domtimothy46176
Posts: 670
Joined: 12/25/2004 From: Dayton, Ohio area Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FLButtSlut quote:
ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176 I think that euthanasia should be covered under the same legal precedents as the controversial "right to choose". I'm not a legal scholar, by any means, but onthe face of it it would appear to be inconsistent to provide the choice to terminate the life of one's offspring but not one's own self. Timothy As I have repeatedly stated, the "right to choose" should be an option of the INDIVIDUAL, not the family. Being "pro choice" and pro euthanasia are not even closely related. Patients who are terminally ill with no hope of recovery, can and do choose to "die with dignity" everyday. Just because it isn't all over the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Choosing to end your life because you are clinically depressed should not be a valid reason. If we were to allow such a thing the teenage suicide rate could feasibly skyrocket out of control. In order for such a thing as euthanasia to become a legal option, there must be a stringent list of criteria that must be met before such a thing could even be considered. I don't see why one should need to meet any particular legal criteria to have access to euthanasia. We've already established the legal precedent that one has final say over one's own personal medical decisions with Roe vs. Wade. It's a matter between one's doctor and one's own particular desires. The only practical restrictions on legalized euthanasia are the existing laws on murder and the regulation of pharmacological agents that make it less painful and/or messy. There's no law against loading the gun for dear old Dad if he decides his time is up, so long as I don't pull the trigger for him. As to your point about the teenage suicide rate, it's simply irrelevant. It's a personal decision until such time as the individual is found to be legally incompetent. Your position that "clinical depress(ion) should not be a valid reason" smacks of moralistic posturing. Who are you to decide what constitutes a valid reason to end the life of someone else's child? The government needs to honor it's commitment to follow the legal precedents and not interfere with the individual freedom over one's own physical body. As voters we need to continue to put pressure on our legal representatives to ensure that our laws are consistent and consistently enforced. We shouldn't tolerate a legal system that can't apply basic civil liberties with logical consistency. Either we're free to do whatever we choose with our bodies, provided we aren't impinging on the civil rights of others, or we're chattel, chained to the whims of elected tyrants. Contrary to your position, I find that pro choice and pro euthanasia are simply different aspects of the same position. We're either free or we aren't. Personal liberty supercedes the sancitity of life or it doesn't. Either the government can curtail civil liberties in the name of higher societal need or it can not. We need to get rid of the fuzzy legal thinking and quit splitting hairs. Timothy
|