If you believe in life after death (redux) ....

If you believe in life after death (redux) .... Feb 13, 2018 17:00:52 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 17:00:52 GMT

Feb 12, 2018 0:56:59 GMT cupcakes said:

^tpfkar

Feb 12, 2018 0:45:31 GMT @miccee said:

The idea that human life is so valuable that it must be preserved against the repeated express wishes of the owner of the life is a religious concept. And denying people the right to physician assisted suicide is a severe restriction on the freedom to end one's own life. If it's a trivial physical process, then there would be no reason to support it for most terminally ill people who, for the most part, would be capable of carrying it out themselves. If you value life in the sense that you like your own life and value those around you (but wouldn't want the government to force them to stay alive, or restrict their options for dying, if they didn't value their life), then it would be reasonable to say that your perspective was not a religious one. But this incoherent gibber about needing to protect people from being harmed by making sure that they have no legal recourse other than to be harmed is a product of a religious mindset.

Just because there's a term called "free will" it doesn't mean that its referrent need exist in reality. There are lots of words and terms for things that don't actually exist in real life. Dragons, unicorns, fairies, etc.

The mental illness is not the "express wishes of the owner", whether it is for sexual mutilation, cannibalism and/or death. And that's only a religious concept because you hold religion supreme above the values of man, even basing it on your own "Objective" like the rest of the faithful. Terminally ill people are already in a world of hurt, and there's no downside to it whether they're mentally ill or completely rational. And I know you predator types like having fellow mentally ill available as fodder for abuse. trumpshrug

And I understand that you can't conceive the hypothetical existence of "Dragons, unicorns, fairies" for the purposes of discussion. For some combination of raw tendentiousness and profound incompetence.

Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.

The mental illness is not an entity that exists independently of the mind of the person expressing the wishes. And when the mentally ill person says that they wish to be assisted to die, they're not contravening the wishes of 'the real them' to be forced to stay alive through government coercion.

Being anti-suicide is always either a religious/spiritual position, or an authoritarian one. In the first instance, the person who wants to commit suicide is at the mercy of the high value that others place on that person's humanity. In other words, that person is not being denied assistance to die in order to conserve the person's own valuation of their own life; but to conserve society's valuation of human life. In the second case, the government would deny the right to suicide because it would potentially reduce the tax revenue, deprive society of a productive worker, etc. You don't seem to be arguing against suicide on a purely authoritarian basis, but from a valuation standpoint. Since you've admitted that the dead person is not deprived of the value of their own life, then you can only be arguing to conserve the intangible value of that person's life from the perspective of society.