You compared palliation with homicide.
No I didn't. Not even once. You have - because it is you whom believes that assisting a suicide is comparable to murder, but also in the same breath believe that it is ok to offer palliative care to someone committing suicide.
Anyone looking at the facts in a rational manner knows the difference between treating an uncomfortable symptom to give relief and deliberately killing someone.
I do. You don't. That much has been established.
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
You are beating your strawman to death. You can color assisted suicide as murder all you want, but it won't make it true. There is no malice aforethought. Sorry. Try again.
This is the mission statement of the United States. Like most libertarians, I agree with it wholeheartedly.
UNALIENABLE.
I don't care who you agree with or idolize. You are making an appeal to an authority. An authority that is not infallible. Decrees set forth by man are not mandated also by nature. We can oppose one's decision. One's subjective moral compass. One's perceptions of life, dignity, etc. We can even, wait for it,
Oppose long ingrained Laws.
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.
Never said I could or would. Even still. You are continuing to make appeals to the word of man. Words written long ago. And those words are not, in any way, anything other than a collective and SUBJECTIVE echo of decisions from a time long ago.
This has nothing to do with slavery, anyways. This has everything to do with an individuals right to choose when they want to die - and choose to seek medical assistance in doing so. Nothing about that violates any natural law. And natural law is very often subjective to begin with.
You can give away your property, but you can't give away your right to own property.
Says who? Some guy. Some joe shmoe? Some perfect ultimate being? My rebuttal remains the same. Your appeals to established laws does not somehow establish your argument as one that reflects the immutable characteristics of life. Plain and simple.
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.
What field of science defines any of that as an inescapable fact of life? Or are you again appealing to an opinion? Laws, decrees, established perceptions and understandings of things change. I've made this clear to you quite a few times now.
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.
Says who? Another person/ group of persons? Their decree is now being challenged. And the opposition is doing a bang up job at amending the established perception on assisted suicide, i.e when it is right to kill someone. Deal with those facts.
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
There is nothing aggressive about doctor assisted suicide.
Check the definition of the word "aggression" so that you can better understand because clearly you, currently, do not.
Aggression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: angry or violent behavior or feelings
: hostile action against another country, government, etc.
since, you know, I happen to be a human and I kind of hope other people will not kill me.
I know you are human. That is why you are so prone to lapse into these hyperbolic nonsense rants that don't have an ounce of reason. It's because you are human that you are arguing not from logic but from your stubbornness against conceding in a debate you have already lost.
As a rule, I'm wary of those who promote needless killing.
And yet no one is doing that. That is your straw man. You are coloring the oppositions argument as murder because that is an easier argument to address than actually addressing the actual argument. Which is not murder or "needless killing" but compassion and mercy granted to ill and suffering individuals who want out.