why do you insist on devaluing any argument or case you have by descending into mindless name calling of those who express an opinion or take a position other than your own? You asked for the man's position and he provided it. Rather than engage in actual debate you dismiss the very thing you sought. That is senseless!
You present this social conundrum as being simple to solve. Entire nations have struggled with this question long before you began to think about it and none have yet come up with a flawless system to allow those with genuine desire to control how they meet their end, while still protecting the vulnerable.
You have had a personal experience which has clearly influenced your thinking and attitudes, understandably so, and noone has the right to question or detract the validity of your experience or the resulting mindset which has developed from it. Why should anyone else expect less, just because their attitude does not align with yours?
Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away
Yeah, Katman - but every now and then you could, you know, try to debate the facts instead of trotting out the tired old ad hominem fuckwitschtick? The relevance of the analogies is the desire of your ilk to enforce your beliefs on other people who then you demand implement them. Or else. And the 'Or Else' enforced by Government Diktat.
Item 1: A bakery owner in Oregon broke down in tears while discussing the fallout of her and her husband’s decision not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of their Christian beliefs. Earlier this year, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found “substantial evidence” that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, discriminated against the lesbian couple. Oregon bakery owners face a $150,000 discrimination fine for not baking a wedding cake for lesbians. They now face a fine in excess of $150,000. Aaron said the fee would “definitely” be enough to bankrupt the couple and their five children.
Item 2: Police officers arrested two Latino men on the charge of 'manspreading' on the subway, presumably because they were taking up more than one seat and therefore inconveniencing other riders, according to the report. The term "manspreading" was coined by internet users to describe men taking up more than one public transport seat, by sitting with their knees wide open.
Irrational? To quote Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
I am not aware of anything to do with people being arrested for sitting on a bus like that so cannot comment.
I did not however see a view expressed which demonstrated aversion to gay marriage. What I read was someone concerned that social engineering in today's society is not so different to what it has ever been; anyone who makes a stand which does not align with the zeitgeist of the time is attacked. Its not that long ago individuals were attacked for saying gay people should not be discriminated against.
In the case of the bakery, legal action was taken against a business which refused to undertake a contract on a point of principle. An analagous situation might be taking a jewish catering business to court because they declined to make bacon sandwiches.
The point is you asked what the problem with euthanasia is in your OP. Subsequently you asked for the opinion of someone you identified as a medical practitioner. He recounted why there is difficulty for doctors and provided comparisons to other social questions, a common and quite acceptable debating technique. You got what you wanted, an answer to the question you asked, but decided to call the man an irrational fuckwit??????
Perhaps I am expecting too much that an invitation to debate is just that.
Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away
If you go back and read the thread carefully you'll see I'm not trying to 'enforce my beliefs on those who don't share them'.
I'm trying to understand why some people are so vehemently against the concept of euthanasia for terminally ill people.
You're just not doing a very good job of explaining your reasoning.
(At least your acronyms are better than Maha's though).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7442436.html
THIS ONE _ I agree ...
Who are these "vulnerable" that you speak of? Surely terminally ill people on the way out are way passed "vulnerable"?
That could be one outcome - especially if enough doctors refuse to participte (as is their right).
Neither of these examples are from our country - why then do you speak of "us" ???
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
People who are of an unstable mental condition (I can't believe that coping with a terminal illness provides a good foundation for solid mental health) or otherwise not in a position to make their wishes known and have people who stand to gain from their quick demise.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
An assisted dying law would not result in more people dying, but in fewer people suffering.
Now fuck off back to work.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks