Posted on 06/22/2014 5:18:19 AM PDT by right-wing agnostic
When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it?
At first blush, the idea that a euthanasia should be allowed seems to follow a logic. If a person is suffering and wishes to end that suffering then who has the right to tell them no? It is their life, right? Only some troglodyte Bible thumper could possibly deny a person the simple mercy of ending their suffering. In this way it is no different than any other social innovation that has come down the pike over the past 60 or so years. It is a profound evil traveling under the guise of modernism and compassion.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Your argument is a slippery slope towards moral relativism and 'anything goes' thought.
That’s because you’re a guy who likes to have fun.
What’s wrong with youth in Asia?
Don’t they have a right to have kids too?
People get PERMA BANNED from Free Republic because it’s a private forum if they are not pro-life. It’s a careful dance if you come in here talking about how fab it is to be murdered in the womb or to be force exited by greedy children, husbands or wives.
Your analysis is well-written and is meaningless.
My answer is "No!" though through life in at least three circumstances I have found myself in such pain that I wished someone would kill me to end the pain. I am glad that no one could, would, or did.
I believe in the Declaration of Independence, and that God the Creator has given every individual the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He or she, the agnostic or atheist liberal, who seeks the power to take that right from me is risking their own right to life, liberty, and/or the pursuit of happiness.
Consider the Merciful God, whose grace is often couched in terms of yet more pain, rather than terminating it. When does He think that killing is ever a mercy rather than a curse?
I also believe in the Constitution, in the right to publicly air one's opinion, though contrary.
Have I made myself clear?
Your slippery-slope analysis shows a degraded traction when approaching the terminus of the graded surface of the argument.
After regarding your post #22 for a while, it seems to me that you can relate to an issue that suggests "mercy" killing as a solution, but that you cannot approve of legalizing euthanasia such that it would expose the entire population to possible misapplication, whether the targetted person wished it or not.
Is that essentially correct?
Thanks --
Yeah, in My post #6 to post #1 there was some remarks on euthanizing animals as being roughly equivalent to human mercy killing.
Actually, I had some chicken salad today and some hamburger last night. I actually think was kinder to euthanize the bird and the cow before skinning them, cutting them up, putting them through a meat grinder, and roasting or frying them. But I draw the line at eating un-euthanized humans, no matter what the original article says. Even Jeffrey Dahmer must have had some principles, eh?
Hmmm?
Not quite.
I can relate to the suffering, diseased person that could very well be me one day who would want out of the pain, “wasted” money and resources etc., or the family members who watch their loved ones suffer, but as a Christian I cannot see taking God’s place as the one who calls it time to die.
You are right to suggest that possible misapplication would be a problem, not just possibly, or even probably. It WILL happen.
For politicians still in office if we don’t like them.
Those who support euthanasia have abandoned the concept of unalienable rights.
Thereby destroying the cornerstone of their own liberty.
While Mike Coffman’s military service to the country is admirable (and that’s THE ONLY reason I supported him in 2008 to replace Tancredo, he has quickly become a GOP insider. I was warned about his potentially problematic associations in 2008. but chose to overlook that because of his service to this country. I CANNOT and WILL NOT support someone who’s sqishy on amnesty. AMNESTY WILL DESTROY THE COUNTRY. This is one of those cases where the ten percent of poor policy (I doubt that figure by the way) can undue the positivirtty of ninety percent of his voting record.
Mike Coffman has proved to be another in the long list of GOP hacks. We aren’t going to get rid of them all, but we should when we can. Coffman is NOT the same candidate that I voted for in 2008 and voted to re-elect in 2010 and 2012. We The People are running out of time to save this great country.
Good, then when Romanof gets in, you can tell me all about your work for conservatism....
That is strange that you referenced the Georgia Guidestones. When I first read the article that is exactly what came to my mind.
Enough mystery surrounds their emplacement (for whom?) that it would appeal to folks who are 'into' the occult and wierdness, and those are the sort of people I'd think might be most likely to embrace some sort of philosophy which would entail the death of huge numbers of (other, of course) humans.
People who lack some strong moral compass or means of guidance are easily prey to arguments for eugenics programs of all sorts.
I agree with your last sentence.
I agree with your last sentence.
Hey, you did it again.
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.