The main benefit in this is that someone with a hopeless disease or condition can DELAY killing himself past the point where he could do it all by himself. The assisted suicide laws actually prolong his life.
No, the main benefit is a doctor does your dirty work, with the approval of the village to validate you taking the easier way out FOR YOU, but not those you leave behind. |
|
|
|
|
Bitty User umairday
Btc Address 19FLPc1RvfbBAmWfSQ3s4ZjQXr7uH6ScLf
hope I can join thanks
|
|
|
|
I realize not everyone has what it takes to do what my friend did, and I can't honestly say I do...but I WANT to be like him, so do hundreds of folks who watched him, and yes, IMO, that is the culture I want to live in. One that values REAL courage, and REAL compassion, and REAL life, all of which I think are turned upside down in state sanctioned murder.
You are the one manipulating the meaning of words to try to advance your argument. It is not murder. It is not euthanasia. The person wanting to die is the person who does the killing in assisted suicide. The doctor or other person merely provides the pill or other means by which the person may kill himself. The main benefit in this is that someone with a hopeless disease or condition can DELAY killing himself past the point where he could do it all by himself. The assisted suicide laws actually prolong his life. Now tell me what is wrong with that. Tell me, do you really want to have a law that prevents a person who wants to die via assisted suicide from doing so? What gives you, or even the majority of voters, the right to deny him that choice? Talking about manipulating the meaning of words. You cannot inject yourself with sodium pentobarbital and if you were capable enough to take a pill or inject yourself, you could find lethal substances or other means without a doctor. |
|
|
|
|
Gallows humor, by the way. It's a serious subject but a person, if already down, could spiral into depression if it weren't leavened.
|
|
|
|
For people like me, we can have great suicides of the past, "Open your veins like Petronius Arbiter" or "stick your head in the oven like Sylvia Plath" or "Shoot yourself like Ernest Hemingway", complete with the actual setting in which it took place so you get the real sense of it all. Or, at least, your survivors do! I'd love to go out like Petronius!
Socrates for me. Had almost identical thought yesterday, and in fact wrote words below to Titan, who'd said that if legalized, procedure should be reasonably priced - but was on way somewhere, and didn't post: When and if the 'procedure' becomes normalized and commonplace I'm sure there'll be market options, from low budget "Dr. Kevorkian special" to elaborate arrangements. For those who've always fantasized a heroic or spectacular demise, the ultra wealthy could opt for the "Thelma and Louise," "Gunfight at OK Corral" or other staged setting - they'd be premedicated to blissful state prior to final glorious moments. Copy in brochures would tout these deluxe packages as ‘for those who want to go out with a bang and not a whimper’. |
|
|
|
It seems to me there is some good advice in the Ten Commandments as they are written but its clear God didn't write them. God is not "petty". That is impossible. Many of the Commandments as written make him petty. Only man is capable of that.
Why would an atheist rewrite Gods commandments? Because we are not crippled by the restrictive boundaries of belief and dogma and can therefore imagine what he must be really like....if he existed.
Hammurabi channeled god long before Moses. He got a bunch more than just ten as well. About 272 more commandments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi |
|
|
|
OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
Now, those are facts. You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.
You are wrong about 3. Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution. This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator". It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever. ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator. There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists. There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient. By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient. He didn't learn anything new. Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct? 3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God. VS Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God. No not really. Only that in the first one he would have to be lying. There is nothing in his research that provides evidence of god. By saying his research has shown him god he is either delusional or dishonest or he merely hasn't presented the evidence of god form his research yet. So he didn't in fact come to see there is a god through his research. He came to BELIEVE there is a god like many before him who cannot understand something complicated and therefore attribute it to God. Or he sees something you (for various reasons) have not.But, regardless - its a fact that he notes this. Are you saying he does not note this? He claimed, through his research, he saw there is a god. This is a lie. There is nothing in the research that says there is a god. Don't you think ICR would have asked him how he came to see there is a god? Why would he not present the evidence of god if he sees it in his research? He would have been correct to say that he feels that what he sees is too complicated to have evolved and therefore chooses to believe in a creator, (for which there is far less evidence.) For someone determined to live like an atheist, sure. Nothing, but nothing, will count as evidence for the Creator. Romans chapter 1. If I were to post ad nauseum/daily basis.... " The FSM is real! It answers my prayers! I talk to it, and it answers me! I'm going to FSM heaven because I place my total faith in it!" Would it be out-of-line for someone outside the loop to reasonably and respectfully ask, "Where the proof this FSM exists? |
|
|
|
In this country, you're innocent until proven guilty fella. I've been accused of being several people since joining. Those accusations have been checked, and dispelled.
