Posted on 08/13/2011 12:33:29 PM PDT by wagglebee
SUICIDE has been legal in Canada since 1972, so it's OK to kill yourself. There is no consequence, except to you. You're not arrested if you succeed or even if you bungle the job -- your life is in your own hands.
But while there is no consequence for you, there are considerable consequences for the family and friends you leave behind and those aftershocks can be emotionally and circumstantially devastating. That is why suicide is hardly ever considered a noble or self-sacrificing act. It is more usually described as the ultimate expression of selfishness, cowardice, carelessness, in the true meaning of that word. G.K. Chesterton likened suicide to spitting in the face of God and suggested people who commit suicide should be buried at crossroads so the world could walk over their graves. Some religions consider it to be the unforgiveable sin, and if they are right, there may be other-worldly consequences even for the person who commits suicide.
But that's neither here nor there. Suicide is more acceptable now than it was in Chesterton's day. It is actually encouraged in some quarters -- and there are lobby groups actively campaigning for the suicidal right to allow somebody else to kill them or, more bizarrely, for the right to help other people kill themselves. Somehow, they seem to think it is covered by the Constitution.
Two such cases are now before the courts in British Columbia. In the first, Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's Disease, as it is more commonly known, asked a B.C. court for a speedy decision of her plea to be permitted a physician-assisted suicide, which is currently illegal, on the grounds that if it were not decided quickly, she might die before a doctor could kill her.
The federal government argued that the issue is too complicated for a case to be prepared in a matter of weeks, but the trial judge ruled differently. "I am satisfied time is urgent," said Justice Lynn Smith in scheduling the case for Nov. 15, ignoring the fact assisted suicide is one of the most emotional and complicated ethical issues facing Canadians today and one that should not be disposed of for one woman's convenience.
Ms Taylor, after all, has a legal right to kill herself without forcing the rest of us to be complicit in the act.
The second case involves the Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die, whose 117 members have petitioned the same B.C. court to rule on the constitutional right to assisted suicide. The group -- one could perhaps call it the Canadian Kevorkian Society in honour of the American doctor who so eagerly sought suicides to assist that he ended up in jail -- is first seeking recognition as a legal organization, which is complicated by the fact that it is acting in favour of an illegal activity. Many of its members are in good health and not immediately seeking suicide, but several have chosen the honourable route and killed themselves.
That is the paradox of assisted suicide. Killing oneself is the ultimate act of isolation, yet those who belong to groups such as the Farewell Foundation do not want to do it alone. They want the rest of Canadians, regardless of what moral scruples they may have about suicide, to join them as accomplices in their act by giving it a social sanction. That is truly cowardly and worthy of a burial at a crossroads.
“IOW, you are using dirty debating tactics. Unless and until you clarify your own position, it’s worthless for me to continue the charade of “debate”.”
The dirt you see is in the flaws in your own argument.
I agree that it’s worthless because I can tell you something clearly and you can pretend not to see it and then whine about it. There’s clearly not much altitude to your moral high ground.
Good luck.
“We aren’t interested in an nuances or libertarian talking points, just a simple yes or no answer.”
Oh, you appear to be interested in railing against places where killing people is legal, and not where it’s done just as effectively and ignored. THAT is my problem.
“Are YOU in favor of assisted suicide? YES or NO.”
Does the moral right or wrong rest completely with me and my answer? That’s a lot of pressure on one guy, don’t you think?
I’ll answer your “YES or NO” question upon your reply, which I am sure will be appropriately nuanced, just as you claim mine was.
My question to you is are YOU in favor of leaving morphine-assisted killing as a matter for the courts?
Killing another person is murder. Suicide is by yourself. The minute you bring someone else into the equation, you have made them a murderer.
It's a pretty selfish act to lay that to their account.
That is another dirty debating trick, the "I know you are, but what am I" defense.
Try rising above schoolyard level and make your arguments instead of throwing up challenges that mean nothing and whining about how you can't say what you think until someone else says what he thinks.
Your tactics smell a lot like troll to me.
“It’s a pretty selfish act to lay that to their account.”
Agreed.
Wagglebee, when I first looked at your post, and saw who it was to, my first thought was of this deathbot's long history of supporting the wanton killing of unborn babies, disabled people, the elderly, and anyone who gets caught in the path. He may think he's being clever by not directly answering the question, but anyone who's been here for a while knows he's a deathbot just waiting to choose the moment of his lightening ride.
“Your tactics smell a lot like troll to me”
Do you have anything to add to the debate? I did. You didn’t. Who is the troll, Old Gal?
What do you think about morphine-assisted killing?
BykrBayb:
You have made this charge against me without substantiation before. Please provide substantiation this time, or look just as ridiculous as you did the previous times.
You chose to look ridiculous the previous times, for the record.
