Posted on 12/08/2008 4:07:05 PM PST by wagglebee
Murder is the forceful taking of another’s life. Forceful. Without consent. See the difference?
Make up your mind. Decide what you believe, then argue your point. Stop changing your mind every few seconds.
I’m not changing my mind, I’m providing caveats so you can better understand my position. I was under the impression that we were having a civil discussion. No need to get snippy.
Moreover, I was asking for your position to better understand where you’re coming from.
You’re unwilling to accept long standing definitions of murder, but you can’t make up your mind what your opinion is about what constitutes murder. Yet you still wish to argue about it, without being about to decide what you believe.
I’ve been here long enough to demonstrate my position. If you haven’t been here long enough to notice, you can always use a search engine to review my posts.
I thought my position was pretty well-defined. It’s murder if it’s non-consensual taking of another’s life when not at war. Sorry if that’s not clear enough.
And what gives any one person the right to put another in that position? If someone wants to be dead badly enough they can eat D-CON. They have no right to expect somebody else to do their own dirty work.
This isn’t about what you should “expect”, this is about what should be allowed. I’m not in favor of forcing anyone into any position. If the person you ask says no, you’ll have to find someone else or do it yourself. It’s simple, really.
What difference does it make if it’s “allowed”? Commit suicide and it’s done with.
Why should assisted suicide be any different? What about the act of assistance changes the parameters of the argument?
They've been killing off expensive-to-care-for people in Holland for several years, now, without anyone's consent except for the bureaucraucrats and doctors involved. Once the state pays for your care (and that's coming, isn't it), and you get more expensive than they like, you will be disposed of through some form of "assistance". We have to expect both eventualities together because they surely will come together in time. What a horror!
It involves somebody other than person who wants to die. Why is that necessary?
ping
Thanks, Glacier Honey (interesting name!) - wagglebee got it pinged out.
Feel free to alert me or wagglebee to any relevant articles.
Britain likes euthanasia. It’s Scotland that doesn’t.
You would certainly have fit in just fine in German from the 30s on.
People are totally free, right now, to off themselves any time they want.
The medical profession and the government should not be in the business of killing people; other than the gov executing evil doers that deserve it.
What you want is a nanny government that acts as you desire, regardless of how many other people do not want that path. Basically, you want to be lord of others and force your will upon them. Faux libertarianism at it’s “best”.
Or you could find some wilds and make your own little tribe and be master of the tribe.
Yes indeed, Hitler was not an actual atheist. He was a monist and actually thought he was god. Search “Hitler’s Library” - a thread from a few years ago, used to have a copy on my desktop but no more.
Basically he was a sort of nihilist/monist/I am godist.
Necessary has nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.