Moral Absolutes Ping. There's a lot to cover in this article. (Sorry my comments are so long - this is a very important topic and a scarey one... Soylent green...skin lampshades...)
1. They use interchangeably the phrase "doctor assisted suicide" and the word "euthanasia" as though the practices were legally and practically the same, when it benefits the death agenda. But when it doesn't benefit them, they recoil with horror when told that the assisted suicide leads to euthanasia.
They are liars.
Euthanasia - it says in my Webster's Collegiate: "The painless PUTTING TO DEATH of persons suffering from incurable diseases."
Doctor assisted suicide: (not in my dictionary) But I've read the Oregon statute, basically a person suffering from terminal illness (I believe they have to have 6 months or less to live, according to doctors) has to request, more than once, the wish to terminate his own life. A doctor then prescribes a lethal dose of something (don't know what) and the patient has to be able to administer it himself.
See what the death afficiandos are trying to to? Blur the line between doctor assisted suicide and actual unasked for murder. But when we protest that assisted suicde LEADS to unasked for murder, they cry out "Never! It'll NEVER happen!"
The problem in dealing with leftists is they are as slippery as a greased snake.
They can try to blur as much as they like, but doctor assisted suicide will without doubt lead to outright murder. They already support murder - as in the case of Terri Schiavo, or people with terminal or incurable illness.
2. Note this statement: [By an ethicist - wonder if he is an admirer of the noted ethicist Peter Singer?]
"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy..."
There are two very important points to the above comment by the "ethicist". Do you see where he is equating with holding medical procedures that PROLONG LIFE with "medical" procedures that TERMINATE LIFE? Do you see what this POS is doing? He's saying that just by with holding unnecessary medical procedures because the patient will likely die anyway, it's the same as shooting the patient in the head. This is incredible.
The second point is that he is saying, in effect:
"Everyone's already doing it, might as well make it legal and then there won't be hypocrisy and misuse."
One could make the same argument - "A lot of people already (beat their wives, cheat on their husbands, steal from work, murder, etc etc) so might as well make (fill in blank) legal so people won't be hypocritical liars."
A good question to ask is: Why are these people (primarily leftists and secularists) in love with Death with a capital D? What is it that attracts them so?
I believe there are several reasons. They are envious, and can't create life, no matter how hard they try. But they can kill!
They see the purpose of human life to be nothing more than the same things animals do (eating, sex, security, sleeping, and getting the stuff to do those things better), with no transcendent purpose. So if a human being can't "enjoy" life to the fullest, better off be dead.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
And, recognizing that these people have a view that is different from yours, you want to take away their rights and rule their lives for them? Hmmm... what if they feel that you stomping on their right-to-die is an affront to God-given ("endowed by our Creator") rights?
Most people I know in the right-to-die community get upset when euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are mixed up. You're also twisting the words of the Davidson ethicist--someone I think would have been on your side. I'm kinda confoosed about your stance.