Euthanasia

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
To blatantly disregard an innocent human life because they are 'in the way', well, that don't sit well with me. I can take it, but I won't be happy with it. But the majority of conservatives, religious or not, don't sit well with it either, just as most democrats don't.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is not a profound moral outrage.

[ QUOTE ]
I can take it

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]


That seems pretty flippant. Self-defense may be a valid excuse for killing mass numbers of innocent people, but only if your life is in direct danger...i.e. if a full scale invasion with the hopes of subjugation is imminent. Otherwise we'd be bombing in large metropolitan areas or conscripting young men into fatal danger like every other decade [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I could be considered a Christian Libertarian according to your view, but I like to defend laws saying it is illegal, not that it is a person's right to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a dangerous way to view laws and rights...

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous? Im just supporting what is in place. Unless it was badly worded the first time.....

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous? Im just supporting what is in place. Unless it was badly worded the first time.....

[/ QUOTE ]


BCPVP is saying that there is absoltely no difference in principle between outlawing gambling and euthanasia. If the majority has the right to outlaw one immoral yet non-violent action then it has the right to outlaw them all.

btw, yes i know that suicide is violence towards oneself but I can't think of a word that means violence directed towards other people who aren't participating in and who don't condone what is being done.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous?

[/ QUOTE ]
Defending a law because it is illegal is a circular argument. It's against the law and therefore it's illegal and it's illegal because it's against the law.

I have the right to worship whatever God I wish. Your wording would have you defending a law that said I couldn't because it was illegal. That's a dangerous point of view because it basically means we have no rights, only laws telling us what we may or may not do that are justified because they're laws.

[ QUOTE ]
a word that means violence directed towards other people who aren't participating in and who don't condone what is being done.


[/ QUOTE ]

Violence directed at people (who are not involved nor condone what is going on). Murder? And I was under the impression that assistes suicide was not banned simply for "moral" pretenses. Gov't feared it would grow out of control, etc. Is this totally wrong?

And the similarites between poker and euthanasia are not even close. Poker is not as morally reprehensible as the taking (willing or not) as a human life. Yet the government has outlawed poker (in most circumstances). Why do I not fear this? Because it will change sometime in the near future.

[New001]

I don't see why it should be an issue. If I am clearly in a vegitative state, or whatever you want to call it, I imagine I'd be miserable. You probably would be too. Your family would be miserable. It's not a good situation all around. However, if I have specifically given permission for a certain person to decide my fate, or for my spouse or parents or children to do so, or whatever, they should be allowed to do so.

"But who determines if I'm able to?" We have smart doctors in this country who I'd trust to decide that for me. Failing that, we have a court system that already has the power to kill violent criminals. I'm sure something could be rigged up.

You may find it morally reprehensible, or whatever you wish to call it, but I'd prefer if other people's morals were kept out (within reason, of course) of my decisions. Not surprisingly, I'm in favor of legalized drugs (and no, I'm not a user).

I understand your point of view, and there is a small part of me who wishes it could be that way for me. But my consience (not saying you don't have one, just that mine specifically) cannot let me see this happen without at least expressing my discontent with it. Similar to my feelings on abortion and the death penalty. I truly wish I could say "Let people do what they want, if they mess with other people, then we will step in." But I can't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Currently, except in the state of Oregon, euthanasia is illegal. Hence, "I support those laws" (that say it is illegal.) How is this dangerous?

[/ QUOTE ]
Defending a law because it is illegal is a circular argument. It's against the law and therefore it's illegal and it's illegal because it's against the law.

I have the right to worship whatever God I wish. Your wording would have you defending a law that said I couldn't because it was illegal. That's a dangerous point of view because it basically means we have no rights, only laws telling us what we may or may not do that are justified because they're laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then my wording is the problem. Because I support THIS law. This doesn't mean that I would support a law saying you couldn't worship a certain god. I was saying that since there is a law that I agree with, I would side with it instead of saying "it should be changed." I believe people make decisions like this all the time. I think you may be reading into this a bit more than I intended.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point of view, and there is a small part of me who wishes it could be that way for me. But my consience (not saying you don't have one, just that mine specifically) cannot let me see this happen without at least expressing my discontent with it. Similar to my feelings on abortion and the death penalty. I truly wish I could say "Let people do what they want, if they mess with other people, then we will step in." But I can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kudos for understanding at least, that's more than most people in this country would say.

[jt1]

I'm just a really nice, helpful guy!

[ QUOTE ]
And I was under the impression that assistes suicide was not banned simply for "moral" pretenses. Gov't feared it would grow out of control, etc. Is this totally wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are totally wrong. Theoretically, euthanaisa could turn into suicide for people who are depressed. It's unlikely, but since the two actions are close enough in principle, it is theoretically possible. The one big difference is that suicidal people are treatable whereas mortally ill people are not. However, it is possible that society would accidentally not consider that difference and go ahead and legalize assisted suicide to otherwise healthy people.

But the odds of it happening are so remote that a liberal could counter that the death penalty or any form of civil punishment should be prohibited, because, it may lead to the state killing/punishing innocent people on purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
And the similarites between poker and euthanasia are not even close. Poker is not as morally reprehensible as the taking (willing or not) as a human life. Yet the government has outlawed poker (in most circumstances). Why do I not fear this? Because it will change sometime in the near future.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking principles, my friend. We are attempting to identify logical arguments and we are following them to their conclusion. Yes, poker and euthunasia are two different things but that doesn't at all change the principles behind the laws that govern both actions. Nor does it matter that gambling may soon be legal, except in showing how frustratingly arbitrary our society is.