Do you really have a right to life if you don't also have a right to death?

[SwimExpert]

No, not at all. Without the right to die, there can be no right to life, or even a right to live as you see fit. There is only a government mandate that you shall be alive, and that you shall continue to maintain that condition for the pleasure of the government, at any and all expense.

What a crazy world we live in, when liberal California pulls one of the century's greatest victories for minimizing government intervention into people's personal choices.

California governor signs assisted-dying bill - CNN.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, the OP is a fallacy of reciprocity right to life and to death. Other than that break down in false logic, the OP is intriguing. Does the government have the right to compel a person to live who would rather not?

 

[Timmy]

U can kill yourself if u like . U can have a DO NOT RESESTATE order if u want .

Who says u don't have a right to die ?

 

[Mr. H.]

First, women kill their progeny and now they want to kill themselves?

Da fuck is up with all this death wish shit?

 

[Two Thumbs]

this is the worst 'we should have the right to die' reason I have ever heard.


there's billions of ways to die, you don't need help

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, not at all. Without the right to die, there can be no right to life, or even a right to live as you see fit. There is only a government mandate that you shall be alive, and that you shall continue to maintain that condition for the pleasure of the government, at any and all expense.

What a crazy world we live in, when liberal California pulls one of the century's greatest victories for minimizing government intervention into people's personal choices.

California governor signs assisted-dying bill - CNN.com

Not 'crazy' at all.

Liberals have consistently advocated for minimizing government intervention into people's personal choices.

Liberals fight to protect the privacy rights of women, prohibiting government from seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Liberals fight to protect citizens' voting rights, opposing government from interfering with the fundamental right to vote with voter 'ID' laws.

Liberals have fought to protect the rights of gay Americans, preventing government from seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

And liberals are now engaged in the fight to protect the liberties of transgender Americans from unwarranted government interference in their personal lives and decisions.

Allowing families to decide for themselves when a loved-one's life has come to an end is consistent with liberal efforts to prevent increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

U can kill yourself if u like . U can have a DO NOT RESESTATE order if u want .

Who says u don't have a right to die ?

You don't understand the issue.

The issue is not the act of dying, but of assisting someone to die.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

this is the worst 'we should have the right to die' reason I have ever heard.


there's billions of ways to die, you don't need help

And someone else who doesn't understand the issue.

Again, the issue is not the act of dying, but of assisting someone to die.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, not at all. Without the right to die, there can be no right to life, or even a right to live as you see fit. There is only a government mandate that you shall be alive, and that you shall continue to maintain that condition for the pleasure of the government, at any and all expense.

What a crazy world we live in, when liberal California pulls one of the century's greatest victories for minimizing government intervention into people's personal choices.

California governor signs assisted-dying bill - CNN.com

The right to death is one that needs to be very strict. Proper controls need to be in place, why? Because living human beings can be very scrupulous and having others in charge of people's lives is very dangerous.

 

[SwimExpert]

The right to death is one that needs to be very strict. Proper controls need to be in place, why? Because living human beings can be very scrupulous and having others in charge of people's lives is very dangerous.

That's really fucking stupid. It's dangerous to have Jim in charge of Sally's life, so the right to die should be strict so that Sally has virtually no freedom to make her own decisions? Just like an idiot of a liberal....never able to conceive of anything that doesn't involve supreme control by others.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right to death is one that needs to be very strict. Proper controls need to be in place, why? Because living human beings can be very scrupulous and having others in charge of people's lives is very dangerous.

That's really fucking stupid. It's dangerous to have Jim in charge of Sally's life, so the right to die should be strict so that Sally has virtually no freedom to make her own decisions? Just like an idiot of a liberal....never able to conceive of anything that doesn't involve supreme control by others.

Jeezus Haych Kryst.

You really just jump on people and no interest in debate. I can't be bothered to post more to your moronic crap than this.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you really have a right to life if you don't also have a right to death?

There is no right to life, and as has been said long ago, the only real question is suicide (Camus). Everything follows from that.

