D@mn straight and homos don't want your kids.
You have 4 letters too many in front of your screen name.
>>In other words, the “right to die” too easily becomes the “duty to die.”<<
“Slippery slope” arguments are specious. With or without a law allowing legally assisted suicides such pressures (which I have yet to see scientifically verified and tabulated) would just as easily still be equally present.
I dare say no more on this subject so I leave that for all to consider.
These are such difficult issues to talk about.
Would someone want to be kept alive through artificial means, if they have some medical condition for which there is no hope of recovery? Would age be an issue? Do some people, especially older people who have lost a spouse and seen their circle of friends pass on, just want to go themselves?
D@mn straight and homos don't want your kids.
You have 4 letters too many in front of your screen name.
Netherlands.
You started this by criticizing the article posted by G Larry, that laid out the pitfalls of State Assisted Suicide often disguised as "The Right to Die with Dignity" that began in Oregon back in John Ashcroft days. Calling the argument specious and cautioning that Slippery Slope defenses were not well thought out.
My first comment pointed out a simple slippery slope that slipped whole hog into a State battle with the Church that threatens to abrogate one half of the First Amendment. The weak sister SS decision in the cake case aside, that isn't over yet in fact a printer has already been ordered by a judge to print custom wedding invitations for a gay couple.
In Oregon they are attempting to pass into law the right for the State to decide for you, that you would rather be starved to death than be alive in a mental institution. This bill failed a year or so ago but now the Speaker is the one introducing it. Don't try to tell me Slippery Slope arguments are specious they work exactly the way the name implies.
Just an observation but you sound a lot more like a libertarian than a Conservative.