I did not say islam teaches people to be untruthful. However, it does teach them that many things are true without evidence or reason. as a result, many muslims believe that these things are self-evidenly true.

“”How about “intolerant and uninformed”, “horrendous superstitions”, “you [IndigoJo] don’t really know much”, “fine collection of religious nonsense”. Does this not imply that Indigo Jo is supposed to be ‘stupid’. It sure didn’t sound very loving to me.”

Nor are they supposed to be loving, but loving and stupid are not opposites.

“I only brought up infant euthanasia because it is practiced in at least one Western nation has , at least in the recent past, practiced it (the Netherlands), and also because quite a few of your fellow secular humanists have indeed supported infant euthanasia, on similar logical grounds as adult euthanasia”

You mean it had nothing to do with the topic. In fact, it would be perfectly possible to make a case for infant euthanasia for children with profound disabilities, especially if they will be in pain throughout their lives and to oppose adult suicide- assisted or not- on the same grounds.

“All I am saying is that among secular humanists circles (that people such as you belong to), infant euthanasia is not a fringe idea. Even if you personally disagree with them, I do not see why you need to be all bitter and defensive just because someone happened to disagree with your position on suicide. I thought people like you were all for civilized dialog? If so, stop expressing a sour temperament towards others, and don’t make personal insults about his intelligence or faith, and instead make polite, constructive criticisms (even if the other person does not reciprocate- since it is you, not them, who are claiming the intellectual high ground- being ‘rational’ and all.)” I could point out with equal relevance that among muslim circles (that people such as you belong to) killing people whose attitude to islam you do not like is not a fringe idea. I was not “bitter and defensive”; I.J. chose to make bitter and offensive remarks about people whose decision to take their lives he disagreed with. He laid himself open to replies in kind by doing so. As it is his faith that inspires him to make just such remarks then his faith is also a fair target. As for you, you tried to argue by dragging in irrelevancies and telling lies. I said nothing about claiming the intellectual high ground- being ‘rational’ and all. I merely think that it takes a certain arrogance to claim to have the right to tell others how to behave because you have the exact and final word of god.

““By the way, have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law?”

Have you ever heard of 1guy1jar?”

No, but I googled it. Another instance of your confusing irrelevance and argument.

A cogent and reasoned argument for opposing legalised assisted suicide as a principle can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/07/assisted-suicide-guidelines-mental-health

However, Clare Allan’s case relies on the assumption that even if Britain does not legalise assisted suicide other countries will, or that people will be willing to risk going to gaol for helping their friends or family to kill themselves.

Hamed : “I only brought up infant euthanasia because….” infant euthanasia is totally irrelevant to the discussion everyone else was having. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR, SO THAT, YOU, AND EVERYONE ELSE IS IN NO DOUBT - INFANT EUTHANASIA ALONG WITH ALL FORMS OF EUTHANASIA CARRIED OUT WITHOUT THE FREE CONSENT OF THE PERSON DYING IS WRONG INCLUDING ANY CASE WHERE THE PERSON DYING IS UNABLE TO CONSENT. I am forced to conclude that the only reason you brought up was to try and deflect the discussion away from the logical conclusion the original discussion was heading; namely that people should be free to make up their own mind about their own death and whatever decision they make their family and friends that help and support them should not be vilified for doing so.

Thersites : “If you want a compliment to him, I.J. does not suppress replies to his posts, no matter how damaging they are to his arguments” – I agree it does him credit.

The problem I am having is understanding why some people think that if person for whatever reason decides they wish to die why should they not be allowed to do that? No one has ever given a satisfactory answer to that question; and by satisfactory I mean, well reasoned and leaving religion and God out of it. – Perhaps Hamed and/or IndigoJo could try ?

What a bigoted assumption. As if all Muslims, let alone the Islamic faith itself, teaches people to be untruthful (when in reality, Islamic teachings forbid telling untruths, even towards non-Muslims).

“Where has anyone said I.J. is “stupid”? Has anyone said they “hate” him?”

How about “intolerant and uninformed”, “horrendous superstitions”, “you [IndigoJo] don’t really know much”, “fine collection of religious nonsense”. Does this not imply that Indigo Jo is supposed to be ‘stupid’. It sure didn’t sound very loving to me.

I only brought up infant euthanasia because it is practiced in at least one Western nation has , at least in the recent past, practiced it (the Netherlands), and also because quite a few of your fellow secular humanists have indeed supported infant euthanasia, on similar logical grounds as adult euthanasia: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smoker241.htm

To quote the article: ” Many medical practitioners are in agreement with me, of course, on this issue but they shy away from saying so in public, especially to a young audience. Understandably so, as their professional reputations could hardly survive the description “baby-killer” or “child-murderer” often leveled at me—whereas I have little to lose, so long as the hate attacks remain verbal.”

Likewise Peter Singer, perhaps the most influential philosopher in America also defends infant euthanasia on certain grounds: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993——.htm

All I am saying is that among secular humanists circles (that people such as you belong to), infant euthanasia is not a fringe idea. Even if you personally disagree with them, I do not see why you need to be all bitter and defensive just because someone happened to disagree with your position on suicide. I thought people like you were all for civilized dialog? If so, stop expressing a sour temperament towards others, and don’t make personal insults about his intelligence or faith, and instead make polite, constructive criticisms (even if the other person does not reciprocate- since it is you, not them, who are claiming the intellectual high ground- being ‘rational’ and all.)

“By the way, have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law?”

Have you ever heard of 1guy1jar?

You people (liars- you now know we are not “pro-deathers”, whatever they are, so by repeating your false claim you show yourself to be a liar) are just like the nazis. Why let respect for truth or relevance get in the way of (what you think of as) progress? This is not hyperbole but reality. You deliberately pretend that the question of the killing of severely-disabled infants has any relevance to the autonomous decision of adults that their lives are unbearable and will continue to be unbearable and that they wish to end them and you foolishly hope that other people are so stupid they won’t notice your dishonesty.

By the way, have you ever heard of Godwin’s Law?

You people (pro-deathers) are just like the Nazis. Why let respect for human life get in the way of (what you think of as) progress? This is not hyperbole but reality. After all Aktion T4 was advertised as a program to reduce human suffering and save the taxpayers’ money. We all know how that went (with over 70,000 people killed). Heck, forget the Nazis, some modern Western nations are going for infant euthanasia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10WWLN.html

http://astridvanwoerkom.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/shock-infant-euthanasia-has-been-legal-here-for-two-years/

Hamed : “They think that just because they are atheists, they are automatically smarter and more tolerant” – Who are “They” exactly ?

JDsg : “these pro-death comments” – Utter Rubbish, not a single comment here could be described that way, they are, as Thersites said, all “pro-choice”, I would go one step further and say it is about pro personal choice and responsibility.

JDsg : “One wonders what these death-eaters [pro-choice] would have told someone like Christopher Reeve after his accident left him a quadriplegic.” you don’t need to wonder, at the time of his accident he did consider suicide, and in response his wife is reported to have said to him “I will support whatever you want to do, because this is your life, and your decision” [my bold] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Reeve#Recovery) – sort of really makes my point.

While on the subject of Christopher Reeve, it is worth remembering that it was him who was one of many campaigning to reverse the Bush administration ban on (federally funding) stem cell research. A ban put in place partly for religious and/or ideological reasons. I wish that he had been successful in his efforts; I wonder how many others with spinal injuries will suffer as a result of the delay in this research.

“Yusuf… politely gave his opinion” “The depraved infertile woman…The loser Daniel James…they want to cause distress and pain to innocent people” Quite.

“Cash your chips in earlier, Chris! The next nine years of your life will mean nothing because you lost the use of your limbs. You’ll never be able to act or direct again, and there’s no point in becoming an activist. No, commit suicide now!” Well, as one of the main things that kept Reeves going was his illusory belief that a cure for a broken spinal cord would happen in his lifetime, you can hardly claim him as an example of bowing down to the will of god. If he chose to live, he had the right to do so; he did not have an obligation to do so to please other people, however.

JDsg: I was actually reading a book about Reeve on the shelves at Borders in Kingston yesterday. One of the most terrifying events after his accident was that his ventilator pipe popped off the tracheostomy port on his neck, and left him unable to breathe. He clearly didn’t want to die then, which is why he tried his best to get help (anyone could have reconnected it, but the security guard saw what had happened and went to get the nurse).

You really ought to reread before you post, I.J. Motorists, on the other hand, kill over a million people a year, most of them not motorists,