BTW, be careful who you marry kids, they are the ones who get to pull the plug, if necessary.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, the OP is a fallacy of reciprocity right to life and to death.

Er, what? First of all, fallacy of reciprocity is folk terminology and not a true logical fallacy. Second, it doesn't even come close to applying in this situation. Fallacy of Reciprocity (more commonly known asThe Norm of Reciprocity) is merely an observation of human behavior. It is not a logical phenomenon. At most, it could be considered to be a type of cognitive bias. The concept presents that most people often feel compelled to reciprocate good acts, gifts, and/or generosity, but that not all people will behave accordingly. This absence of reciprocity leads to misunderstandings and disconnects between how different people perceive common situations in which they are involved. An example is when a man takes a woman out on a dinner date and talks her up to make her feel good emotionally, then expects her to take him home and make him feel good physically.

 

[SwimExpert]

U can kill yourself if u like.

Not according to the government. Suicide used to be considered a felony in most states, and remained a criminal offense in some states until relatively recently. Meanwhile, the government continues to forcibly intervene and then commit anyone it discovers attempting to kill themselves.

U can have a DO NOT RESESTATE order if u want .

Who says u don't have a right to die ?

Even a DNR tends to be difficult to obtain, and is almost always legally fragile.

 

[whitehall]

"Assisted dying" is of course the definition of murder. I saw a documentary about the incredible amount of people who commit suicide off the Golden Gate bridge. In a rare case a survivor related how he changed his mind after he jumped. On the way down he realized he wanted to live. What happens when a Dr. "Feelbad" hits the switch and you suddenly realize you don't want to die? At least the liberal state of Ca. should mandate counseling before someone hires a pervert who enjoys the thrill of ending someone's life to talk them into dying .

 

[g5000]

No, not at all. Without the right to die, there can be no right to life, or even a right to live as you see fit.

Illogical.

The Right to Life is about protecting lives that cannot defend themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, the OP is a fallacy of reciprocity right to life and to death.

Er, what? First of all, fallacy of reciprocity is folk terminology and not a true logical fallacy. Second, it doesn't even come close to applying in this situation. Fallacy of Reciprocity (more commonly known asThe Norm of Reciprocity) is merely an observation of human behavior. It is not a logical phenomenon. At most, it could be considered to be a type of cognitive bias. The concept presents that most people often feel compelled to reciprocate good acts, gifts, and/or generosity, but that not all people will behave accordingly. This absence of reciprocity leads to misunderstandings and disconnects between how different people perceive common situations in which they are involved. An example is when a man takes a woman out on a dinner date and talks her up to make her feel good emotionally, then expects her to take him home and make him feel good physically.

You just replied with a fallacy of authority. You have none. The concept of reciprocity is quite clear. You are arguing that each are equal in rights thus deserve the same reciprocity under the law. False. Run along.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Assisted dying" is of course the definition of murder. I saw a documentary about the incredible amount of people who commit suicide off the Golden Gate bridge. In a rare case a survivor related how he changed his mind after he jumped. On the way down he realized he wanted to live. What happens when a Dr. "Feelbad" hits the switch and you suddenly realize you don't want to die? At least the liberal state of Ca. should mandate counseling before someone hires a pervert who enjoys the thrill of ending someone's life to talk them into dying .

Trust us, it won't be this easy...

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Assisted dying" is of course the definition of murder. I saw a documentary about the incredible amount of people who commit suicide off the Golden Gate bridge. In a rare case a survivor related how he changed his mind after he jumped. On the way down he realized he wanted to live. What happens when a Dr. "Feelbad" hits the switch and you suddenly realize you don't want to die? At least the liberal state of Ca. should mandate counseling before someone hires a pervert who enjoys the thrill of ending someone's life to talk them into dying .

"murder" is a legal term. Your opinion does not define what is murder.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, not at all. Without the right to die, there can be no right to life, or even a right to live as you see fit.

Illogical.

The Right to Life is about protecting lives that cannot defend themselves.

The right to life doesn't exist. There is the living, the dead, and the in between. That's all.