• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Headin' Out

Your thoughts on the right to die at the time of your choosing.

  • Assisted death is murder, I would never support this.

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Assisted death should be supported by law.

    Votes: 37 75.5%

  • I am uncertain, there should be strong regulation.

    Votes: 5 10.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Total voters
    49
Ancient Herald said:
So why would the baby be more valuable than the mother?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the dynamic involved in an abortion so I'll try to kind of spell it out for you.

When a mother gets an abortion the baby ends up dead - it has no more life.

When a mother doesn't get an abortion both the mother and the baby live. Perhaps the mother's life is changed, and I would even argue that it becomes more dificult, but it does not, of necessity, end.

You're arguing that a mother living a changed life is the equivalent of a baby being killed.

That, again, is a false equivalency.

An abortion is almost never a result of a mother making a life-or-death decision for herself.

When it is the case that she has to choose between her own life or that of her child I would not oppose her choosing to live.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience.

A mother's convenience does not trump the very life of the baby.
 
soot said:
You don't seem to understand the dynamic involved in an abortion so I'll try to kind of spell it out for you.

When a mother gets an abortion the baby ends up dead - it has no more life.

When a mother doesn't get an abortion both the mother and the baby live. Perhaps the mother's life is changed, and I would even argue that it becomes more dificult, but it does not, of necessity, end.

You're arguing that a mother living a changed life is the equivalent of a baby being killed.

That, again, is a false equivalency.

An abortion is almost never a result of a mother making a life-or-death decision for herself.

When it is the case that she has to choose between her own life or that of her child I would not oppose her choosing to live.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience.

A mother's convenience does not trump the very life of the baby.
Click to expand...

First, define convenience and provide specific examples.

otherwise, convenience is just a weasel word.

If you cannot, then all you have said has no substance or credibility.

And all you are really arguing for is to force the woman into giving birth and abandoning her career for being barefoot and preggers in the kitchen.

Then you'd have to justify why having a career over the nuclear family model is a convenience for her.


Here we go round the mulberry bush.

Again and again and again.
 
JayDubya said:
Shock, a dude who likes FDR opposed to human rights.
Click to expand...

Human rights, yes. Natural rights, no. There is no evidence for natural rights, all rights are invented by humanity.
 
gdgyva said:
i have watched a few people wither away now....not pleasant

My dad fought the cancer all the way through....never gave in

While another wanted an early exit away from the pain

This is a hard subject for me....and not sure if i have a definitive answer at this point

Do i think a person should have the right to terminate their own life when they are terminal, and only pain is in their immediate future....yeah, i think i do

Do i think people who are NOT terminal have that same right....that is really where this gets murky for me

Take someone with alzheimer's, or dementia where they know they will only get worse....but it is not a terminal illness....do i want to give then the same right? i think so....but then i wonder, where do we draw the line? Or do we?

This is not cut and dry for me....but i am definitely leaning towards the right to terminate

I just need it more clarified on what will be and wont be allowed
Click to expand...

My father died of untreatable cancer too, he suffered all the way to the end. If he had wanted to die earlier and avoid the pain, I would have been 100% supportive of that, I'd have helped him to it too, regardless of the law. I don't draw any lines, if someone wants to die for any reason, whether I agree with it or not, that's up to them.
 
JayDubya said:
The logic of it is quite plain.

You just don't share the value that humans have a right to their lives.
Click to expand...

And you haven't justified that they do. You don't get to proclaim a magical right that you cannot demonstrate. Show how it is actually so, objectively.
 
SMTA said:
All they have to do is commit suicide, which requires no help.
Click to expand...

Ask a quadraplegic how they'd do it.

How about those that choose to live as long as they can with debilitating or painful illness to be with family and friends, up to the point where they can no longer do so?

How about a right to do so with dignity and without pain? For themselves or their families?
 
JayDubya said:
The natural human right to life is unalienable.

If you kill another human being in aggression, a just society will put you in prison for murder.
Click to expand...

So then a persons right to life is not inviolable, since you claim you have the right to put a restriction on it...*telling someone else* they may not request assistance from another to end their life. You feel you or the govt should have that 'control' over that inalienable right? Not so inviolable then.
 
radcen said:
Some people want to die with dignity. Are we really so petty that we would coerce people into undignified scenarios that would be harder on them and their families?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a huge number of people rigidly focused on controlling the lives of others, no matter what that quality of life OR their personal decisions re: that supposedly inviolable right to life.
 
JayDubya said:
The logic of it is quite plain.

You just don't share the value that humans have a right to their lives.
Click to expand...

And you dont have the right to tell another person how they should choose to value their own right to life. It's hilarious that you think you know more about how someone else should perceive their 'inviolable' right to life. Apparently you believe you or the govt should indeed breech that inviolability.
 
Lursa said:
And you dont have the right to tell another person how they should choose to value their own right to life. It's hilarious that you think you know more about how someone else should perceive their 'inviolable' right to life. Apparently you believe you or the govt should indeed breech that inviolability.
Click to expand...

I think it's funny to see supposed libertarians, people who are supposed to be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, telling us that people don't have individual rights and freedoms because they are personally uncomfortable with what they might do.
 
WCH said:
Is government your God?
Click to expand...

How can a government for the people by the people be a god?

i don't worship government, but i fully understand the need for one.

We do need a minimum or order and we do need a place to go where we can address our grievances. You cannot have a society without a government and a minimum of laws.

But what i want is a small unobtrusive government for maximum liberty and freedom.

Because freedom is not free.