You need to become a free thinker, and stop following the ramblings of your fellow lunatics on here.
You've never shown any interest in actually discussing a subject in any detail. If it makes you feel better I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're either a troll or incredibly insecure about the strength of your "convictions". Actually I'm brilliant. I just find it a waste of my keystrokes trying to debate any subject with entrenched Liberals. You call that trolling. I call that genius. That's a pretty basic contradiction you just posted. You find this place too much of a waste of time for you to spend time typing things, and yet you've made hundred of posts and stick around anyway. Which means you either don't value yourself at all and have fairly low self esteem, or you having nothing else worth doing in your life beside wasting your time. |
|
|
|
In this country, you're innocent until proven guilty fella. I've been accused of being several people since joining. Those accusations have been checked, and dispelled.
You need to become a free thinker, and stop following the ramblings of your fellow lunatics on here.
You've never shown any interest in actually discussing a subject in any detail. If it makes you feel better I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're either a troll or incredibly insecure about the strength of your "convictions". |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter to me which court is used to deport illegals as long as it happens. 55% of illegals hopped the border. They are criminals. As for those that entered legally and did not leave when they were supposed to - if this act was premeditated then they are criminals.
That makes it accurate to call the vast majority of illegal aliens criminals.
so the bottom line is, they dont get to enjoy the full due process afforded to criminals. However they should stopped being regarded as such. remember that for your next debate on the matter. having your opponent correct you on that could be embarrassing and make your argument sound stupid |
|
|
|
|
I realize not everyone has what it takes to do what my friend did, and I can't honestly say I do...but I WANT to be like him, so do hundreds of folks who watched him, and yes, IMO, that is the culture I want to live in. One that values REAL courage, and REAL compassion, and REAL life, all of which I think are turned upside down in state sanctioned murder.
|
|
|
|
|
For me personally, I do not judge a person like Robin Williams for what he did. He made his decision, I have no desire or need to add insult to injury to a dead man by emphasizing illegality after the fact. I feel the same in regard to someone who refused to eat or treat their disease or an infection or personally offed themselves to hasten their demise. In that sense, I support their "right" and they can work it out with their God or karma or whatever higher power there may be. I will extend compassion to these folks who in their minds feel they cannot make a different choice. But in no way will I ever embrace state sanctioned murder of the sick. I watched a dear friend die of cancer slowly and with tremendous suffering, and he did with such courage, unfailing good humor and selflessness, and gratitude for every minute and every person in his life, it was so powerful and humbling and inspirational, I dare anyone to argue that is not the epitome of what dying with dignity really looks like. Dying, and dying is a messy way, is part of life and it has a value even if it is painful and hard which I think in the long run and larger picture will not benefit the larger community to sanitize.
|
|
|
|
"Suicide tourism" is a very wrong name of the whole concept.
If you haven't seen with your eyes what a cancer disease can do, than maybe that's the right term. These people are in immense physical pain, so choosing to die with dignity is the best someone can let them do, since they have already lost control over their bodies and obviously - the battle with cancer.
