Euthanasia has highly more likelihood of being abused/misused by people than gay marriage does. Would much rather gay marriage before euthanasia. The problem is guys like Nitschke are as abominable and disgusting as Stephen.
Nitschke has been blatantly time and time again shown to be as legit as Dank with Essedon''s treatments. The views and laws he propose gives great decision making to spouses etc when incapacitated and are able to be used to knock them off for a will grab.Rot. Absolute rot.
Don't try and dress up your ideology with this crap line of argument.
You not only want to control how we live, who we root, who and how we marry and what we do in the privacy of our home, but you want to control how we die as well.
And you have the gall to complain about the left...
ROFL the irony of you saying I just block my ears when I don't want to hear something. That is the exact thing you do on the topic about men rights.
Di Nat etc can discuss it, whether it gets through (which is unlikely) is another thing.
ROFL keep going with the name calling. It seems somehow it is the only thing that you can come up with to try and succeed in arguing. We all know you block anything that is pro men rights.
No I actually don't want to influence or dictate the way people die hence why euthanasia should be banned so control over how people die cannot be attained and/or misused.
The majority of euthanasia advocates propose a "living will" which must be made when a person is of sound mind and in control of the mental capacity to make an informed choice. This involves a set of conditions and circumstances which must be met before euthanasia can even be proposed.
I'm not a christian so don't damn know why that would be relevant somehow.
I have no problems with the way people want to die, providing it is legal and moral. Euthanasia is extremely questionable in some facets. So do you think that the unhindered right should be given to someone to choose to die which allows/enables them to take people with them like suicide bombing? ?
Am 100% aware that this is the way people say the process is going to work. However what if someone is able to make an informed choice for euthanasia and then there is a cure for what they want. Should the administrators go ahead simply because they were widely considered to be of a sound mind when making the decision of this path?
Why is sucide bombing absurd? The comment was made that people should be free to choose how they die and no restrictions should be made on it. Thus this is a fair example/situation to raise based on his argument put forward for why we should start having euthanasia.
It is not ludicrous. What you have admitted is it is your view that there should be some controls on mechanisms people put in place to select how to die. Therefore this contradicts the statment made by you in the above post by you when you cried people shouldn't have people like me controlling their choices, especially on things like their right to die.
