Posted on 05/09/2011 4:12:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
I'm sure the culture of death is baffled that their intended victims aren't lining up to be slaughtered.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Perhaps the disabled recognize just how easily a homicide could be masked as assisted suicide?
This is always a difficult issue for me.
I think the right to end one’s own tread upon this mortal coil is an absolute right — it 100% up the the individual and the State has no right to interfere with that decision. Anyone who says other is merely a statist demanding their personal moral code be forced upon others, limiting freedom in an almost infinite manner.
The slippery slope begins when it goes from being a personal option to an obligation (a’la eskimos mythos, Logan’s Run or Soylent Green).
So long as a human draws breath and is clear on his/her intentions, the State should stay the hell out of end-life decisions: one way or the other.
Indeed. Some people do note that things that were once illegal become permissible and then, after time, become mandatory. Voluntary assisted suicide for the disabled will rapidly become involuntary assisted suicide once some f*cking accountant with a spreadsheet finds that killing the disabled will save the National Health Service (NHS) a few quid.
Welcome to the brave new world...
Once you accept that a person has the right to decide to end their own life, you open the door to others’ deciding that the person in question is too deluded or politically incorrect to make the right decision.
Disabled are like smokers, a small minority. Their vote doesn’t count. The rest see them as easy prey for their own gain.
>>Once you accept that a person has the right to decide to end their own life, you open the door to others’ deciding that the person in question is too deluded or politically incorrect to make the right decision.<<
I don’t necessarily buy that premise, but if you follow that logic, it should end with the decision from someone who is NOT in their “right mind” to always be in favor of life.
But it is wrong for the State to unilaterally take away an individual’s decision to end his/her life (so long as it does not take others’ in the process).
But the devil is always in the details.
Once you accept that the state has the right to restrict peoples' decisions about their own lives, you open the door to others deciding whatever the heck they want about your life!
NOT A SINGLE QUESTION asked about supporting or opposing the legalization of assisted suicide, unless you know of some hidden questions that weren't released with the others.
But honesty means nothing to Life News, I know.
The poll was about concerns...and many who have concerns still support the legalization. (I'm one example.)
I bet a question that asked,
"Do you believe that disabled persons should be allowed to get assistance legally in doing anything they are unable to do themselves?" would yield a strong YES result.
Why not make people crawl up courthouse steps?
Yes..that's why there are concerns even when there's support. Anyone would be stupid or crazy not to have concerns. I have concerns about RKBA, but support it. I have concerns about people drinking and driving, but I'm not against either.
It's called sanity. Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean he's insane. But in a rational society, we address concerns. There are many concerns as the law exists, such as people making botched suicide attempts, or having to kill themselves before they become too infirm, rather than waiting and having their remaining time.
In other news unborn babies oppose abortion by overwhelming majorities.
You're exactly right, but you're gonna upset the big-government nanny-state libs here. You can tell them by the way they don't care about individuals or their rights, preferences, or decisions ...they just lump together "lives" in an abstract way and proclaim that they know better than the people themselves. Oh, and if you can't do something for yourself, then you're out of luck, as far as they're concerned.
While I recognize the "obligation because of societal pressure" idea, I'm starting to question even that. We recognize a person's free will even if he's under pressure. Societal pressure doesn't mean a person must buy an iPhone. Societal pressure doesn't mean a person can't make personal decisions.
The pro-life organizations should sponsor an annual “Dr. Harold Shipman Award”, to the biggest medical advocates of euthanasia.
Dr. Harold Shipman was a convicted English serial killer. A doctor by profession, he is among the most prolific serial killers in recorded history with 218 murders being positively ascribed to him, although the actual number is likely much higher.
Shipman died on 13 January 2004, after hanging himself in his cell at Wakefield Prison in West Yorkshire.
I’ve read that many of those “assisted” had no input into their so-called “sucide”
That’s what I just said.
I don’t think the State OR the person should have the right to end a life. Of course someone who is committed to suicide is going to do it anyway, especially if they don’t believe in God, so there is no sense legislating it unless you are trying to give the State the power to end OTHER people’s lives. We are close to agreeing except whether the person has the right to end their own life and that is, in the long run, a moot point.
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.