Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (1090)	5/17/2001 10:36:49 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

While I agree that we don't handle terminal people as well as we could, I must agree on euthanasia. Someone able to do themselves without help is a personal choice issue, someone helping or making the choice for someone else is scary. I'm not referring to someone deemed brain dead that is removed from machines by the way. Once we start making choices where would it end? Imagine some Arian Nation dude being in charge of the local euthanasia office. Sends shivers up the spine.

To: mph who wrote (1090)	5/17/2001 10:50:12 AM
From: HG	Respond to of 14610

The trouble you may be having may be with the application and execution of mercy killings....there are a lot of grey areas which need to be worked out, i concede. Don't know if they CAN be worked out at all, for that matter... All i know is, when and if I become a vegetable someday, I hope someone has the courage to let go of me, with the dignity which i deserve.... These are all, like i said, personal moral values.....no size fits all... JMHO.

To: mph who wrote (1090)	5/17/2001 2:27:39 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Tough issue, but to some degree freedom requires that personal moral choices be permitted by the state provided that others are not harmed. If someone wants to vote themselves off of the island, and they are of sound mind, or if they while of sound mind specify criteria and designate decision-makers who can implement that choice for them, then why should the state prohibit it??? I think one of the big problems with this issue has been that some of the early proponents (Dr. Kevorkian comes to mind) had more than a few screws loose and gave the whole concept a bad name. But suffering, and watching others suffer, is something which causes highly personal reactions and emotions. To have the state restrictively define what is permitted in response to those emotions is something I am not willing to sign on to.