What do you think of Morphine-Assisted Killing?
Under what circumstances could I have possibly made the charge? Yes, when I’ve seen you supporting killing vulnerable people, I’ve pointed the fact that it isn’t the first time. You have a long history of trolling pro-life threads with your anti-life message. You think you’re being clever by cloaking your anti-life message in ignorance, but you’re only fooling yourself.
I certainly wouldn't consider YOU the moral authority on ANYTHING, I simply asked if YOU supported assisted suicide.
I’ll answer your “YES or NO” question upon your reply, which I am sure will be appropriately nuanced, just as you claim mine was.
The only nuance, which you probably cannot discern, is that a person on a PRO-LIFE forum wouldn't hesitate to affirm their opposition to assisted suicide.
I am opposed to ALL FORMS of euthanasia and assisted suicide, my views on this are hardly a secret.
“You have a long history of trolling pro-life threads with your anti-life message.”
Then perhaps you could uncover a single post of mine purporting to support an “anti-life” message?
Go ahead, find one.
Failure to find one means that you owe me an apology, which I will graciously accept, since one of us has to show a little class.
You make it a point to spread your anti-life message across a series of posts. You don’t spell it out plainly in any single post. Because you’re so CLEVER! Yes, you’re too smart for FReepers. You probably don’t realize how many people are laughing at your stupidity, because you’re so smart the rest of the world just can’t grasp the nuances of your superior intelligence. LOL
“I certainly wouldn’t consider YOU the moral authority on ANYTHING, I simply asked if YOU supported assisted suicide.”
Why not? Because you don’t like me, or because I ask reasonable questions that infuriate you for some reason?
My answer is no. It’s hardly a secret if you’ve read the thread.
“The only nuance, which you probably cannot discern, is that a person on a PRO-LIFE forum wouldn’t hesitate to affirm their opposition to assisted suicide.”
Why would you assume I wasn’t of the same mind as you on the issue of assisted suicide? Did I say anything that remotely supported it?
Now, do you think morphine-assisted killing is just a matter for the courts?
“You don’t spell it out plainly in any single post.”
Ok so just to be clear, you don’t have any posts that spread what you term “an anti-life message”.
I want to be clear so I don’t represent what you are saying incorrectly.
Again - you say I post “an anti-life message” but then you fail to provide a single post.
Now you say I don’t spell it out in “any single post”.
Ok, so now I ask you to provide some series of posts from me that provides “an anti-life message” since you say I have a long history, perhaps you can provide just one series of “anti-life messages” that I have posted.
Again, failure to provide it will be construed by me as an apology for deliberately misrepresenting me. And again will be graciously accepted, just as I accept this apology post of yours freely admitting that you have no post from me spreading an “anti-life message”.
By the way, it’s much more efficient to say “I’m Sorry” but I fully understand it’s difficult for some people to admit they are wrong.
Do I have anything to add? Yes.
I was pointing out that you have added nothing and have nothing to add but bloviating, whining, and attacking others for not replying to you in the manner that you so arrogantly demand.
I can answer Wagglebee’s question, “Not just no, but hell, NO!”
What’s your answer?
Oh, you’re almost as clever as a Ferngi. Anyone reading your posts will be enlightened to your message, and at the same time they won’t know they got the message from you, because you are so clever. They can read this thread, or any pro-life thread you’ve trolled, and see that your message is death, but then you drop a few clever nuances in the punch bowl, and abracadabra nobody knows what they just read.
You’re not fooling anyone but yourself. You’re the only one who thinks you’re clever. Everyone else knows what you are.
I already answered.
I think that it is others that arrogantly demand an answer, just as I think it is you that are bloviating and attacking.
Keep up the good work, Old Gal, maybe we’ll eventually get you on topic.
Dirty debating tactic, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Again, since simple English seems to be unclear to you, I will repeat. Try to move beyond your happy experiences in grammar school, and deal with the issue as if you were an actual adult.
If you had been forthcoming and clear with your answer, wagglebee would not be asking you again and again.
“They can read this thread, or any pro-life thread you’ve trolled, and see that your message is death”
so why don’t you post the “death message” that I’ve supposedly posted?
Am I correct: You can find no single post that spreads an “anti-life message”, and now you cannot find a series of posts that communicates an “anti-life message”.
“...then you drop a few clever nuances in the punch bowl, and abracadabra nobody knows what they just read.”
Ok, so please post an example of this, and be sure to point out the “anti-life message” that is encrypted within.
I accept your apology that you cannot find a single “series of posts” that provides an “anti-life message”
Failure to provide an example of “nuance” will be construed by me as an apology, once again, for misrepresenting the things that I post.
This will be the third apology of the day. This has to smash all previous records.
I hope it makes you feel better.
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.