Brittany Maynard ended her own life before her tumor could rob her of it

[R.D.]

She had second thoughts and expressed a change of heart. It's my opinion she was pressured into this. It's a shame, nothing noble

reading the article, you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I linked other information

Fact is she had doubts just days before. Everyone here so knee jerk to dismiss my concern due to your glee at her death is morbid. I never once gave an opinion as to the option. Closed minds simple can't or won't grasp what I posted....oddly enough you were all liberals too.

Her only doubt was about WHEN she would take her own life. She never decided not to, just reserved the right to push the date forward or back.

That is my entire point. I suspect she may have been pressured to keep that date.

Who would have pressured anyone to die, would you?

The group that advocates and celebrated "death with dignity" that had spent months of propaganda with her as the focal point...One of Maynard's wishes during this sad, final year of her illness was to shine more light on the "death with dignity" movement, and that perhaps her death would have an impact on laws -- and public opinion -- on this topic in the near future.(Brittany Maynard s Story and Americans Views on Assisted Suicide)

Again, I'm not against it. It just struck me that her moving the date could be seen as a backwards step for the "campaign". If she had not expressed, just days prior, the possibility of not honoring that date I would not have this suspicion.

 

[Noomi]

But if God is able to save you, why didn't you just stay home and suffer and wait for your God to help you? After all, you have been saying that doctors don't know what they are talking about.

No I don't have a lot of faith in doctors, but they are here for a reason, and when they can't go any further, that is where I believe that the Lord can come in. Why some people are saved and some are not though is something that only the Lord can explain.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

You don't have faith in doctors, except when you need them? Why didn't you just stay at home and wait for God to help you? Why go and get medical treatment when your faith in God should have been enough?

I'll tell you why you went to the hospital. Because you knew that God couldn't make you better.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ No, I went to the doctor first because I didn't want to bother the Lord until I absolutely had to. Do you have any idea how many people there are for him to be there for? A lot and I believe that a good deal of them people needed him a whole to more than I did and so I wasn't about to steal such a thing from them or anything from them for that matter.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Newby]

So your moral belief, based on who knows what, is that a person committing suicide because they broke up with a girl or boyfriend is wrong, but one doing so because of terminal illness is okay? What is that moral belief based on, and why should that be the one that is generally accepted by society? Why should moral values based on religion be any different than moral values based on where ever yours come from? What is your logical reasoning that your moral values are valid while those based in other origins are not? Why does where a moral value comes from decide on whether it's valid or not?

Because someone committing suicide over a romantic breakup is ending their life because of a temporary situation. The person ending their life to avoid the horrible last stages of cancer is not.

The logical reasoning behind my comments concerning religious moral codes is that they not be the sole basis for laws. What anyone believes is up to them and I, as I have stated, have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with laws based solely on religious beliefs.

But you didn't answer why? Why do you have a problem with morals based solely on religious beliefs? What is the reasoning behind that? Why is there a distinction on where a moral value originates? Why is one source okay, but another not?

And do your morals originate from only one place, one source? If not, then why do you assume that someone else's would?

Why do you think I have a problem with morals based solely on religious beliefs? Ihave stated over and over that I am fine with whatever religious beliefs anyone wants to hold. I may disagree with what they say on some occasions, but I am fine with them having whatever moral codes they choose and from whatever source they choose.

So you like to play games? You are not 'fine' with them being made into law, which is what I was addressing from reading your posts, as you well know. So the same question stands, I'll qualify it further for you since you didn't understand it before. Can you explain why where your morals originate from should determine whether they're morals followed by society, i.e. made into law? Where do your morals originate from since it's obviously not 'religion', and why is it okay for your morals to be imposed upon others simply because they do not originate in religion? What is the logical basis or reasoning for that argument?

Oh, so you are asking why my morals are fine for laws but religious morals are not?

Our constitution forbids having a state religion. That is why I always try to have the word "solely" in the sentence condemning religious laws. As in "You cannot have laws based solely on religious dogma or rules."

The basic morality is the same. Do not steal, do not rape, and do not murder. As society gets more complex so do the laws. But the constitution clearly states that having a state religion is out of the question.

No one said anything about a state religion, the question asked was simple. Why does it matter where a moral originates from as to whether it should be followed by society, i.e. made into a law? It's against Christian religion to murder, murder is against the law in our country, yet somehow we remain free of having a state religion. So your 'state religion' argument is bogus.

I want to know why where your morals originate from makes them okay to be made into law, but if someone else's originate from a different doctrine then they are taboo?