Posted on 09/27/2009 10:19:41 AM PDT by wagglebee
New guidance has been issued to clarify the law on assisted suicide in England and Wales - but it offers no guarantees against prosecution.
Instead the Director of Public Prosecutions has spelled out the range of factors that will be taken into account when deciding on cases.
The move has been welcomed by 33 year old Kelly Taylor from Bristol who is terminally ill.
In 2005 she tried to starve herself in the hope she would end her pain.
"I think the new guidelines are a breakthrough, as it gives people the knowledge when and where they're going wrong and when they could be prosecuted. It also gives people like me greater patient choice."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
You have a serious problem with projection, but that's typical of the left.
So the fact is, I have never indicated I want to kill people, and you made it up.
No, you simply support laws that get people killed.
I'm in favor of a Culture of RespectTM...respect for individual people and their decisions, and that's what separates us.
Got it, you're "personally opposed" to killing people, but don't want to impose your values on others.
If the culture that I support wins out, then there will not be "involuntary" and people's rights will be respected. Why are you so against that?
Because even in your utopian fantasy world, euthanasia is still wrong.
Why do you keep pretending that you never supported involuntary euthanasia? You rabidly supported the forced starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo. When we first learned about Mae Maguirk, you immediately jumped in to support her pending forced starvation and dehydration.
Just a little background for any noobs. Carry on.
I think we are supposed to feel sorry for the deathbots because they now have to support each other via FReepmail. They long to go back to the WPPFF days when they could openly support murder.
I do pity them.
It’s hard not to pity the pathetic.
Nothing is more pathetic than choosing evil over good.
Is gondring on the ping list, or does he just barge in? I cannot understand what he is trying to accomplish by arguing against the Absolutes on the "Moral Absolutes" threads, rather than working out with the rest of us how these Absolutes can be restored to law or safeguarded in the lives of innocents.
The absolutes to which we refer on these threads may be Christian ones; but our understanding is that Christ came to give us the rules for living and make us ambassadors of those principles for the good of the entire world. This understanding undergirds the now-embattled doctrine of American exceptionalism, in which so many of our best and brightest have given their lives to free other nations, without trying to annex those nations permanently.
Christ warned that many would mock and fight against the principles He taught, even though they represent harmony with the imperatives of the Supreme Government of the universe; and even though going astray from them puts the transgressor into jeopardy. Those principles transcend any earthly government; and we understand all of us who believe in them may have to die for them physically, not just those who engage in combat service. Certainly we must "die to self."
It's not hard to see why some people feel that Christianity is a form of aggressive imperialism; and also why some people are tempted to the sin of self-righteousness through the use of government power.
When our pioneer nation was formed, most of its population was at least socially Christian and I believe a majority actually believed in its tenets; now, we can expect the mocking and argumentation to intensify. In modern times, now that we have prolonged our lives, improved health and sanitation and many of the other temporal ills that tested the faith of former generations, we are spoiled children afflicted with gluttony, lust and boredom. If God did not now use intellectual challenges to test our resolve to stand for what we believe is His will, what would be the point of claiming to follow Him?
NONE of the Founding Fathers supporting anything even approaching euthanasia and the idea that they were just a bunch of libertarians is absurd (some of them supported the death penalty for homosexuals).
You don’t need to convince me.
I wasn't aware that it was a private thread. Perhaps you should just use FReepmail.
In most cases, when something is posted, other FReepers join in and post on the thread...and I know you know that.
The absolutes to which we refer on these threads may be Christian ones; but our understanding is that Christ came to give us the rules for living and make us ambassadors of those principles for the good of the entire world.
Yes, but you must have a different Bible from the one on which I was raised. In mine, Jesus didn't say, "try to get the Romans to pass laws controlling the behavior of the people." In mine, what Jesus actually taught was that if people didn't agree with what you were pushing, you just shake the dust off your sandals and move on.
I suppose you feel that you have a better absolute than what He taught.
Perhaps your buddies here are using the following, from the Book of Disrespect, though I don't recall the chapter and verse:
1Use the 'net and cast broadly, and take the red herringsa to the Forum and spread them so that all may experience their stench.Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what they follow, but I must break it to you...that's not from the Bible.
asome manuscripts include: (such as "culture of death," "pro-death," or "euthanasia," for "respecting an individual and his rights").
I'm sure that the Founding Fathers believed that enemies could be killed but that a person had no right to request it himself.
Oh, yes...I'm sure that Gen. Washington was totally unaware of every coup de grâce that his soldiers adminstered. Good thing he never read their journals! </sarc>
Then why fight against making the culture one of respecting patient wishes as supreme?
The Obama-Wagglebee method of making decisions for other people is what leads to things being involuntary. Certainly, if people followed my approach, and the culture respected individual choices, the slippery slope would lead nowhere.
Perhaps that’s why countries with laws respecting the right to die kill off fewer people illegally and involuntarily than those without.
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.
Leftists seem to have a predisposition for projection and you certainly fit the bill.
Zero SUPPORTS euthanasia, as do you.
I OPPOSE euthanasia.
The difference couldn't be more obvious.
The Obama-Wagglebee method of making decisions for other people is what leads to things being involuntary.So what makes you think the very respected and esteemed Wagglebee has anything in common with the First Felon? Opposing murder, suicide and other forms of taking of innocent life is called civilized behavior. What would you have, a suicide switch available on demand?
Thanks Narses.
***Uh, no. I’ve been pushing the right to voluntary (i.e., requested) euthanasia/assisted suicide.***
Euthanasia/assisted suicide is still the deliberate killing of other human beings. Civilized humans do not participate in such activities. We are also constrained to consider human life as sacred; if one person’s life can be considered to be worthless, then any person’s life can be considered to be worthless.
Let’s examine that idea. If I as an individual human being consider you as another human being to be worthy or deserving of the deprivation of life (regardless of whether you ask for it or not), then I can be dealt with properly under the law. The government, on the other hand, is the only legal wielder of institutional force in the land and if they consider you as being worthy or deserving of being deprived of life, then what? People become merely things to be manipulated, controlled, destroyed at whim.
The line between voluntary asking for euthanasia and an unconscious patient unable to ask is so thin that with the pressure of ungrateful heirs impatient for their inheritance, it becomes invisible. And when that precedence is set, then anyone deemed worthy of death can be killed, and the justification will simply be created.
No newbie, some FReepers just realize that there are other FReepers who are interested in certain topics. This IS a PRO-LIFE forum, that issue IS NOT up for debate.
If you don't agree with them, well, your just going to hell and they are psychic about you based on a few comments made.
No, there are some pro-death trolls on here with long standing records.
Their threads are usually good for a insight into the fringe of pseudo Christians.
So, you consider OPPOSING euthanasia to be a "pseud-Christian" position? If that is the case you have a serious misunderstanding of what Christianity is.
This was posted in the news forum. If you want mod protection, post your threads in the RF.
Please quit hitting the abuse button, take it like a man and fight your own battles. We are not here to do it for you.
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.