1. so the respect'ful "aspic" means if ya kill the baby don't put it in a plastic bucket like it wuz a mop--like they're doin' it here in the US at some haus-spittles (fergit the state but a nurse whistleblower spoke up) and 2. "do no harm" has been replaced with "thou shalt kill--respectfully!" Got it. OH Canada. (The Bard proposed we kill all'a them lawyers--how 'bout "Let's kill all them bureau-craps!" I jest... sort've....).
I think this is more nuanced than either side is presenting it.
Simply because "all social engineering programs are slippery slopes" (an argument I guess I can get behind in its simple form here for the sake of argument) does not mean that the activities or rights that they touch on are poisoned fruit and must therefore be rejected or viewed as evil.
There have been social engineering programs to get people to have more babies, and programs to get people to have fewer babies. Neither of those activities aren't obviously odious on their face without the presence of state coercion.
I don't think the state should ever, ever decide what I do with my body. If I want to die, even if my reasons offend certain cultural constructs (not bad enough/not a sufficient reason for those judging) , I think that's my natural right. If I'm not able to do it myself, why shouldn't someone be able to help me do it in a way that is less distressing for everyone involved?
I'm not at all comfortable with the "this could potentially be abused and must therefore be outlawed" logical argument. That logic is as much a path to tyranny from another direction.
Making this decision on behalf of children or incompetent individuals is another matter and opens the door to great evil; I agree. Same, of course, with government "death panels" choosing euthanasia on behalf of anyone at all. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree this is a very nuanced issue and I probably don't present it as such because provocation is in my nature. I absolutely agree the decision to end someone's life should be entirely their own. My perspective on this MAID stuff in Canada is informed by the obvious eugenicist psychopathy of Western governments that becomes more obvious by the day. Granting these institutions the power to endorse and facilitate suicide (and outright homicide in the case of killing newborns) IS a slippery slope. And a dangerous one. Today it's for the hopelessly infirm -- tomorrow it will be for poor people (in fact it already is if you research MAID in Canada) and the deplorables.
They introduce shit like this incrementally. The public acclimates to it, bit by bit, and before you know it you're living the plotline of Soylent Green.
People can kill themselves if they want. That's none of my business. And if they can do it in a way that doesn't involve brains all over the floor or some unsuspecting person discovering their decaying body -- fine with me. I think this is a non-issue.
1. so the respect'ful "aspic" means if ya kill the baby don't put it in a plastic bucket like it wuz a mop--like they're doin' it here in the US at some haus-spittles (fergit the state but a nurse whistleblower spoke up) and 2. "do no harm" has been replaced with "thou shalt kill--respectfully!" Got it. OH Canada. (The Bard proposed we kill all'a them lawyers--how 'bout "Let's kill all them bureau-craps!" I jest... sort've....).
I think this is more nuanced than either side is presenting it.
Simply because "all social engineering programs are slippery slopes" (an argument I guess I can get behind in its simple form here for the sake of argument) does not mean that the activities or rights that they touch on are poisoned fruit and must therefore be rejected or viewed as evil.
There have been social engineering programs to get people to have more babies, and programs to get people to have fewer babies. Neither of those activities aren't obviously odious on their face without the presence of state coercion.
I don't think the state should ever, ever decide what I do with my body. If I want to die, even if my reasons offend certain cultural constructs (not bad enough/not a sufficient reason for those judging) , I think that's my natural right. If I'm not able to do it myself, why shouldn't someone be able to help me do it in a way that is less distressing for everyone involved?
I'm not at all comfortable with the "this could potentially be abused and must therefore be outlawed" logical argument. That logic is as much a path to tyranny from another direction.
Making this decision on behalf of children or incompetent individuals is another matter and opens the door to great evil; I agree. Same, of course, with government "death panels" choosing euthanasia on behalf of anyone at all. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree this is a very nuanced issue and I probably don't present it as such because provocation is in my nature. I absolutely agree the decision to end someone's life should be entirely their own. My perspective on this MAID stuff in Canada is informed by the obvious eugenicist psychopathy of Western governments that becomes more obvious by the day. Granting these institutions the power to endorse and facilitate suicide (and outright homicide in the case of killing newborns) IS a slippery slope. And a dangerous one. Today it's for the hopelessly infirm -- tomorrow it will be for poor people (in fact it already is if you research MAID in Canada) and the deplorables.
They introduce shit like this incrementally. The public acclimates to it, bit by bit, and before you know it you're living the plotline of Soylent Green.
People can kill themselves if they want. That's none of my business. And if they can do it in a way that doesn't involve brains all over the floor or some unsuspecting person discovering their decaying body -- fine with me. I think this is a non-issue.