However, there's the enigma wrapped up like a burrito. Too much liberty is chaos and nobody has any rights.

too much safety and there is no liberty.

And government should never be for an elite few who think they get to tell us what to do.

My ideal society is maximum freedom without things like bigotry, intolerance, and hatred, and imbeciles who think they get to tell other people what to do or they get to hurt them.

A real society should not care about what one believes, only about how one wishes to impose themselves upon another person or people.
 
Cephus said:
I think it's funny to see supposed libertarians, people who are supposed to be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, telling us that people don't have individual rights and freedoms because they are personally uncomfortable with what they might do.
Click to expand...

i'm not a libertarian.
 
Cephus said:
I think it's funny to see supposed libertarians, people who are supposed to be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, telling us that people don't have individual rights and freedoms because they are personally uncomfortable with what they might do.
Click to expand...

I think it's funny Lursa is "quoting" a word I didn't use instead of the word I did use: UNALIENABLE. There. Maybe she can see it better now.

I think it's funny you don't understand why a libertarian would oppose aggressive killing.
 
JayDubya said:
I think it's funny Lursa is "quoting" a word I didn't use instead of the word I did use: UNALIENABLE. There. Maybe she can see it better now.

I think it's funny you don't understand why a libertarian would oppose aggressive killing.
Click to expand...

You're not a libertarian.

the libertarian position is thusly;
Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention , May 30, 2008

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births.
Click to expand...

Libertarian Party on Abortion

What this means is, since you consider it unjust to allow abortions, since abortion is murder, and thus anybody who supports it in any way shape or form (according to you),


Then therefore it stems to reason that you are not a just person.

Otherwise, you cannot be a libertarian if you are a just person since they can not be a just person since a just society does not allow for the killing of innocent people.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
I think it's funny Lursa is "quoting" a word I didn't use instead of the word I did use: UNALIENABLE. There. Maybe she can see it better now.

I think it's funny you don't understand why a libertarian would oppose aggressive killing.
Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about aggressive killing, we're talking about people's right to end their own lives on their own terms, with voluntary help.
 
JayDubya said:
I think it's funny Lursa is "quoting" a word I didn't use instead of the word I did use: UNALIENABLE. There. Maybe she can see it better now.

I think it's funny you don't understand why a libertarian would oppose aggressive killing.
Click to expand...

We think it's funny that you believe that personally requested assisted suicide is 'aggressive killing.' It's that flexible and singularly personal dictionary that you use I suppose.
 
Cephus said:
Nobody is talking about aggressive killing, we're talking about people's right to end their own lives on their own terms, with voluntary help.
Click to expand...

So, killing someone else without justification in violation of their right to life.

Exactly as I said then, aggressive killing.
 
Ancient Herald said:
You're not a libertarian.

the libertarian position is thusly;


Libertarian Party on Abortion

What this means is, since you consider it unjust to allow abortions, since abortion is murder, and thus anybody who supports it in any way shape or form (according to you),


Then therefore it stems to reason that you are not a just person.

Otherwise, you cannot be a libertarian if you are a just person since they can not be a just person since a just society does not allow for the killing of innocent people.
Click to expand...

There are many anti-abortion libertarians, whatever the national platform may read.

Likewise there are some Pro-abortion Republicans despite their national platform and a tiny handful of antiabortion democrats.

This bull**** about you not understanding those facts and personally attacking me has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is physician-assisted suicide.
 
JayDubya said:
There are many anti-abortion libertarians, whatever the national platform may read.

Likewise there are some Pro-abortion Republicans despite their national platform and a tiny handful of antiabortion democrats.

This bull**** about you not understanding those facts and personally attacking me has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is physician-assisted suicide.
Click to expand...

If you're not attacking anyone calling them a pro-abort or other such nonsense, then I am not attacking you for calling you what you are.

But then again, pro-lifers are very disingenuous people, and will use any dirty rotten trick to put anybody else down.

And you did exactly as i thought you would.

libertarians are not for government intrusion. libertarians are for liberty, not tyranny.

anybody who tramples on the rights of others can not be a libertarian.
 
Ancient Herald said:
If you're not attacking anyone calling them a pro-abort or other such nonsense, then I am not attacking you for calling you what you are.

But then again, pro-lifers are very disingenuous people, and will use any dirty rotten trick to put anybody else down.

And you did exactly as i thought you would.

libertarians are not for government intrusion. libertarians are for liberty, not tyranny.

anybody who tramples on the rights of others can not be a libertarian.
Click to expand...

Trampling over the rights of others? Well that sounds like an abortion/physician-assisted suicide supporter. What you advocate is for directly violating the rights of other human beings, because you just don't care about them.

By contrast, I do. I respect the most important human right and want it protected.
 
JayDubya said:
Trampling over the rights of others? Well that sounds like an abortion/physician-assisted suicide supporter. What you advocate is for directly violating the rights of other human beings, because you just don't care about them.

By contrast, I do. I respect the most important human right and want it protected.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, there is no such right enumerated in the Bill Of Rights.

And the right to life in the preamble is not about being born, it is about you having the freedom and the liberty to make your own chooses and standing on your own two feet.

Face, I see tight through you and know your position is ery much the bad one that tramples on people's rights.

not eye, sayeth the fly.only you.

And fro the legal standpoint, rights begin upon birth, but even then we do not have our full rights until we are the age of legal adulthood, which is eighteen.

And that is why, you fail, and how i know everything you say is pure meaningless drivel.

And i am incredibly burnt out on this subject, so I am not going to discuss it for a while.

good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom