Author Topic: Terminally Ill Woman Brittany Maynard Has Ended Her Own Life (Read 7403 times)

musiclady · « **Reply #100 on:** November 04, 2014, 03:24:50 am »

Quote from: olde north church on November 04, 2014, 01:56:57 am

On "The Five", they had a great story about a young lady who was playing basketball for some college. She has a brain tumor and not a lot of time. She wanted to live every minute she has left. I think it's quite a contrast with the woman who ended her life.

I'm with you on this, onc. I think life is too precious to end it before it's supposed to end......... even when there's a terminal illness involved, and I also think taking your own life is kind of a selfish act. As difficult as it is to have someone you love deal with a terminal illness, every moment of their life is precious to loved ones.

I admire the ones who fight it out to the end. I think it's the braver, stronger, more compassionate course to take.

Luis Gonzalez · « **Reply #101 on:** November 04, 2014, 03:45:51 am »

Quote from: DCPatriot on November 04, 2014, 01:42:27 am

That's not fair. It works both ways, Myst.

I'm tired of deep religious types touting THEIR point-of-view and become judgmental and sanctimonious in threads that they have no business bringing religion into the discussion.

This thread was about a young women with a terribly painful terminal illness that didn't wish to face her future and instead elected...ON HER OWN, when it was her time to say goodbye to her loved ones.

Then someone called her an attention whore.

Is that when it got ugly?

Luis Gonzalez · « **Reply #102 on:** November 04, 2014, 03:47:00 am »

Quote from: olde north church on November 04, 2014, 01:56:57 am

On "The Five", they had a great story about a young lady who was playing basketball for some college. She has a brain tumor and not a lot of time. She wanted to live every minute she has left. I think it's quite a contrast with the woman who ended her life.

No contrast at all actually.

They each made a personal choice.

Luis Gonzalez · « **Reply #103 on:** November 04, 2014, 03:56:32 am »

Quote from: Repub4Trey on November 04, 2014, 02:14:21 am

We are not a Religion forum.

So then, why is it that when ideas and beliefs systems that do not adhere to Christian orthodoxy are discussed (politely I may add), suddenly the thread is labeled as "ugly"?

Is it because religious people are complaining about the tone and substance of the posts made by those who do not share their religious views?

If that is the case, then we are in fact a religious forum, since only one orthodoxy is accepted.

"We" are a forum where ideology and ideas are exchanged freely. I can't count the number of times on any number of topics, religion has been discussed in this forum as a basis for supporting arguments on social issues.

If those are the only views permitted, then we are a "religion forum".

olde north church · « **Reply #104 on:** November 04, 2014, 09:40:12 am »

Quote from: Luis Gonzalez on November 04, 2014, 03:47:00 am

No contrast at all actually.

They each made a personal choice.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "contrast". Representative points on a spectrum perhaps? Unwieldy but ....

Dexter · « **Reply #105 on:** November 04, 2014, 03:17:39 pm »

If you don't want religion brought up on a political forum then you shouldn't use it as a key defense of your own position or to attack the position of somebody else.

GourmetDan · « **Reply #106 on:** November 04, 2014, 03:34:14 pm »

Unfortunately... pretending that secular humanism isn't just as much a religion as Christianity only allows secular humanist religious views to prevail in discussions because those views are allegedly 'non-religious' while Christian views would be excluded because they are 'religious'.

Ultimately, everyone has a 'religious' worldview of some kind...

musiclady · « **Reply #107 on:** November 04, 2014, 05:22:53 pm »

Quote from: GourmetDan on November 04, 2014, 03:34:14 pm

Unfortunately... pretending that secular humanism isn't just as much a religion as Christianity only allows secular humanist religious views to prevail in discussions because those views are allegedly 'non-religious' while Christian views would be excluded because they are 'religious'.

Ultimately, everyone has a 'religious' worldview of some kind...

Unfortunately, Dan has me on "ignore" for a previous gross misunderstanding in a galaxy far, far away, but I have to second this opinion.

Those of us who are called 'religious' and accused of bringing our faith into discussions (such as this one, where it actually belongs), are no more 'religious' than those whose faith requires a removal of spiritual values from any discussion.

ALL of us are religious beings.

R4 TrumPence · « **Reply #108 on:** November 04, 2014, 05:29:21 pm »

Quote from: Luis Gonzalez on November 04, 2014, 03:56:32 am

So then, why is it that when ideas and beliefs systems that do not adhere to Christian orthodoxy are discussed (politely I may add), suddenly the thread is labeled as "ugly"?

Is it because religious people are complaining about the tone and substance of the posts made by those who do not share their religious views?

If that is the case, then we are in fact a religious forum, since only one orthodoxy is accepted.

"We" are a forum where ideology and ideas are exchanged freely. I can't count the number of times on any number of topics, religion has been discussed in this forum as a basis for supporting arguments on social issues.

If those are the only views permitted, then we are a "religion forum".

Hey Luis

What we mean is that we do not have a religious section for one main reason. People do not see eye, even if they are of the same denomination.
The reason we both brought it up on this thread, was due to the arguing over passages in the bible, and was turning this into a bible thread. I would go on and on with people on all sides getting hurt feelings and no one can win.

Myst and I are Christians. We have no problem with you all bringing it into a post if it something relevant to your life. Core beliefs steer your life.

Lando Lincoln · « **Reply #109 on:** November 04, 2014, 05:38:27 pm »

Quote from: musiclady on November 04, 2014, 05:22:53 pm

Unfortunately, Dan has me on "ignore" for a previous gross misunderstanding in a galaxy far, far away, but I have to second this opinion.

Those of us who are called 'religious' and accused of bringing our faith into discussions (such as this one, where it actually belongs), are no more 'religious' than those whose faith requires a removal of spiritual values from any discussion.

ALL of us are religious beings.

I agree with you musiclady. While most of us have generally similar ideology, we are not the same. Faith and religion are always topics rife with peril because of our closely held and very personal beliefs. Keeping any "disagreement" from becoming personal is a very difficult challenge for most of us. I try - and as Bigun once pointed out - as long as it doesn't become blatantly bigoted, I'm good with a discussion taking place. More often than not, however, I try to avoid the topic. No one will ever be convinced of being right or wrong when it comes to their faith.

musiclady · « **Reply #110 on:** November 04, 2014, 05:43:52 pm »

Quote from: Lando Lincoln on November 04, 2014, 01:46:00 am

As a non-contentious aside, how can one political party reconcile differences of this nature?

Just an opinion here, no more, no less...

In this particular issue, I think for most, the lines are blurrier because the young woman was going to die fairly soon anyway, and most people understand her choice, even if not agreeing with it, nor thinking it was the best choice.

The problem for me is that this is a related issue to abortion and eugenics; both deep seeded "progressive" ideas and hallmarks of the left.

I think there are some who are reluctant to admit that death on both ends of the life spectrum, and ending lives because they're inconvenient, or not up to the social standard required by a superior culture (Margaret Sanger's view) are LEFTIST ideas, and therefore inconsistent (I believe) with any form of conservative/Republican positions.

I believe that a historical understanding that the roots of what may, on the surface appear to be 'kind,' run deep in leftist ideology.

Perhaps what is needed is just a quiet, calm discussion of where certain ideologies arise from.

(Again stating that this particular case is much fuzzier......... at least for most of us).

musiclady · « **Reply #111 on:** November 04, 2014, 05:48:58 pm »

Quote from: Lando Lincoln on November 04, 2014, 05:38:27 pm

I agree with you musiclady. While most of us have generally similar ideology, we are not the same. Faith and religion are always topics rife with peril because of our closely held and very personal beliefs. Keeping any "disagreement" from becoming personal is a very difficult challenge for most of us. I try - and as Bigun once pointed out - as long as it doesn't become blatantly bigoted, I'm good with a discussion taking place. More often than not, however, I try to avoid the topic. No one will ever be convinced of being right or wrong when it comes to their faith.

I completely agree that it is a very difficult challenge to keep things from getting personal. On a thread the other day, I felt very strongly that I was avoiding being personal, only to find out that the person with whom I was discussing the issue felt that my use of the word "you" immediately was a personal offense. For me, it wasn't even close because I was discussing the statements he made, and not his personhood, and still offended him. Can't help that....

That's the challenge, and that's why, I think, it's good to be on a smaller forum, where you know the character and normal behavior of people with whom you disagree, and can take what they say in the context of who you know they are. We also know who the pot stirrers are, and IMO, it's wise to avoid conflict with them because they seem to want to make scenes some times, rather than actually have a discussion.

My 2 cents.

EC · « **Reply #112 on:** November 04, 2014, 06:04:23 pm »

It can't help but get personal, since your (that is the general your, not anyone specific) belief system is the core of you. A little empathy goes a long way to reducing that, but it'll never stop it completely. Explaining your reasoning behind a statement also helps - provided the person you are responding to accepts that it is your statement and not a challenge to their own beliefs. Again, difficult.

The one thing guaranteed to prevent a good discussion of Mrs. Maynard, for example, is the person who comes in and says things along the lines of "she is going to hell." Flat statement - it makes it harder to feel empathy for the person saying it. It comes off - to me at least - as arrogant as hell. If someone is going to talk for God in that way, they better have some pretty impressive loaves and fishes style stuff to back up their unstated claim.

musiclady · « **Reply #113 on:** November 04, 2014, 06:08:07 pm »

Quote from: EC on November 04, 2014, 06:04:23 pm

It can't help but get personal, since your (that is the general your, not anyone specific) belief system is the core of you. A little empathy goes a long way to reducing that, but it'll never stop it completely. Explaining your reasoning behind a statement also helps - provided the person you are responding to accepts that it is your statement and not a challenge to their own beliefs. Again, difficult.

The one thing guaranteed to prevent a good discussion of Mrs. Maynard, for example, is the person who comes in and says things along the lines of "she is going to hell." Flat statement - it makes it harder to feel empathy for the person saying it. It comes off - to me at least - as arrogant as hell. If someone is going to talk for God in that way, they better have some pretty impressive loaves and fishes style stuff to back up their unstated claim.

Can't disagree with a word of that. ^-^

It's also good to understand that most, if not all of us, might occasionally fly off the handle and say things we don't really mean.

Again....... a little understanding goes a long way.

Unless, of course, a person gets his jollies out of misunderstanding.......

Luis Gonzalez · « **Reply #114 on:** November 04, 2014, 06:25:32 pm »

Quote from: Repub4Trey on November 04, 2014, 05:29:21 pm

Hey Luis

What we mean is that we do not have a religious section for one main reason. People do not see eye, even if they are of the same denomination.
The reason we both brought it up on this thread, was due to the arguing over passages in the bible, and was turning this into a bible thread. I would go on and on with people on all sides getting hurt feelings and no one can win.

Myst and I are Christians. We have no problem with you all bringing it into a post if it something relevant to your life. Core beliefs steer your life.

You mean like this?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,153221.msg617397/topicseen.html#msg617397

R4 TrumPence · « **Reply #115 on:** November 04, 2014, 06:39:27 pm »

Quote from: Luis Gonzalez on November 04, 2014, 06:25:32 pm

You mean like this?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,153221.msg617397/topicseen.html#msg617397

Ok Luis, I give up! You win!

Discussion over

Lando Lincoln · « **Reply #116 on:** November 04, 2014, 06:45:14 pm »

Hey everybody...! I'm seeing a bunch of people running around with "I Voted" stickers on their shirts. Whatzat all about?

Luis Gonzalez · « **Reply #117 on:** November 04, 2014, 06:47:08 pm »

Quote from: GourmetDan on November 04, 2014, 03:34:14 pm

Unfortunately... pretending that secular humanism isn't just as much a religion as Christianity only allows secular humanist religious views to prevail in discussions because those views are allegedly 'non-religious' while Christian views would be excluded because they are 'religious'.

Ultimately, everyone has a 'religious' worldview of some kind...

I'm not a secular humanist Dan. Not by a long shot.

I'm a very spiritual individual.

I don't like organized religion since I see organized religion as being (by nature) controlling, competitive and and highly predatory.

If you wish to label me just ask me and I'll provide you with a working label that you could tag me with if that makes you somehow feel better.

I am (at this point in my life anyway) very much both a pantheist and an admirer of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I also see a lot of value in the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha). I believe that the reward for a life well lived is the life well lived itself. I don't need the enticement of a life beyond this life to struggle for a better life here, every day.

I have a firewall which enables me to separate religious beliefs from civil rights and the privileges of citizenship as well as a mind that allows me to hold to seemingly contentious beliefs simultaneously easily and without conflict.

I ground my opinions on religion and politics on this:

Quote

"(O)ur civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." - Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom