[FairOpinion]

So, do you think the government should just stay out and allow spouses and relatives to murder their inconvenient spouses and relatives without government interference?

Let's have anarchy, let's allow the strong the murder the weak without interference.

THIS is the logical consequence of what you are saying. Are you sure this is really your position?

[ContraryMary]

Let's have anarchy, let's allow the strong the murder the weak without interference.

THIS is the logical consequence of what you are saying.

It's just the illogical inference you're making.

[BunnySlippers]

So, do you think the government should just stay out and allow spouses and relatives to murder their inconvenient spouses and relatives without government interference?

Would you accept it if the husband/wife had no say ... but rather the patient only?

[Almondjoy]

If it weren't for advances in medicine in the first place these "decisions" would have never come about.

How about everyone just write in the wills never whether or not they want to be "brought back".

Then we can let people die when they were suppose to right?

[HairOfTheDog]

Are you sure this is really your position?

No silly, that's merely your gross mischaracterization of it.

[Tench_Coxe]

"So, do you think the government should just stay out and allow spouses and relatives to murder their inconvenient spouses and relatives without government interference?"

Just using your argument: So lets say today the government gets involved to prevent murder of the inconvenient. Now, government is involved. 20 years from now, due to precedent, the government is involved in those decisions, but now takes the other side. How would you respond?

[jwalsh07]

So, do you think the government should just stay out and allow spouses and relatives to murder their inconvenient spouses and relatives without government interference?

Only if it's done in the bedroom. The bedroom has constitutional rights.