The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Do you believe that euthanasia should be made legal in Britain?
People believe that it is technically murder to have a Doctor kill you. But then animals have the right to die if they are in pain, why not humans?
People believe that it is technically murder to have a Doctor kill you. But then animals have the right to die if they are in pain, why not humans?
Page:
Displayed wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> You dont say, have you ever see it, jesus christ!
> no i have never seen it but i have heard stories.
Have you ever seen Alien, it's worse than that.
> Flock wrote:
> You dont say, have you ever see it, jesus christ!
> no i have never seen it but i have heard stories.
Have you ever seen Alien, it's worse than that.
Flock wrote:
> Displayed wrote:
> you get money from the government
>
> Not enough
>
> you may suffer more psychological damage knowing you killed your
> baby.
>
> It's not quite "What you never had, you never miss" but
> it's close.
People would suffer more mentally knowing they have killed.
> Child birth is probably very painful though, but there are drugs to
> help you with that.
>
> You dont say, have you ever see it, jesus christ!
no i have never seen it but i have heard stories.
> Displayed wrote:
> you get money from the government
>
> Not enough
>
> you may suffer more psychological damage knowing you killed your
> baby.
>
> It's not quite "What you never had, you never miss" but
> it's close.
People would suffer more mentally knowing they have killed.
> Child birth is probably very painful though, but there are drugs to
> help you with that.
>
> You dont say, have you ever see it, jesus christ!
no i have never seen it but i have heard stories.
Displayed wrote:
> you get money from the government
Not enough
> you may suffer more psychological damage knowing you killed your baby.
It's not quite "What you never had, you never miss" but it's close.
> Child birth is probably very painful though, but there are drugs to help you with that.
You dont say, have you ever see it, jesus christ!
> and you may turn out to love the baby and keep it, or a couple who can not have children could have it and you will then know that you have in effect "saved a life" and made a couple very very happy.
Or you may not but would be forced to keep it anyway. The adoption idea is damage limitation for those who couldn't go through an abortion.
> you get money from the government
Not enough
> you may suffer more psychological damage knowing you killed your baby.
It's not quite "What you never had, you never miss" but it's close.
> Child birth is probably very painful though, but there are drugs to help you with that.
You dont say, have you ever see it, jesus christ!
> and you may turn out to love the baby and keep it, or a couple who can not have children could have it and you will then know that you have in effect "saved a life" and made a couple very very happy.
Or you may not but would be forced to keep it anyway. The adoption idea is damage limitation for those who couldn't go through an abortion.
Sigh. It was a joke.
Stryke wrote:
> Besides, if euthanasia was legal, Steph wouldn't be having all this
> trouble on Neighbours.
1. This is not Soap Land
2. Isnt Neighours set in Australia?
> Besides, if euthanasia was legal, Steph wouldn't be having all this
> trouble on Neighbours.
1. This is not Soap Land
2. Isnt Neighours set in Australia?
It's just another case of religion conflicting with the realities of life. People shouldn't have to suffer if they don't want to. Someone who's dying of cancer and can't face another day of life - surely it's his right to decide when to go. A teenage girl who is terrified of what her parents or boyfriend might do if they find out she's pregnant - surely it's worse for her to be forced to keep the baby when we have the technology to make it all go away.
Besides, if euthanasia was legal, Steph wouldn't be having all this trouble on Neighbours.
Besides, if euthanasia was legal, Steph wouldn't be having all this trouble on Neighbours.
Flock wrote:
> Displayed wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> I think for whatever reason up to 12 weeks, you can't force someone
> to have a baby againts their will, that's assault. I'm not saying
> it's nice or you have to like it but it is the lesser of two evils.
>
> you do not have to keep the child as simple as.
>
> Oh yeah simple, 9 months, unknown costs, labour and then you've got
> to give it up providing you can, then go through all the
> psychological stuff that you've given up your child, yeah thats
> simple.
you get money from the government, you may suffer more psychological damage knowing you killed your baby. Child birth is probably very painful though, but there are drugs to help you with that, and you may turn out to love the baby and keep it, or a couple who can not have children could have it and you will then know that you have in effect "saved a life" and made a couple very very happy.
> Displayed wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> I think for whatever reason up to 12 weeks, you can't force someone
> to have a baby againts their will, that's assault. I'm not saying
> it's nice or you have to like it but it is the lesser of two evils.
>
> you do not have to keep the child as simple as.
>
> Oh yeah simple, 9 months, unknown costs, labour and then you've got
> to give it up providing you can, then go through all the
> psychological stuff that you've given up your child, yeah thats
> simple.
you get money from the government, you may suffer more psychological damage knowing you killed your baby. Child birth is probably very painful though, but there are drugs to help you with that, and you may turn out to love the baby and keep it, or a couple who can not have children could have it and you will then know that you have in effect "saved a life" and made a couple very very happy.
Displayed wrote:
> Flock wrote:
> I think for whatever reason up to 12 weeks, you can't force someone
> to have a baby againts their will, that's assault. I'm not saying
> it's nice or you have to like it but it is the lesser of two evils.
>
> you do not have to keep the child as simple as.
Oh yeah simple, 9 months, unknown costs, labour and then you've got to give it up providing you can, then go through all the psychological stuff that you've given up your child, yeah thats simple.
> Flock wrote:
> I think for whatever reason up to 12 weeks, you can't force someone
> to have a baby againts their will, that's assault. I'm not saying
> it's nice or you have to like it but it is the lesser of two evils.
>
> you do not have to keep the child as simple as.
Oh yeah simple, 9 months, unknown costs, labour and then you've got to give it up providing you can, then go through all the psychological stuff that you've given up your child, yeah thats simple.
Flock wrote:
> I think for whatever reason up to 12 weeks, you can't force someone
> to have a baby againts their will, that's assault. I'm not saying
> it's nice or you have to like it but it is the lesser of two evils.
you do not have to keep the child as simple as.
> I think for whatever reason up to 12 weeks, you can't force someone
> to have a baby againts their will, that's assault. I'm not saying
> it's nice or you have to like it but it is the lesser of two evils.
you do not have to keep the child as simple as.
Domaye wrote:
> you can do it in erm sweden i think, but you have to drink the lethal
> mixture yourself or t counts as murder.
> I personally cba to go through all the points ive doon before on this
> subject (in class).
> Sorry :(
Switzerland i believe unless Sweden has introduced it as well.
> you can do it in erm sweden i think, but you have to drink the lethal
> mixture yourself or t counts as murder.
> I personally cba to go through all the points ive doon before on this
> subject (in class).
> Sorry :(
Switzerland i believe unless Sweden has introduced it as well.
Page: