No I haven't warped a single thing, that is your strawman though.
This is a lie. You compared palliation with homicide. They are not the same thing. Anyone looking at the facts in a rational manner knows the difference between treating an uncomfortable symptom to give relief and deliberately killing someone.
No it doesn't. That is just your skewed opinion on a doctor who, in his medical expertise, can see the suffering of an individual and at that individuals request allow them to pass peacefully. There is nothing about that - that is aggressive, unethical, or murderous. Period.
No they wouldn't. With precedence set in the U.S. by some states - and the fact that the reason for the assisted suicide would be taken into consideration. There would be no reason for serious charges.
Yawn. Jack Kevorkian, convicted murderer. Deny it all you want. If you don't believe killing folks in aggression in my state would land you in prison for the rest of your life, I suppose you could try it, but I wouldn't recommend it.
I know it's meaning. Murder, by law, is defined as killing with malice aforethought.
So what, you're claiming that your theoretical Kevorkian-esque contract killer "doctor" is killing them on accident? This is a hired killing, it is intentional and premeditated.
Nothing in this sentence is a fact that can't be amended by further regulatory wording written into some book for legislation. You appeal to the authority to old archaic words of man is noted, but your insistence that such fallible decrees can not be updated continues to be the wrench in your argument.
Old archaic, huh? Do you work for the Department of Redundancy Department, Redundancy Division?
Okay here are some archaic words of man. I sort of respect them for some reason, I dunno.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This is the mission statement of the United States. Like most libertarians, I agree with it wholeheartedly.
UNALIENABLE.
You can't sell yourself into slavery. You're not allowed to do so even if you want to. You can work for someone for no money if you choose to, but you cannot become their property and you will ALWAYS retain the liberty to stop doing so.
You can give away your property, but you can't give away your
right to own property.
You can't give someone else permission to kill you, or rather, even if you do, it doesn't matter, killing you would still be an act of aggression because they are initiating force against you.
Killing other humans is wrong unless it's necessary to do so in self-defense, to defend your own rights against the aggression of others. I don't even support execution.
If the maxim "killing is wrong unless absolutely necessary to defend yourself" is something you consider unethical and archaic, then that's your right to think that, and it's my right to be thankful I do not live anywhere near someone who is openly "morally flexible" on the principle of whether or not killing other humans in aggression is okay, since, you know, I happen to be a human and I kind of hope other people will not kill me. As a rule, I'm wary of those who promote needless killing.
