with your inclination to be progressive because, although we may have to decide by our own good conscience & intellect whether the implementation of new civil laws/procedures are just or unjust ones, matters such as our values and morals are best to be kept unchanging unless they are evil (as they are the keys which should be used to dictate the "goodness" of all of our actions, thoughts, and behaviors but unfortunately can dictate also the "evilness" of them - specific to this argument: choosing to accept the killing of a suffering human as good. See, when it comes to our morals and values, "evolvement" (unless evolving towards goodness) can be a very dangerous and tragic thing and (if not soon) will eventually lead to the downfall of the human person and society as a whole. It is important to recognize the great worth of morals and values (which we choose to take on and develop ourselves) and how they can either build society upwards (example: by recognizing the true worth of all humans who suffer and not condoning euthanasia) or destroy society"s view of the worth of the human person, regarding him as not worthy of life as soon as he begins to suffer (temporarily or terminally); and eventually not worthy to live at all if morals and values continue to "evolve" as you say they ought to. I am thrilled to know that you are not comparing Jesus "sacrifice on the cross to that of euthanasia".. you had me scared last time!! On a more serious note, I invite you to re-read the truth I gave you regarding the power of the human will and the grand consequences it has on each human being's life. In short, YES! We DO have a free will. In fact, this great gift allows us to do whatever we want, whenever we want, in however way we want to do it! This does not mean that whatever we want to do (like killing someone else) is a good thing to do! This is only common sense. The extremely difficult aspect, which makes euthanasia, such a controversial topic is the emotion embedded within it. Emotion in a case such as Brittany's can go so far as to blind all people involved (her, her husband, family, etc.) to the truth that the act of euthanasia IS wrong. My previous statement explaining how Brittany's husband is actually dehumanizing her and failing as a husband is no assumption. Whether or not Brittany's husband recognizes that he is truly dehumanizing his wife and ultimately failing as a man is something I will never know but that does not change the fact that he his (also, there was nothing religious about that statement). As I said in one of my previous arguments, never does anyone have the right to judge the knowledge a person has about the sin he is committing, but we CAN judge whether his actions are morally good or morally bad. This is the same with Brittany and all of her family. I could not and would never assume that they are all evil people who don't have the capacity to love Brittany. Rather, I can say that the decision they are encouraging for their daughter is gravely evil and one truly not loving; it is one, which is of false compassion! (Read Carefully) The end does not justify the means. In other words, Brittany and her family's good intentions of ending her suffering by killing Brittany, do not make this choice a morally good one! Love can be harder to live for than to die for. It is far more easy for Brittany's family to allow her to kill herself than it is to live through her suffering by her side until her natural end (not be her decision). If her family truly loved her, they would recognize that she still has the same (un-changing) dignity that she has always had (now intensified due to her suffering) and that suffering is and should never be an excuse to eliminate her life. Moving on to your question, I find it sort of ridiculous that you are the one that is assuming now my beliefs on a matter which actually differs than that of euthanasia. In short, the truth regarding patients (who are in a vegetative state) and connected to a life support machine is that the machine is an extraordinary means to allowing their bodies to survive. (Read carefully) We are only required to provide ordinary means of living to a person (examples: food, water, clothing, shelter, ordinary medication, etc.) We are NOT required to provide extraordinary means to prolong the life of an individual such as the life support machine which can be very expensive and useless if the person will never be truly regain consciousness again. Therefore, in a situation such as this, the family has the right to decide to 'pull the plug' if they wish to do so. Please understand that I am not trying to technically "win" this debate. That is not my intention. Rather, my goal is to purely explain to you the truth regarding the conflict and moral evilness of euthanasia and any other topics that we have discussed even though you may never see it as I do. My job is to plant the seed of truth in discussion with you and hope that you will allow it to grow within yourself. Lastly, I do understand that this concludes my chance to further post in this debate, but if you have any other questions or wish to discuss/debate further on any of these issues, I am very happy to do so! Feel free to contact me. With Love Always, Katie Adams