If I was dying of a painful disease, like cancer, I would ask for whatever got rid of the pain and take in as much as I needed, whether it killed me or not. I don't want to be in pain at the end of my life. I want to die in bliss. Second, once you start embracing the euphemistic view and make it easier, more people are going to do it (see the OP...doubled since 2009). In fact, it will eventually become the default option when coupled with your options being limited by government healthcare rationing or exorbitant costs of private care. But just like abortion, the decision to snuff a life is final, and it will leave people behind with emotional damage having done something which goes against nature (as in killing your baby or loved one is NOT natural). It would be IMPOSSIBLE to prevent abuse as it is subjective, and more broad the criteria which WILL happen once this "right" is codified, the more abuse there will be. It will infect the culture with less appreciation for life, in particular lives that contain struggles for some unknown period of time. We are already a culture who has a VERY simplistic and misguided view of suffering that equates to "all suffering = bad" with each pampered protected generation with less developed character and more dependent and less self reliant than the previous. |
|
|
|
|
Most major religions and large denoms of our majority Christian population support their respective version of the sanctity of life, the exceptions are those which are heavily based or influenced by humanist tenets. It doesn't always follow that what the individual or majority of religions believe is immoral should be reflected in law....I don't ascribe to that view because there are lots of things which the government has no compelling interest to prevent heathens from doing if they are only harming themselves or other consenting adults. If someone wants to kill themselves, I wouldn't stand on "moral principle" to make that illegal per se because once they are dead, what in the world can you do to them that would matter? But the problem with suicide is that if it is not made illegal, then you have no authority to try to stop someone in process and get them help. Furthermore, assisted suicide (another euphemism) is not just the person offing themselves, it is the sanctioning of a government authorized doctor to kill you with your permission. So setting aside the morality, how do we logically reconcile that we need to keep suicide illegal so we can intervene to stop someone who wants to do it themselves with making suicide legal as long as it is someone else killing you after you beg for permission from Big Brother? That is about the screwiest justification of a "personal right" there is, not to mention compassion.
|
|
|
|
"Suicide tourism" is a very wrong name of the whole concept.
If you haven't seen with your eyes what a cancer disease can do, than maybe that's the right term. These people are in immense physical pain, so choosing to die with dignity is the best someone can let them do, since they have already lost control over their bodies and obviously - the battle with cancer.
There is a popular novel on this topic called "Me Before You" which as fiction goes, does a fairly good job at portraying both sides of this issue through one man's personal quest to off himself in Switzerland. As for the argument for "assisted suicide", calling it that is the first step down the slippery slope with all respect to the two gents who just said it. The slippery slope always starts with appealing euphemisms...after all, who doesn't want women to have choice? Who wouldn't want folks to be treated equally? Who doesn't want to die with dignity? Try calling it what is really is..."state sanctioned murder of an innocent helpless sick person"....and see how much traction that will get advocates. |
|
|
|
|
if you are caught in the process of crossing the border, yes, a criminal charge may be filed against you for that act.
when the illegal immigrants fail to appear in court to deport them, it is for being in the US without documents. and it's a civil matter.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll give MHO credit for not dumping water on his head. He has found plenty of other ways to disgrace the office of President of the United States but this time, doing a stupid internet stunt wasn't one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted that it was a good campaign. It has raised considerable money and exposed a lot of people to ALS who may not otherwise known about it. It's pretty hard to argue against its success via both money and awareness which was the ultimate goal.
|
|
|
|
|
I still think his biggest weakness is his inability to use the office's power of persuasion/bully pulpit. He has never really managed to build relationships on the hill. Even Bush jr and Carter were able to do that. I think that partly exaggerates for me any inconsistencies.
And for the record, no matter the rhetoric from the congress, I squarely blame the president for that lack. That's his job, in my opinion. Bush got over being called a loser by Harry Reid. Partisan hackery in congress is always there. The president should be able to find ways around it.
|
|
|
|
|
As far as making a decision and moving on, there would be no purpose in my doing that. I was describing why I wasn't really suited to long posts at this point. I can't make any decisions on the actual subject because I don't have the information to make it. So I remain skeptical. There are only a few people here I pay much attention to here to try and gain perspective. Both you and Sana are amongst those people, as I've received good info from both of you. There are others as well, but only a few. And these are the only reason I still post here at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
