I went on to wonder why you would want to try to play moral one-upmanship on the topic, Moral Absolutes. Persons on MA threads are grappling with the many aspects, both personal and political, of how to maintain a culture of life within an increasingly libertine (not libertarian) society -- a debauched society that has been made so by the deliberate incursion from atheists, Fabians, Marxists, socialists and communists and amply advertised as such in their literature for the past 100 years. If you are still a victim of their brainwashing, wake up!
Next, you try to rationalize that Jesus telling the apostles to shake the dust off their feet if their gospel is not honored should be the moral example to citizens in a representative democracy witnessing the slaughter of innocents and the accompanying social anarchy that is destroying the physical and mental health of our nation's youth. Again, not buying it.
I think I speak for many when I quote not just Matthew 22:21, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's", but also the U.S. Constitution, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And lastly, when others don't agree with your point of view in a completely open, unbranded discussion, you can launch any unfounded ad hominen opinion you wish, such as "book of disrespect", "red herring" and "stench." But when you enter a thread that is open, but clearly labeled "Moral Absolutes" that is pinged to a majority of FReepers who have joined it expressly because they have very clear, very traditionally conservative points of view as to what a moral absolute consists of, you then go negative. To what purpose? You will have to improve both your reading comprehension and your debate skills before convincing any of us that your ostensibly libertarian, anarchic point of view is good for society.
I didn't notice the “Moral Absolutes” tag, nor would I have understood the implication if I had seen it. I found this post under ‘current posts”, with no headers on. Does the MA tag mean those of us who disagree may not post on the thread? It's just a ping list, isn't it?
I agree with Gondring that if at some point, for what ever reason, I decide it is my time to go, I want the option to go peacefully and legally.
I do not want anyone to have someone else decide for me, or others.
Did Gondring go negative at first? I don't think so.
One last thing, suicide has been with us a long time.
From Wiki (I know!)
The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu”-meaning good and “thanatos”-meaning death, which combined means “well-death” or “dying well”. Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.”[10] Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life.
Oh, and I wasn't one of the people who pm'd Gondring earlier. I just came across this thread 20 mins. ago. Wagglebee, you know I like you, and Albion, I like your posts (I don't really know you as well.). No hard feelings, just learning through intelligent debate, I hope. Gondring, thank you for your contribution to this site as well. Challenging conventional wisdom can be hard sometimes. :-)