Right. You did.
Death is death. It's messy. It's exact. Well defined. Every man is destined to suffer it.
Men, being men, have an opinion about it.
For me, I think a choice about it is as natural as breathing.
Let me ask this. If a warrior on the battlefield charges forward, knowing the result will most likely be his death, do you have an ill opinion about the lad?
Absolutely not.
I hope you don't think you're being original.
Indeed, from the time of Jost, war had been invoked by advocates of direct medical killing. The argument went that the best young men died in war, causing a loss to the Volk (or to any society) of the best available genes. The genes of those who did not fight (the worst genes) then proliferated freely, accelerating biological and cultural degeneration. ~ THE NAZI DOCTORS: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide ~ Robert J. Lifton
But not guaranteed.
There's a difference between someone fighting for our freedom, who has a chance to live, and doing away with those who someone has deemed unworthy of life.
Human life is valuable and not to be heartlessly discarded like an old shoe.
The problem the right to die advocates fail to see, is that when they propose this for the *terminally ill* which is no guarantee either, the definition becomes more and more mushy, like we see happening over in England and Europe.
There's always the chance for remission, which we don't know whether or not is going to occur to someone, so if we kill them off, we could be depriving them of many more years of life.
Where do we stop in determining who should live and who has a duty to die?