Your rights might well be as imaginary as you imagine them to be. Mine, however, are intractable. Don't believe me? Try taking one of my rights away and see what happens. You can't. No one can.
Again, they're only as true as the people following them. If that ain't true, tell me what rights I have, where they came from, and who decided on what rights I have. And you're fooling yerself if you think someone can't take away your "rights". Cause you choose to live by them, you make them a tangible in yer life. and well that can be taken away, sometimes without you even knowing. Just cause you'd cuss and scream if the gov't forced you to move out of your house because they decided they wanted to build a Navy base there, doesn't mean they can't and won't make you leave. Try running fer presd. Your 'rights' say: a homeless guy should be allowed the same fair shake to be presd. as a millionaire, but lets see if that's true. People's so called "rights" get snatched away from them everyday, but I guess you're the guy they can't do it to. You may not want war, not go to war, not believe in war, want our troops to come home, don't like what they're there for, but sure as grass grows green, you're paying for war and supporting it one way or the other. Whether you like it or not, you're helping line the pockets of some fat cat. Try taking that "right" away from the gov't and see what happens.
What about slaves, guess they just stayed slaves cause they didn't know they could exercise their rights until a kindly white fella told them they could. You seem like a smart guy so I'm sure you know there is slavery still going on. Maybe ya could get in touch with them and let them know they have the right to refuse to work and get their heads chopped off. Them sure are some good old rights.
Or maybe something closer to home. Maybe you can tell some poor old fella working for next to nothing in some poor old town for some mean old codger, that he's got the right to demand higher wages, be laid off, and be homeless.
Right to an education. Well I'm sure poor areas are just uneducated cause they ain't exercising their rights good enough. Yeah I know, I'm sure ya think education should be free, but try telling that to the poor old fella working fer next ta nutt'n who'll lose more off his cheque to pay for someone else's education. I'm sure he'll enjoy that right.
But hey, it's all cool, we all have to live by some road map to navigate through life, and there ain't a perfect one that's been made. I'm all for you choosing how to live your life, just as I am for me doing the same. The whole system is pretty good and all, ya don't throw away a car cause the tire is flat, I'm just calling it how I see it, not trying to change the world or stuff.
Rights are, indeed, as inalienable as Jefferson contended, but no one ever said they were free
Of course, that would be like transferring imaginary money at a bank to an imaginary friend. Lovely words, but people give up they're rights everyday, have them taken away, or have em changed on them. Rights are inalienable because they ain't real. They ain't real because people made them up and can choose to interpret them however they see fit. Your rights, my rights, there rights, ain't none of it the same.
It doesn't suit you, either, and it certainly doesn't fit well in these forums. It represents a familiarity you haven't earned yet. It's rude and it's potentially offensive. Please don't do it?
Well its a friendly term where I'm from. Like man, or bro, or bra. And my last post the guy mocked me for using it, which ain't very nice. That's why I made the other dude comment I did. But I guess mocking me is cool, yeah I get it, kick the new guy. I've been around the block enough times to know that game. I ain't allowed to be myself until the "gang" says its fine. So why don't you scold someone else. But yeah, I guess I haven't "earned" that right to speak in a manner I'm comfy with, cause rights are inalienable and all that. I guess the guy couldn't say, please don't call me dude, I don't like it. Cause that would've only made me reply with sorry, didn't know that bugged ya or something along those lines. But yeah, again, I get it. New guy is the bad guy, but the other guy. The guy who has been here longer is always the good guy cause he's fit in and something different ain't all that good. And don't think that's some sort of poor old me statement cause I ain't look for sympathy, I can handle myself just fine. And I know what's coming next, I've lived many'a places, met many a man, and the next step is some talk about how ya have to do this or that, and be like this or that or however you have it laid out in yer mind that humans should act. Maybe if I use Mr. or sir from now on, or is that too formal? Ah fudge, let's just save some time, why don't ya just tell me how I should talk cause that's where this is going anyhow. And then I can go back to my sideways little village of ignorant cave dwellers and nut pickers and tell everyone that we can't say dude anymore cause we were being rude all along and didn't even have the decent sense to know it. Either that, or you could take a time machine from 1950 and into the present and discover dude ain't a rude term. Yeah, it ain't so fun being mocked is it? No one likes a burr under their saddle.
Right. And the step after letting people legally kill themselves based on a subjective quality of life determination is to let them kill their children based on equally subjective criteria.
Yeah, and after that it's to let them kill other people, then after that its to let them kill other people's kids, and pets, and grandparents and pretty soon everyone will be allowed to just put to sleep anyone if they think someone's life ain't as good as their own. Maybe skip all that and just have doctors keep or kill the good ones in the delivery room.
Whoa amigo! (is amigo ok? let me know) Think we're putting the cart before the horse so to speak. You're talking like cigarettes are a gateway to heroin. No one's talking about letting other people decide to kill other people(save for doctors cause ya have to weed out the crazies for their own good). I ain't saying "my kid walks a bit crooked, could we put em down". We're talking about sane people asking for themselves to be put down. I'd say crazies too, but they don't know what they're talking about sometimes, so ya can't say for sure they really want to die if they don't really know either. I don't know why you think some poor soul asking to be put out of his misery, adn some doc helping him, is leading to a genocide of handicapped kids. You almost make it sound like parents of handicapped kids don't love their kids as much as "normal" kids. Cause amigo, I know some parents with disabled kids, and it often seems like they love their kids more than the ones with "normal" kids. And I doubt there'd be a rush of people asking to kill their kids if you made it legal. If ya know anyone with a badly handicapped kid, ask them if they'd put'em down? But again, I'm not talking aobut people killing their kids, I'm talking about someone sick asking for their pain to end. What else should we do, keep em higher than a kite and stoned until they die? I've seen that, it ain't very pretty either. That ain't living.
