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: Neocon who wrote (4711)	2/21/2003 2:12:17 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I think there is a difference between approving of something and refusing to punish it. There are many things I disapprove of, but don't choose to make illegal. The person who wants assistance in creating safe suicide (and no, that is not an oxymoron) merely wants those who help him or her not to suffer. You don't have to approve of something to let a person do it without legal consequence. I understand that you could view the removal of the legal impediment as constituting approval, but if you think about that, I don't think it washes. You are not being asked to lift your disapproval. Only not to punish those who believe on a moral issue differently than you do and are causing no harm to society. (I'm not going to get into the conceptual harms of what it might mean if we allow suicide because that gets us into a swamp of what it means to allow people to smoke, drink, have unprotected sex, and on and on. We do allow people to make choices about their lives even when those choices have indirect consequences on society, as every choice does, including your choice to choose to be a writer instead of digging sewers.)

To: Neocon who wrote (4711)	2/21/2003 4:44:25 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

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. It seems to me that we had this discussion before and you were on the other side. You suggested making an exception in an abortion ban for rape and incest. if I recall correctly, you wanted the exception in the law, despite how difficult it would be to administer, rather than just not prosecuting, which is the equivalent of "not enquiring too closely." Seems to me the situation is much the same. Either we put the exceptions in the law or we handle things informally, with attendant risk.