Originally Posted by The_Doctor10
No, it's the same one. You're fine with denying people life saving (or prolonging) care but god forbid they would like to be hooked up to an iv of morphine and slip into the night....
No, it is not the same argument. It's a right to refuse medical treatment. It's not a right for someone to intentionally take the life of another—for any reason except self-defense or if they've forfeited that right by taking anothers and have had a trial over it with the state doing the deed.
It has nothing to do with me being fine about anything, though. Killing someone has been a capital offense for a long time and it should remain that way, so the rest of us can be safe. You're fine on cheapening human life, the next phase of the slippery slope since abortion was legalized. It's no wonder we have psychotics killing school children, going to war for nefarious reasons, assassination of American citizens, drone wars on children and labeling that collateral damage, and college professors rationalizing infanticide ( and I believe the current US president okay with the latter too.) This is a philosophy of utilitarianism that views people like cattle or dogs.
Guess who else made the Useless Eaters argument?
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Last edited by BucEyedPea; 01-11-2013 at 08:25 AM..