Death with Dignity Laws or Legal Euthanasia

[matt wade]

Of course:

You cannot be 100% against abortion and believe that most abortions to save the mother are wrong.

Let me know when the two of you are done nit picking...of course it's what you are best at so you may not end anytime soon.

 

[targus]

Let me know when the two of you are done nit picking...of course it's what you are best at so you may not end anytime soon.

I wouldn't say that it is nit picking.

It is my little way of pointing out the inconsistency in your position.

I find that social liberals tend to accept inconsistencies in their beliefs with the inconsistency usually taking the form of an exception to their belief when it suits them.

 

[billreber]

Sidebar Rant ON: So-called conservatives say they are for smaller government, but from what I can see, it is just the opposite. They want:

- Government regulation over end of life decisions
- Government regulation over personal relationships
- Government regulation in what others may inhale, ingest, smoke, inject, or otherwise put into their own body
- Government regulation on what others may read or watch

Conservative? Hardly!

Sidebar Rant OFF

I have NOT yet read all of this thread, but had to comment here. MP, the "liberals" of our land have been pushing for about 30 years to maintain the "Government regulation over end of life decisions" in the realm of abortions. They have in fact demanded that the abortion clinics receive public money (call that my tax dollars) to perform murder of unborn children at such clinics. These ARE "end of life decisions" (since a life ends at each abortion) that are being paid for by my tax dollars, and I do not want it to happen!

Early in this thread, you insisted we stay "on topic" concerning the OP. I sat that abortion IS part of the OP, since it, too, involves "end of life decisions". Just because the decisions are being made by a parent instead of the person being killed makes no difference.

I live in Washington State, and I voted against the poorly-named Death with Dignity intiative. My reason? My stepfather was diagnosed with a disease and given less than six months to live. He did indeed die -- THREE years later! Nobody on this earth can accurately predict when anybody will die, not even doctors. Therefore, NOBODY can qualify under Washington's law to participate in "death with dignity" -- since 2 doctors must certify that the "patient" will in fact die within six months! (Doctors know a lot about human life, but they still are not able to predict a time frame in which someone will die).

I have had relatives who died suddenly, without any prior warning. I have also had a relative who had severe pain. ALL of them refused to consider the ungodly concept of "taking their own life", since they all recognized that only God has that right!

I am praying that the laws in Oregon and Washington will be reversed soon, and that no other state OR our Nation should decide to murder its citizens in such a way.

Bill :godisgood:

 

[LadyEagle]

Good post, bill.

 

[matt wade]

I wouldn't say that it is nit picking.

It is my little way of pointing out the inconsistency in your position.

I find that social liberals tend to accept inconsistencies in their beliefs with the inconsistency usually taking the form of an exception to their belief when it suits them.

So I assume you think of me as a social liberal? On what issues would you base that on?

Here's a question for you targus. Your wife is pregnant. The doctors tell you that they can save either the child or your wife, but not both. What's your choice? My choice is to God make the choice. Is that a socially liberal stance to you?

 

[donnA]

donnA, they can't post since none exists. However even if it did exist it would not necessarily have any meaning to these people since they support abortion which is prohibited in Scripture. just-want-peace had it correct about these people:

They then admit to being anti biblical, they do not care what the bible actually says, they refuse to live scripturally, to follow God, people need to prove their pro murder stance is biblical, or admit they've purposely ignored God, as if they know better then He.

 

[targus]

So I assume you think of me as a social liberal? On what issues would you base that on?

Well, your position on assisted suicide for one.

If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.

Here's a question for you targus. Your wife is pregnant. The doctors tell you that they can save either the child or your wife, but not both. What's your choice? My choice is to God make the choice. Is that a socially liberal stance to you?

My choice would be to do the best possible to save both while attempting to bring the child into the world alive.

 

[matt wade]

Well, your position on assisted suicide for one.

If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.

I view my stance on assisted suicide as conservative, not liberal. In my opinion your view of assisted suicide is liberal. You advocate the nanny state, I advocate personal responsibility. I view your stance on assisted suicide in the same light as seatbelt and helmet laws. All are creations of liberal thinking and the nanny state.

 

[OldRegular]

I view my stance on assisted suicide as conservative, not liberal. In my opinion your view of assisted suicide is liberal. You advocate the nanny state, I advocate personal responsibility. I view your stance on assisted suicide in the same light as seatbelt and helmet laws. All are creations of liberal thinking and the nanny state.

You may be able to argue that suicide [unassisted] is libertarian but it is not Conservative. What is personally responsible by dragging someone else into your desire for death? This behavior would have to be considered liberal, particularly in Oregon and Washington where the state governments are involved.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Bill, thanks for your thoughtful post. While I disagree with you, the tone and logic in your post were well thought out.

I believe that ultimately we will see the law universally recognize that we each have the right to our own life, not the state. Each person may then decide for themselves. I see this as a personal liberty issue as well as a humanitarian one. I don't see that the state has a compelling interest to keep me hooked up to tubes and wires and in pain when I could make a peaceful exit should I end up in that state.

 

[matt wade]

You may be able to argue that suicide [unassisted] is libertarian but it is not Conservative. What is personally responsible by dragging someone else into your desire for death? This behavior would have to be considered liberal, particularly in Oregon and Washington where the state governments are involved.

So you do think that the doctor doesn't also have personal responsibility? I am in no way saying we should force doctors to do this. If they don't want to, then they don't have to. If no doctors in the country decide to do this, then so be it. You use the word "dragging" again. Do you think the doctor doesn't have a choice in the matter?

Also, why is the behavior considered liberal more in some states than other? Is your definition of liberal subjective?

 

[donnA]

Some still do not care what the bible says. throw out scripture and the God it teaches about. who cares His opinion.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Some still do not care what the bible says. throw out scripture and the God it teaches about. who cares His opinion.

Where does the Bible say to keep people breathing on a respirator when they are technically already dead?

 

[annsni]

Where does the Bible say to keep people breathing on a respirator when they are technically already dead?

That is not assisted suicide.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

That is not assisted suicide.

You missed the point, Ann. I am pointing out to those asking for biblical references for assisted suicide that many things are not listed in the Bible. Neither is using a computer.

 

[LadyEagle]

Closed. Page 10.

LE