Poll: Quick Death: A luxury?

[zehydra]

I certainly feel that the right thing to do is to kill it if the death is inevitable and you'll be able to shorten it, but I just don't think I'd be able to kill a helpless animal like that.

death is always inevitable, no?

What bugs me is when people have the arrogance to assume that the best thing they can do to something is kill it, when it's obviously the worst thing that can be done to it.

There is nothing humane about ending a life at all.

Look at Sober Thal's post, where he mangled a baby bunny's legs with his lawn mower but instead of letting it slowly bleed to death or get eaten by a predator he ended its life in a second nearly painlessly. If something is certainly going to die soon and you can end its life with much less pain involved I think it's certainly a kind thing to do to kill it. I know if I was going to die horribly painfully and slowly in an hour I'd choose to have someone kill me painlessly now.

But why? (this is with the presumption of no afterlife, mind you) There is nothing to be gained, so why die early?

 

[Zakarath]

Depends. If something is already clearly mortally wounded and dying, then yes, I'll put it out of its misery. On the other hand, if its not already dying, just has a low/null survival chance (as in the original post), I'll leave it to whatever end finds it. No need to deprive a fellow predator of a kill just to save save some creature a little suffering.

 

[crop52]

Try to save it.
I honestly don't see any situation where if you had these choices, you would pick the easy way out. Killing is killing no matter the justification.

Say a close family member of yours has cancer. Choices:
a) Kill him/her
b) Send him/her into chemo even though you know its going to effing suck and he's gonna die.
c) Not do anything...

That is a shitty analogy. Here's a better one.

Say a rabbit is laying in the forest with it's intestines laying out on the floor. This is not a multiple choice question.

This is a better analogy because you have to figure something out on the spot. The rabbit is in unspeakable pain, much more pain than a person with cancer. You also can't ask the rabbit if it would like you to end it's suffering or not.

 

[Mid-Boss]

I certainly feel that the right thing to do is to kill it if the death is inevitable and you'll be able to shorten it, but I just don't think I'd be able to kill a helpless animal like that.

death is always inevitable, no?

What bugs me is when people have the arrogance to assume that the best thing they can do to something is kill it, when it's obviously the worst thing that can be done to it.

There is nothing humane about ending a life at all.

Look at Sober Thal's post, where he mangled a baby bunny's legs with his lawn mower but instead of letting it slowly bleed to death or get eaten by a predator he ended its life in a second nearly painlessly. If something is certainly going to die soon and you can end its life with much less pain involved I think it's certainly a kind thing to do to kill it. I know if I was going to die horribly painfully and slowly in an hour I'd choose to have someone kill me painlessly now.

But why? (this is with the presumption of no afterlife, mind you) There is nothing to be gained, so why die early?

Ok, so, you're dieing from cancer. It burns, you're bed bound, hooked up to machines. You're life is just different shades of pain. You wouldn't want it to end?

I work under the assumption that not existing at all is better than existing in agony.

 

[Kataskopo]

Wait, why couldn't you put it back, because fallen bird can totally get back to their nests:
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/babybird.asp

But yeah, I think that a swift blow is better than dying slowly.

 

[zehydra]

I certainly feel that the right thing to do is to kill it if the death is inevitable and you'll be able to shorten it, but I just don't think I'd be able to kill a helpless animal like that.

death is always inevitable, no?

What bugs me is when people have the arrogance to assume that the best thing they can do to something is kill it, when it's obviously the worst thing that can be done to it.

There is nothing humane about ending a life at all.

Look at Sober Thal's post, where he mangled a baby bunny's legs with his lawn mower but instead of letting it slowly bleed to death or get eaten by a predator he ended its life in a second nearly painlessly. If something is certainly going to die soon and you can end its life with much less pain involved I think it's certainly a kind thing to do to kill it. I know if I was going to die horribly painfully and slowly in an hour I'd choose to have someone kill me painlessly now.

But why? (this is with the presumption of no afterlife, mind you) There is nothing to be gained, so why die early?

Ok, so, you're dieing from cancer. It burns, you're bed bound, hooked up to machines. You're life is just different shades of pain. You wouldn't want it to end?

I work under the assumption that not existing at all is better than existing in agony.

it is that assumption that I disagree with. If your assumption were valid then yes, your position would make sense.

 

[godofallu]

I voted before reading, something which I almost never do and i'm ashamed I did.

In your case if I were around to have seen you stomping on the baby bird I probably would have thought WTF. Upon further reflection I would have quickly forgiven you, but i still don't think it was the correct choice. Merely an acceptable choice.

I would have simply walked away. Now if the baby bird had its guts dragging out its belly I might better understand. But since it was alive and well, and you could have simply taken it into the nest or cared for it yourself I don't think it was the "correct" choice. Just acceptable.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Something? Easily. I've had to do it to a few dogs. You can see the pain in their eyes and death is peace. Someone? Many shades more difficult. If death is imminent and the pain is massive, I can't blame someone for wanting to die. That is their choice, and as I don't believe, their body and life are theirs. If they want to end their excruciating pain that will last until their rapidly approaching death, it's their choice. That being said, you don't do it if they don't want to die. That's just you giving into your weakness of not wanting to watch them suffer.

Someone said nothing is gained by dying earlier. What is gained from a month in agony?

 

[Slipped Mind]

I picked yes. Mostly because if I were in horrific pain and I was going to die anyway, I'd much rather someone put me out of my misery than leave me and say "it's none of my business!"

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

For things I know that have a personality, humans, cats, dogs, a quick death is a good death. For things I don't know if they have personality birds, fish, bugs I don't care let nature take its course.

woah birds have a personality have you ever had one as a pet
OT: I can't kill domesicated animals I just can't I know its humane but I can't (funny thing is my favourite food happens to be lamb and steak)
Also I take offence when people hate cats for being preadtors to birds its a way of life
heres a simple food chain
worms -------> birds ---------> Cats--------->wolves(not dogs)

Oh no. No no no. I don't care if cats kill and eat things. What I care about is that they often PLAY with their prey rather than outright killing it. My mother in law has a cat because she lives out in the country beside a grape orchard. She needs something to kill all the mice or she'd constantly be infested by them. But at the same time she HATES her cat because it will sneak in half dead birds, mice, baby rabbits and bat them around on her floor like cat toys.

I've seen a lot of cats do this.

That's because in cats, the urge to hunt and the urge to eat are separate. They play with their catch so they can continue hunting it until the urge goes away. It's simple instinct.

 

[Feralcentaur]

I'm going to be honest, I'm the kind of sick bastard that takes a little bit of satisfaction and pride from killing something quickly.
All pests get a personal execution. (I'm considering getting a miniature guillotine or executioners axe)

Although in your case you probably could've given it to a pet store or Animal shelter and they would've accepted it.

If I had a friend or family member who was slowly dying from a disease or wound I would ask their permission to kill them and if they answered no I wouldn't do it, but if they were so injured they couldn't even respond I would kill them. If it was someone I didn't know... same answer.

 

[Saelune]

I dont disagree with the logic...but I do think the ways soem of you did it...sounds aweful and if I was there and saw it would be mortified.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I never understood how someone says anyting that involves killing another individual is "humane".

OT: no. I'll let thems uffer, mainly cause its not my place to decide when they die, and I dont know if they'd want to. I'd certainly know that if it were a friend, they wouldnt get the quick death, just like they make sure I wouldnt either. We're strong beleivers in faith and luck, so even if it means going through agonizing torture, the hope a cure could be found before we die, or just the character building it would do is enough to make us want the pain.

 

[Mechanix]

I have to agree that what you did was the right thing. If a living thing has nothing in it's future but pain and misery until it dies, than yes, killing it is the right thing to do in my eyes. But I don't think I could have killed the bird anyway, I just don't have the heart.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Oh no. No no no. I don't care if cats kill and eat things. What I care about is that they often PLAY with their prey rather than outright killing it.

Adrenaline is bitter.

238U.