Skip to main content

Terry Prat’s nonsensical pro-Dignity/Euthanasia argument

They really do give out knighthoods to any rat or donkey these days in the UK don’t they. Well, if the ‘Queen’ can be a ‘Queen’, I suppose any rat or donkey would qualify too. So, back to the issue at hand, ‘Sir’ Terry Pratchett, a supporter of euthanasia, in response to the ‘sanctity of life’ and why euthanasia should not be supported, said,

“What about the dignity of life? Lack of dignity would be enough for some people to kill themselves... - bbc

I think this fella ought to stick to writing his fairy stories and leave the thinking to more intelligent human beings - like ed for instance.

If our dignity is being compromised by the biases and squeamishness of others, than it is society that has to be educated, and not the afflicted whom have to pay the price for society’s small-mindedness by taking their own lives.
Now, I’m not saying I’m against euthanasia. I’m still thinking about it, amongst a thousand other things - life is more than just eating, shopping and gambling. But what we must consider here is the degree to which the ‘lack of dignity’ is due to the squeamishness or disrespect other people might have for us if we were to suffer particular ailments. That is the crucial point that determines if our ‘dignity’ is being compromised because of how others feel. If our dignity is being compromised by the biases and squeamishness of others, than it is society that has to be educated, and not the afflicted whom have to pay the price for society’s small-mindedness by taking their own lives.

This is not dissimilar to, say, those married couple aborting their children if it is discovered that they have, say, down syndrome. They will not be able to live ‘quality’ lives is what they say. But the truth of the matter is, in these cases, it is the fear of the disrespect and biases of society that leads them to take the knife to the unborn down-syndrome afflicted child because society - excluding ed - is too busy having overpaid twats like Oprah, models, actresses, pop stars, etc, etc, etc, as role models. So valuing the wrong thing leads society to pay less mind to the interests of the aforementioned, amongst others.

So the same thing goes for those wanting to maintain their ‘dignity’. This ‘dignity’ shit simply refers to the criteria by which we are supposed to base our self-respect on. To what degree is this criteria reasonable? To what degree is this criteria constructed by Hollywood, or the so-called ‘stars’, or ‘royalties’, or the rich, and through their mephistophelean influence, the rest of the herd of humanity eh? You could say that, to an appreciable degree, when a person chooses to ‘end it all to maintain her/is dignity’, it could be more accurately paraphrased with, ‘wanting to end it all because I can’t fulfill my illogical criteria of what deserves respect’.

I would go with what the ‘Right Reverand Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter, says,

“I want to see much more emphasis put on supporting people in living, than assisting them in dying.”

Good one. Pretty insightful for a Church of England Bishop. (ed doesn’t recognise the Church of England. It is a perversion of Christianity in its core - having an over-privileged exploitative ‘Queen’ as it’s head. You must be joking.)

As far as the actual physical suffering of the individual goes, that’s another matter - which I will discuss at a future date. We shouldn’t confound this matter with the issue of ‘dignity’-inspired euthanasia.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…