New York's progressive politicians prepare the battleground for assisted suicide

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see quite a few comments about how barbaric or cruel this policy is. However, in the interest of putting the most charitable construction on the matter, let us look at a sample argument a friend of mine gave in a recent conversation. The person is not religious, and does not accept theological or Biblical rationales. So, how would those of us who are Christian communicate our essential thesis against an argument like the one below?

The argument went something like this:
  1. When an animal is terminally ill and suffering, and in a non-functional state, with no path to recovery, we feel sorry for it.
  2. It is commonly regarded as morally permissible to end the life of such a suffering animal.
  3. Not only that, but such ending of the life of the suffering animal is seen as a mercy.
  4. Humans also suffer and can enter into a non-functional state, with no path to recovery.
  5. Some humans can be communicative in a non-functional state, and can thus express concious desires.
  6. Some humans who are suffering terribly and are in a non-functional, but communicative, state can communicate the desire to end their suffering.
  7. If it is morally permissible and a mercy to end the life of an animal, which cannot communicate, when it is obviously suffering and non-functional, then it is likewise morally permissible and a mercy to end the life at the communicated request of an obviously suffering and non-functional human.
 
I hear this comment all the time, but here’s the problem—there is absolutely NO WAY to keep euthanasia from spreading from the people who freely chose it to persons who can’t speak for themselves.

In countries where euthanasia is allowed, it always starts with like ten different levels of authorizarion and screening and the person has to be in their right mind when they agree to it.

Then time passes, and the criterion get loosened, and people are numb to the idea, then people start to get pressured into it, or are given no choice at all.

So this is a case where for the good of others who can’t speak for themselves, it can’t be allowed for the persons who can.
 
Last edited:
upant said:
new families are not being created per the definition of merriam-webster, would be a better statement
Click to expand...
That would be a different statement, not better. The first, that families are being destroyed, was incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top