Of course, the reality is that life and death decisions potentially affect us all.
And so does the price of soda pop. Everything kinda affects everything, but I'm talking day to day stuff here. Someone dying in the hospital today that you don't know, never met, yeah, that affects you in a round about way, about as much like a car crash in Japan. I can't see society slipping into a muderous mind frame over legalizing assisted suicides, so I can't really see some poor guy suffering badly and dying in the hospital, getting a shot of eternal sleep medicine by choice, really keeping ya up at night.
Again, you're not talking about a right to die but rather a right to kill.
Call it what'cha will. Feel free to get bogged down by whatever name yer giving it. Right to kill, right to die, right to this, right to that. The word "right" often gets in the way of doing actually doing right by someone. I dunno, maybe I'm just back frontwards and all, but I don't see how we give our kids machine guns, say go kill them cause they bug us, but then get all wishy washy and weepy eyed, when someone in really bad pain, who we know ain't gett'n better, asks for help to be put out of their misery, and we say no, life is precious. Don't make much sense at all.
You want to give doctors (to start) the legal option to end a human life upon request. You've given us no meaningful, non-subjective criteria by which we can expect that legal option to be limited.
Well I ain't a doctor now am I. I'm not claiming to know what's best for someone, I'm saying give em some freedom to decide what's best for themselves. They've come up with a pretty good way to judge abortions, so I'm sure they can find a way to judge the terminally ill. I'd be a fool to think I should be deciding who stays and who goes.
You've, instead, used words like "terminable" when in truth everyone is terminable, words like "pain" when no one I know is without pain,
Well I guess we'll have to wait and see if your definition changes if ya get some "terminable" disease and get so much unending "pain" that all you want to do is die. Then ya can write their perspective from their perspective. I think there's an expected "natural" lifespan of people, or so doctors say, and a "natural" amount of pain people are in, that's what doctors say too I've heard. Bones and porches get creaky cause they both get walked on. So you can twist those words into any balloon shaped animal ya want and stretch that taffy to look like more than it is. But in the end, you know what I'm implying and all the fancy side stepping don't change that.
Sorry, but when you give doctors the option to end my life, that does indeed potentially affect me and those I love.
Don't put foam in my mouth and call me rabid. I never said such a thing. I never said if you were sick that a doctor should have the option to end your life, I'm saying you should have the option of being allowed to asking a willing doctor to assist you in ending your own life. Son, why do you keep saying I was saying something that I wasn't. Stop dealing from the bottom of the deck.
You cannot realistically hand anyone that kind of power without imposing some fairly strict limitations on the use of that power. You've even essentially acknowledged that on several levels in this conversation, but you've given no indication that you've thought it through enough to realize that such limitations are impossible to adequately define.
Adequatly define for who? For you or for me? Cause I think we have a difference in what would be adequate or defined in that situation. And just cause one person isn't satisfied with their meal, doesn't mean you should take back the whole table's dinner. And the power you speak of ain't in the doctors hands really, it's in the person who is dying.
No one, yet, in this thread has argued a true right to die. A true right to die would impose no limitations at all.
So there's a "real" limitation to dying? Or just legal ramifications? Maybe we should arrest people who kill themselves.
You got out of bed this morning and decided it should be your last? Fine, go to the doctor and get a prescription to die. You don't need a reason, you don't need an examination, you have simply but to ask.
And I thought I was good at tall tales. I don't know why you see one thing apparently leading to another like it's enivitable. It's like the sky is grey and you're calling it Armegeddon.
So, what are some arguing? You (that's a generic you, not aimed at any specific individual) are arguing that people should be assisted with suicide so long as YOU agree with their reasons for wanting to die.
No sir, I'm saying as long as an educated doctor agrees with their reasons for wanting to die. Again, it ain't up to me. But what you are saying, is it should only be allowed if YOU agree. I ain't saying that at all, I'm saying I'm not to decide anymore than I think you should. I don't know better from a doctor anymore than I know better from someone who is in severe pain and dying. But apparently your side of the story seems to.
Ironically, if you don't agree their reasons are valid, you seem to be quick enough to rescind your permission.
No to that again, I'm saying that's between them and their doctor, and the good lord, not between me and them and my almighty.
That's not a right to die. That's just another way of letting YOU decide who lives and who dies. And that, as always, is something I'll never willing accept.
Again, I'm not asking to decide anything other than letting other people decide for themselves. It's YOU, and that there is a generic you, who want to decide who lives and dies, cause someone too weak to eat on their own ain't able to dash out the window or hang themselves by a neck tie. All they are able to do is lay in pain and agony until they die. The big difference between YOU and I, is I would rather empower these people with one last option where you'd rather force them to drag out every last painful minute of their lives. That ain't compassion man, that's just cruel. In war, if you shot someone, they didn't die, but you knew you couldn't get em medical help, but you also knew they'd live a day in excruciting pain, and they begged for you to help them into the afterlife, would ya finish them off or just let them suffer? What would be crueler? To let them live, or to help em die? Or would ya just tell them we are all "terminable" and in "pain".
If ya'd show such mercy to an "enemy", why couldn't ya show it to a friend?