"You say there are no steps between permitting doctor-assisted suicide and an unfettered Final Solution horror."
<<I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Can you point me to where I sad that?>>
All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the "final solution." All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." This doctrine separates us from plants, microorganisms and animals.
In fact Thomas says the opposite of what you claim. He says there are in fact many small steps. How do you get "no steps" from "small steps"? Also, he does not appear to talking only about assisted suicide but about the general idea that "All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." It's this cheapened and qualified view of Human Life that underlies every step along the way from abortion at the earliest stages of Human development to what is quaintly called active involuntary euthanasia.
"Going from suicide advisory (clearly working with patient's and family's informed consent" to the Final Solution is a miserable rhetorical trick, but worse in my book - it's faulty logic."
It may seem faulty to you but that is exactly the way it is going in the Netherlands and Belgium. The right to die soon becomes an obligation to die. This is the danger that was been pointed out and ignored in the Netherlands and now people are actively and involuntarily put to death on a regular basis. It always begins with the defenseless, both young and old, always for their own good or the good of society of course. Once the basis for human rights are made to be arbitrary and relative, all bets are off.
"As for government believing in the Creator's endowment: we have different views of how to interpret that key passage in the DoI."
That might prove to be an interesting discussion. If rights are not based on a transcendent unchangeable standard, then they are relative and mutable. What other options are there?
"Your alternative is to >leav[e] decisions about treatment to the patient and his family in conjunction with his Doctor<.
My reading of the Cal Thomas essay is that this is the gov't's proposal that the writer is attacking!
I wonder if you still think that I am being uncharacteristically uncharitable."
Yes I do, sort of... The mandated nature of the legislation coupled with the inherent danger of manipulation is where the rub is. I do admire you usual evenhandedness and avoidance of the use of ad hominem. It shows a level of maturity that is unusual around here. Thanks for that.
"I recognize that since the essay incorporates and champions some of your dearest-held beliefs, you are probably prejudiced toward its conclusions."
I recognize that you are prejudiced against it from the git go as well.
There are in fact slopes and some of them are very slippery. |
