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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4705)	2/21/2003 10:54:13 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Yes, I didn't respond to your analogy, because I found it preposterous. Killing oneself is far easier than autoabortion. Look, the bottom line is that the person who is contemplating suicide is not the only one whose conscience is implicated. He is asking the state to assure him a certain "quality of death", to create means of shielding his helpers from possible prosecution, and to make sure that he is not acting on a passing whim. He is asking me, as a voter, to ratify this alteration of current practice, where we might not enquire too closely in hard cases, but do not per se approve. As it stands now, I want nothing to do with it. Hard cases make bad law: I do not want to legislate broad permission to make use of assisted suicide upon receiving a diagnosis of "terminal" to cover the exceptional cases when palliative measures are inadequate and the person cannot manage to take an overdose. If I could conceive of a narrowly tailored scheme, I might change my mind, and approve that.........