Right-To-Die Bill Passes In California

[juansavage1]

By the way, for a certain kind of person and philosophy, the solution is always less of the wrong kind of people. Abortion, euthanasia, birth control as a public policy and forced upon people as a condition of foreign aid. 

 

This method has been tried to solve poverty, sickness, crime, political non-conformity, genetic non-conformity, discomfort, etc. 

 

So, again, go ahead and have your opinion, but please don't couch your language in rights and dignity talk. You don't want to see people suffer and/or take care of people and dying would solve that problem. That's it. Be proud of that. 

[juansavage1]

By the way, a lot of old people fear being a burden and would rather die than make their kids feel uncomfortable changing their diapers and other nasty tasks. It should be part of our moral commitment to honor our parents that we don't make them feel that way. 

[Glen]

Or, perhaps we should respect their wishes and let them decide what to do with their lives. Why are you trying to force your beliefs on someone else?

[mancini79]

You changed your mind because of a documentary? 

 

Yes, the documentary opened my mind to it and did more research on the subject. So what did you think of the documentary??

[Glen]

Yes, the documentary opened my mind to it and did more research on the subject. So what did you think of the documentary??

 

 

Ha ha, what a lib!

[Tank]

Or, perhaps we should respect their wishes and let them decide what to do with their lives. Why are you trying to force your beliefs on someone else?

 

isn't supporting the idea to give people the option to take their own lives equally forcing your beliefs on others?

[Glen]

No. It's letting the individual choose, instead of forcing somebody else to follow your beliefs.

[juansavage1]

Let's argue the thing, not use rhetorical tricks. I bet I can name 47 ways you support a law forcing your beliefs. For example, I don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Now what?

Or, perhaps we should respect their wishes and let them decide what to do with their lives. Why are you trying to force your beliefs on someone else?

[Tank]

No. It's letting the individual choose, instead of forcing somebody else to follow your beliefs.

But you believe that people should have the option to kill themselves. How is that not forcing your belief in physician assisted suicide onto the general public?

[Glen]

But you believe that people should have the option to kill themselves. How is that not forcing your belief in physician assisted suicide onto the general public?

 

 

It's letting people make their own choice.  If somebody doesn't believe in having that option then they don't have to use it.  If somebody does, they are free to.  Either way, it doesn't affect me or my beliefs.  

 

If you try to deny somebody a physician-assisted suicide aren't you thereby forcing your beliefs on them?  I understand what you're saying, that I'm forcing my beliefs on others, but ultimately the belief I'm forcing is that you have the right to believe whatever you want, as long as you don't force that belief on me.

[juansavage1]

No. It's letting the individual choose, instead of forcing somebody else to follow your beliefs.

If the principle if freedom, why restrict it to the terminally ill? Shouldn't anybody be able to pay somebody to kill them?

[Blarg]

Juan, have you ever sat at the bedside of a terminally ill relative that begged for the end? If not, then please take your JR College Poli Sci horseshit and go back to an abortion thread where you can muddy waters there.

[Glen]

If the principle if freedom, why restrict it to the terminally ill? Shouldn't anybody be able to pay somebody to kill them?

 

 

It's impossible for you to stay on topic, isn't it?  

[RuledByNone]

 

Don't bring up rights, either, unless it's a real right, not just something that you think people should have because you feel like it. Tell me the source of that right.  

 

Just say: I want people to be able to kill themselves so that they will be able to end their suffering. 

 

Just please stop the silly talk about dignity and rights.

The origin of the right is founded in self ownership. If you accept that each person owns themselves then that person can choose what to do with their property(person) as long as the action doesn't harm someone else's property.

Choosing not to wear a helmet or seat belt, choosing to prostitute yourself, choosing to possess or use drugs, or even choosing to kill yourself is at the sole discretion of the owner.

None of those actions involve the initiation of force on another person. The "state" tries to prohibit those actions by threatening force (coercion) and will initiate force if any of their "laws" are broken. As the initiation of force is always immoral it is they alone that are committing a crime.

[Blarg]

Ludwig did not miss on that one.

[Tank]

It's letting people make their own choice.  If somebody doesn't believe in having that option then they don't have to use it.  If somebody does, they are free to.  Either way, it doesn't affect me or my beliefs.  

 

If you try to deny somebody a physician-assisted suicide aren't you thereby forcing your beliefs on them?  I understand what you're saying, that I'm forcing my beliefs on others, but ultimately the belief I'm forcing is that you have the right to believe whatever you want, as long as you don't force that belief on me.

 

fair enough. i won't drag this on any longer. i'm worried when juan takes my side in a discussion.

[juansavage1]

Juan, have you ever sat at the bedside of a terminally ill relative that begged for the end? If not, then please take your JR College Poli Sci horseshit and go back to an abortion thread where you can muddy waters there.

First, I don't make moral decisions based on emotion. I don't think I have to explain why that's not the most reliable source of public policy. I also don't engage in insults unless by insult you mean accurately describing something. 

 

I was merely pointing out that if you limit the "right" to kill yourself to a certain group of people, then it's no right at all and your rationale is inconsistent. 

 

That's why I said earlier not to bring in intellectual arguments to what is essentially an emotional decision on your part. Just say: 

 

"I don't want people to suffer or see people suffer" and be done with it. We can then decide on what an acceptable level of suffering, based on whatever tugs on your heartstrings. 

[Adam]

Actually I agree with Juan on a couple of points here.

1. Emotion is no basis by which any policy should be made. Save that shit for the Marxist ****s

2. The right to end one's own life should not be limited to a certain subgroup. Fortunately (unfortunately) a motivated person will not be prevented from completing a suicide.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Adam

[gotbeer]

Actually I agree with Juan on a couple of points here.

1. Emotion is no basis by which any policy should be made. Save that shit for the Marxist ****s

2. The right to end one's own life should not be limited to a certain subgroup. Fortunately (unfortunately) a motivated person will not be prevented from completing a suicide.

 

So you are more for the European model?  I forget what country, but a person got accepted to right to die due to chronic depression.  

And I'm not saying it's a bad thing.  But like instant replay in baseball and football, you have to take the first step and say yes homers and touchdowns are reviewable.  Then as that starts to work, you can expand to all the other stuff.  Where eventually, balls and strikes will be reviewable, and people will be able to die because they had a bad day.  

[Adam]

I fully support the right for an individual to off himself. I don't like state sponsored suicide because someone or multiple persons become killers. Go buy some smack. Get a gun. Go to a raiders game.

[juansavage1]

The origin of the right is founded in self ownership. If you accept that each person owns themselves then that person can choose what to do with their property(person) as long as the action doesn't harm someone else's property.

Choosing not to wear a helmet or seat belt, choosing to prostitute yourself, choosing to possess or use drugs, or even choosing to kill yourself is at the sole discretion of the owner.

None of those actions involve the initiation of force on another person. The "state" tries to prohibit those actions by threatening force (coercion) and will initiate force if any of their "laws" are broken. As the initiation of force is always immoral it is they alone that are committing a crime.

This is consistent, in this issue. People own themselves and can harm themselves if they want to. OK. The theory breaks down under scrutiny (initiation force is always immoral?) We must stipulate that without a source, all of the rights you're talking about are just assertions. 

[RuledByNone]

This is consistent, in this issue. People own themselves and can harm themselves if they want to. OK. The theory breaks down under scrutiny (initiation force is always immoral?) We must stipulate that without a source, all of the rights you're talking about are just assertions. 

Which theory breaks down under scrutiny? You can't just say that it breaks down without providing examples of how and when it breaks down.

 

Is your argument against the existence of rights from a moral/ethical nihilsm perspective or do you accept the existence of rights but just require a more authoritative "source". Lacking divine stone tablets or golden plates, human reasoning will have to do.

The study of human action (praxeology) and how that action fits into the natural world allows us to come to conclusions that are more than "just assertions".

 

Using the "Each person owns themselves" axiom as an example, it is a simple exercise to consider other possibilities and how/if they fit into the natural world and the implication on human action of each.

1-Each person owns themselves.

2-Some people own themselves and other people.

3-Everyone owns everyone else.

4-Nobody owns themselves or anyone else.

 

There are a few other permutations but nothing really interesting (ie some people don't own themselves but own other people...)

#4 would mean that human beings are just natural resources within the commons, to be used by whoever has strength and inititative. An example of "might makes right". Of course this condition doesn't exist in nature. People would quickly revert to the desire to control ones own actions.

#3 obviosly makes no sense and doesn't exist in nature. A simple trip to the fridge to get a beer would require permission from everyone else.

#2 is slavery. In truth, the slaves still own themselves. Only the initiation of terrible force on them allows them to appear to be "owned".

 

It's easy to deduce from the examples that self-ownership is not only compatable with the natural world but also minimizes human misery.

 

As for your initiation force is always immoral? question, I think that is well supported as well. Can you think of a situation where the initation of force is moral?

 

The only exceptions to that axiom are in an extremely unlikely situation where a choice must be made between initiating force against a single person or many people. Had Capt. Sullenberger, following flameout of his engines, been forced to land his plane in the Hudson river, but instead of being able to land in open water there was a guy in a small fishing boat in his way. Seeing the man, his choices would be to land on the guy or, lacking power, dip a wing to avoid the fisherman but likely cartwheel his plane into the river. Landing the plane on the fisherman would have been the moral choice (saving the many lives in the plane) despite the technical initation of force on the fisherman, but I also see that this "initiation" is very different from the common initiation of force where other options exist.

 

The overwhelmingly vast number of human interactions every day benefit from peaceful, voluntary cooperation. Those interactions that include some initiation of force don't usually work out so well.

[mtangelsfan]

Mises, doesn't "state-sponsored suicide" basically go against the tenents of Libertarianism?  Do we push away the government on the things we don't like but accept it for the things we do like?

[arch stanton]

I don't think this is about the state sponsoring. It's about the state not interfering if someone asks for help.

[mtangelsfan]

But wouldn't the person that was asked for help have to be overseen by the government?