The majority want a choice. The majority choose to live. The majority do not want to be denied basic care.
That's what I have been advocating - a choice. Families should be able to make the choice. Not the state.
Do you have a clue what torture is? Stop eating and drinking, and then tell us how “euphoric” it is. It’s real easy for some folks to believe it’s no big deal when someone else suffers.
Please don't put words in quotes when replying to me unless you are quoting my post. It implies words that are not mine.
A straw man argument shouldn't really surprise me, though. After emotional appeals fail, that's usually next.
On FR, italics are used to indicate a previous poster’s words.
There is no straw man in the valid point I made. Slowly suffocating to death or dehydrating to death is most certainly torture. That’s just the truth, ugly as it is. If you don’t give any serious consideration to the victim, maybe you can pretend it’s not torture.
It makes it easier to deny his right to life if you pretend his life has no value to anyone, including himself.
It takes an awful lot of pretending to “justify” killing a vulnerable person. It takes words like “euphoria” and elimination of words like “torture.” It takes pretending that the victim has as little regard for his own life as his killers do. It takes a pile of lies so high you need a ski lift to reach the top.
Why can't we go back to the way it used to be? What's wrong with recognizing human nature and human rights? What's wrong with letting people live unless they decide not to? What's wrong with letting people choose for themselves, instead of others? What's wrong with the idea that people don't own each other, and can't decide to kill each other for no good reason?