Ummm... fact check please? And I quote Ron Paul: “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

You don't usually strike me as dumb, so I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

This is exactly the point of the video. You presume that because he is "pro-liberty," he supports liberty in the same areas you do. The fact is, it is impossible to support liberty universally. The gold standard is government price fixing. Deregulation of financial markets strips me of my freedom to operate in transparent markets. The defunding or privatization of infrastructure, well, that couldn't possibly impede my freedoms at all could it?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^chtierna:
He does not believe in evolution. Doesn't that cast even the slightest shadow on his thought processes? Wouldn't the way he reasons and reaches conclusions affect the decisions he makes as president?

He is against abortion but pro-choice. How? He views freedom above his personal preferences... that's how wise men do it...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'love, euthanasia, aging, cancer, mesothelioma, suicide, nembutal' to 'love, euthanasia, aging, cancer, mesothelioma, suicide, nembutal, pentobarbital' - edited by xxovercastxx

Very sad, very sad. But glad that they got to choose the way that they finished their time on earth.

I was just thinking that it's a fine line between supporting euthanasia and suicide at other times. I am hugely against suicide in those that are healthy (of body), in that you can't help but thinking that while they think that right at that moment it can't get better, and it's not worth going on, that maybe if they had spoken to the right people or experienced the right happen-stance that they might have had a turn around and started valuing and enjoying life.

You can say that it's a clear cut distinction, that you support those that are terminally ill and have no chance of recovery, but then where does that leave you with Iris, who was not?

It's very tricky, and I don't know whether there are hard and fast rules. Perhaps a 'rule' is that if you have the support of your family and friends then it is euthanasia, but if you're hiding the decision or they are desperately trying to stop you, then it's suicide... except that too is simplistic as maybe your family is just against any suicide on religious grounds or the like, not matter how much pain you're in.

So, yeah, very tricky... and it gives me chills to think of wilfully drinking something you know will end your life. But I can definitely see how it can give you strength and solace when you're terminally ill that you have the means to stop it once you can't take it any more.

Euthanasia to deal with overpopulation would probably look more like this:

Tags for this video have been changed from 'art, euthanasia, roller coaster' to 'art, euthanasia, roller coaster, extreme, g force' - edited by MrFisk

This is muddle-headed bullshit by Ana Kasparian pretending to think about "serious issues" and trumpeting her E-Z Pik Progressive Opinion: that she's outraged by the awfulness of the War on Drugs only because blacks are getting arrested too much (and that she doesn't think taking drugs is a crime). Look how puffed up she gets, pausing for effect after repeating the statistic about more blacks in U.S. prisons today than there were slaves in (just to pick a date) 1850.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Anyone who watches the Young Turks when Ana is talking knows she is judgmental as hell. She normally advocates the harshest prison sentences, likes the work of Child Protective Services and wouldn't promote anything she didn't truly believe in — not even for (really) "a billion dollars." So you can believe her when she tells you Kim Kardashian's thighs are fat!

Cenk is clearer that the WoSD is the true problem and that poverty — not race — is the salient factor in who *does time* (as opposed to whatever Ana is officially pissed-off about) — that the results are cruel for everyone. I thought that might be why he tells the story of a (presumably white) Montana dude facing life for passing a bong in his car, except he makes a point of agreeing that the guy did do something wrong.

Ana rounds out her simulacrum of thought-provoking opinion by noting the injustice of blacks getting arrested for drug crimes even though violent crime statistics have been trending downward in urban areas. Sounds heavy. Dunno why exactly ...

Still, two and a half million people in cages across the USA rejoice to hear their story is finally being told and eagerly await Ana's future Social Studies Presentations. Upcoming Topics will include: "What is the Proper Speed Limit on the Interstate?", "Is Capital Punishment Bad?", and "Euthanasia, School Uniforms, Gun Control and Test Tube Babies: What I think for less than $ 1 billion"

There's obviously a lot of arguments in the controversy, but basically what yogi said. There is a point or really a sliding scale, where a fetus becomes a person. Hell, you might even argue that a living baby under a certain age wasn't really a person yet, except in the minds of the rest of us, but that's taking it to an obvious extreme.

Aborting a fetus is not murdering a baby. Swatting a fly is not murder either.

You can also argue that it's gonna happen so we should make it easier (although it's still not easy, obviously) and more humane for the mother. She is the one making a hard choice. I would argue the same about euthanasia - if you really, really want to kill yourself and are of sound mind, then you shouldn't have to jump in front of a train or something similarly grizzly, a drug that makes you sleep and expire is far more humane for the one who wants to die.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Humane .... Are you fucking kidding?
Murdering helpless babies is Humane? Humane is manning up and take responsibility for you actions.
>> ^gwiz665:
Don't they really, really miss the mark with this ad? I mean, if you take away the planned parenthood, then we'll go back to the dark ages of coat hangers - much more like a blender, compared to a more "humane" approach.


