Aid in dying for terminally ill

[Desk trauma]

Give me the desired format for an answer that suits what you want.

One that answers the question I posed rather than one that only contains a vague comment on the nature of democracy.

 

[returnn23]

OK. In current law, what do you call causing the intentional death on one human being by another?

 

[Desk trauma]

OK. In current law, what do you call causing the intentional death on one human being by another?

Make whatever point you have on deck. The Socratic method shtick is beyond tedious.

 

[returnn23]

Here it is:

Euthanasia Statement

Administrative Committee National Conference of Catholic Bishops September 12, 1991 Current efforts to legalize euthanasia place our society at a critical ju...

www.usccb.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Give me the desired format for an answer that suits what you want.

The question was pretty straight forward, the answer should not be hard:

Done. Now, why should I have to abide by your beliefs when I don’t hold them?

No one here has said that the law should prevent anyone from doing everything medically possible to delay death regardless of suffering. That is not a choice we wish to take from any patient, but you pretty clearly want to take the position that those who wish to end their suffering should be prevented from it (and specifically prevented from having assistance). This is applying your doctrine to others who do not follow it against their will.

You've quoted the doctrine and what I assume is some sort of explainer of the doctrine, but you haven't given a reason why your doctrine should override other's choices and rights. So I ask in a slightly different form:

Why does the doctrine of your church override the rights of non-members regarding their end of life choices?

 

[Desk trauma]

Here it is:

Euthanasia Statement

Administrative Committee National Conference of Catholic Bishops September 12, 1991 Current efforts to legalize euthanasia place our society at a critical ju...

www.usccb.org

Here’s mine: I don’t care what the Bishops have to say, about anything.

 

[returnn23]

The question was pretty straight forward, the answer should not be hard:



No one here has said that the law should prevent anyone from doing everything medically possible to delay death regardless of suffering. That is not a choice we wish to take from any patient, but you pretty clearly want to take the position that those who wish to end their suffering should be prevented from it (and specifically prevented from having assistance). This is applying your doctrine to others who do not follow it against their will.

You've quoted the doctrine and what I assume is some sort of explainer of the doctrine, but you haven't given a reason why your doctrine should override other's choices and rights. So I ask in a slightly different form:

Why does the doctrine of your church override the rights of non-members regarding their end of life choices?

Did you read the document? What rights are you talking about? The right to kill yourself or have others do it for you? Suicide is suicide, assisted or not.

 

[returnn23]

Here’s mine: I don’t care what the Bishops have to say, about anything.

I understand but suicide is suicide.

 

[Desk trauma]

I understand but suicide is suicide.

And?

 

[Desk trauma]

Did you read the document? What rights are you talking about? The right to kill yourself or have others do it for you?

That’s what the thread is about. Not sure how you missed that.

 

[returnn23]

I suggest you consider a comment I read some time ago: "They claim to want to listen to the opinions of others but are surprised by the fact that there are other opinions."

 

[Desk trauma]

I suggest you consider a comment I read some time ago: "They claim to want to listen to the opinions of others but are surprised by the fact that there are other opinions."

Any time you want to actually discuss why we should be subject to your churches dictates…

 

[returnn23]

Suicide is suicide. Did you miss that? The Church is only speaking the truth. I think those who want to see both sides of this issue need to look at what the Church is saying. I think their position is well-founded and reasonable. At the voting booth and on forums like this one, defending life needs to be mentioned.

I could turn your question around: Why should anyone be subject to your dictates?

 

[Desk trauma]

Suicide is suicide? Did you miss that?

Got it, whats the problem?

I could turn your question around: Why should anyone be subject to your dictates?

As we’re talking about something that is voluntary no one is being subjected to it against their wishes.

 

[Whyayeman]

I could turn your question around: Why should anyone be subject to your dictates?

As things stand assisted suicide is illegal in your country and mine. That is identical to the position of numerous religions. People like me respect the view of others who believe that it would be a sin (crime or not). Nobody advocating a change in the law wants to dictate to anybody; they just want to have the choice for themselves.

I respect the view of those who believe it would be morally wrong. Other views are also worthy of respect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did you read the document? What rights are you talking about? The right to kill yourself or have others do it for you? Suicide is suicide, assisted or not.

I don't need to read the document. I am well aware of the dogma and its arguments.

Now. Why should your dogma be applied to everyone?

 

[returnn23]

Both sides can't be right.

 

[Desk trauma]

Both sides can't be right.

Therefore?

 

[returnn23]

The correct course of action is to not assist with or cause the death of another.

 

[Desk trauma]

The correct course of action is to not assist with or cause the death of another.

A course of action that remains open if it becomes legal. Where does this imposition your concerned about come in?