The point is, we don't know if they want to live to fight another day, or if they would rather die now. We also don't know if they believe having someone administer their death for them to be maintaining dignity. People may be suffering, but we don't know if they feel despair. What if they feel hope? What if they have dreams and plans? If everyone laid down to die, people would die within days/weeks and we would not have this problem. The fact is that people are living and starving, they are not just kids they are adults too, which means they have been suffering for some time and are finding some means to keep living from day to day somehow. They still have families, cultures, values, maybe a god (or thought of afterlife), everything that makes up human life. I believe when it comes to the time of death, they find their own dignity someway, perhaps in the arms of their loved ones.

You are quoting something I never said. I would also appreciate if you didn't insert assumptions about me, as you have said to me.

Ok I don't seek to name call and I certainly didn't make statements about you individually, thanks.

Should we kill them? It depends. Do they want to die? If these people agree and want to die for the same reasons people agreeing to kill them have, and we are able to carry out this wish then sure. Why not? It would be a win-win. This is the same answer to the humane question. Now, is it humane to decide the fate of these people for them, to go down there and kill them all humanely because WE think it's best for them? No. Do I need to explain this one?

I don't need to the know the exact costs to know it is not cost effective, it is just logic. Will it cost our money to kill these people? Yes. Room and board, salary (maybe not if you have volunteers), transportation, etc. Ok now, what much will it cost us to not go ahead and devise a plan to kill these people? Nothing. But I can ask you now, how do you think cost relates to this topic? If you think it's cost effective to do so, why do you think so?

I want to also touch on the topic of is it more humane to let these people continue living or to do something about it. What did you think of what I said that if they wanted to die, they wouldn't need our help to do so?

The fact is we are all dying, continuously at any moment every day. Yes, starving makes you die faster, and in a painful way. Now can I ask what is the moral basis of killing starving people? Is it aiming to end suffering? If so, I just wanted to point out that people are suffering all over the place for different reason, so I want to ask should we end these peoples sufferings for the same reason? If this isn't the reason then why, what is the basis? I'm not aiming to disrespect. I can respect your position if you believe this method is for the greater good.

Final question, if this were to take place, how can we decide what is this "humane" method to end these people's lives? What is the ideal most humane method to end these lives in your opinion? For this method to be viable it should be cost effective, do you agree?

How exactly is this is COST EFFECTIVE viable means to ending starvation in developing countries? What kind of question is this?

In terms of cost:

1. we continue to do what we are doing now

or 2. we spend money to send people to these poor countries and forcibly administer whatever "humane" killing method is it TO EVERYONE who we deem are suffering and starving, which by the way, costs a lot of money and time.

So no, this is not a solution to anything cost related. It would actually be extremely expensive. It may be a solution to your own moral integrity for some reason, since apparently it will give you peace of mind and you will sleep better knowing there is "no more" starving people in the world. By the way, there are starving people in USA, there are starving people in developed countries, and there are suffering people EVERYWHERE in the world. It would be so inhumane to let these people live right? What's next down the slippery slope? Lets kill everyone who is sad and have depression and anxiety, because they obviously are suffering. Internal suffering hurts the same amount if not more than physical suffering. It would be SO inhumane to let these SAD people live another day- in the name of justice!

One question is how do they feel about it? Do they WANT people from another country to just drive by and "humanely" kill them on the spot so that THOSE people don't have to watch THEM suffer and die? Exactly how is it humane to decide the ending of lives for these people? The only reason people would want to go there to lay these people down "humanely" is so they wouldn't have to deal with the presence of people suffering, because it's an moral eyesore and headache. Because they don't want to keep "feeling bad" for those poor people starving. If these people are suffering so much that they would rather die they would just go ahead and suicide, they don't need your help.

This is reality. Yes it is sad that they are starving. If you can't help these people then you simply can't help them, deal with it. If their situation distresses you so much that you would vote to kill them all "humanely" (which is what by the way? morphine overdose?), don't dress it up like it's a humanitarian act.