It's a Fetus...there's a nice big line drawn by Your God that defines the difference between a Fetus and a Baby...it's called Birth. Before birth you can have an abortion and that's not killing a baby because it fucking ain't one.

ummm, real, and I am sure the cow lived HOURS past this event, not days. Infection or euthanasia kicked in quickly I am sure.

@jonny: "Following that logic to its conclusion, any living thing without a well developed hominid brain would be subject to euthanasia, wouldn't it?"

-I understand your points, but this is my take on the neural angle: Animals have feelings and volition, which wouldn't be how we describe anencephalic babies. When a mouse is hungry it cries. When an anencephalic baby needs food it does nothing because it cannot experience hunger or generate actions.

-This is my take on the economics angle: If it cost $10,000 per year to keep alive every mouse in the world, yes, we would feel that money was better spent elsewhere. We could invest it in scientific research to make sure anencephaly never happens again, or invest it in humanitarian organizations that can save a human life for around $1000, through things like fighting malaria or developing better access to clean water.

>> ^chilaxe:

Yeah, how we respond to the video probably depends on our temperament and assumptions.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I wouldn't have expected folks here to be so quick to dismiss life as worthless because it doesn't rise to their predefined notion of consciousness -- that notion apparently being based on a well developed cerebrum. I find that notion odd considering how very little is understood about the human brain and consciousness. Following that logic to its conclusion, any living thing without a well developed hominid brain would be subject to euthanasia, wouldn't it?

> ENTHUSIASM !

I read that as

EUTHANASIA!

>> ^wolfiends:

it said cbs goddamn sports. maybe it was a segue-way for the march madness coverage on said affiliated networks? or maybe you should go buy another copy of catcher in the rye.


Segue is pronounced "seg-way" and doesn't require a redundant phonetic "way" added to the end.

And I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with the http://www.letsmove.gov/ campaign and little to do with March Madness, but I don't claim to have the ability to persuade the myopic majority who cling blindly to partisan flag waving.

It's getting to where you can't ask a fucking question about Obama without his automaton army getting defensive and attacking you. Jesus Christ. Calm down, I don't give a shit what he's promoting. He could be there to promote euthanasia of fat people and I wouldn't give a goddamn.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dog, shelter, euthanasia, rescue, hug, cute overload' to 'dog, shelter, euthanasia, rescue, hug, cute overload, edie' - edited by silvercord

I have very mixed feelings about it.

First of all, I do not intend to criticize the OP(s) for being "members" of alcor.

It is a VERY cool idea and I would do it in a HEARTBEAT if I was a bit more confident in their science.

The way I understand it is that yes, there are organisms that can survive being frozen and then reanimated in either simple or complex ways. That said, I do not believe that human beings are built to make this probable.

The questions are ones of time, money, and science. Science right now CANNOT do this. The methods by which Alcor (and the other place) are "preserving" bodies has not been proven to encourage a non-existent procedure of reanimation.

This technology will not be available for a LONG time, if ever. I don't believe it is impossible, but I believe it is the sort of thing which would come FAR in advance of where our medical science is now. I believe that the science involved would have to not only have to unfreeze but reverse certain aspects of decomposition that happen WAY too fast for this to be possible. Unless you are being frozen almost instantly while still alive, which I do not believe is legal since it would be tantamount to euthanasia. So in my mind, we are talking about advanced techniques of cell manipulation and reconstruction which don't remotely exist. This brings me to

Will Alcor still exist in 300-1000 years? What provisions are being made for this?

I hate to say it, but I think the partial answer lies in Alcor's profits. I doubt they would ever release their financial statements, but you can probably tell a LOT by what their financial situation is.

If Alcor is actually legit, and not just to separate the future-minded person with expendable income from their money, they won't exist for long. The money involved in keeping these bodies in suspended animation for hundreds of years will not allow them to stay in business forever and eventually the plug will be pulled on these tubes and that will be that.

That's the best case scenario.

The worse case scenario is that this is a scam. They probably know damned well that they are banking on solutions that don't (and probably won't) exist in their own lifetimes. Therefore they charge money to people who like the idea, enjoy their Ferraris and dump the bodies in about 50 years when there are no living relatives so the inheritors of Alcor can continue the business. Another clue: their staff is volunteer based with little to no medical background... yeah.

I know I'm being a bit pessimistic, but it is very much akin to UFOs... there are lots of people that believe in UFOs and there are lots of people who make product for those who believe in UFOs. Some of them also believe in UFOs, but I suspect a vast majority see a market that is booming and money to be made. Whenever someone is trying to sell you something, you know that they know it is bullshit.

It is like all the 2012 hysteria. Why am I seeing commercials for SUVs and McDonald's tie-ins for a movie about the end of the world? Why do we have major corporations sponsoring shows on the Discovery channel "analyzing" the Mayan predictions about the last few years we have left? Money... it's always about selling me something.

But seriously, I really don't mean to be a debbie downer about this, but it is just a flash in the pan. I just really hope that you aren't spending money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Finally, I REALLY question the idea of preserving just the head. All I can think of is this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oL7XP0ROvk

Skip to 2:12

Hopefully by the time I'm old and suffering from dementia they'll be a euthanasia by black hole option.