Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Daisy Moses Chief Crackpot's avatar

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....).

Expand full comment
Guttermouth's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts