Really? Safety and happiness? But presumably those who wish to die believe as well that there is nothing except our earthly life. As such, since going out of existence pretty much eliminates any of the emotions, it is silly to argue that a person would happy after death. He wouldn't be around to experience it. Avtivist judges simple don't care about basic philosophy, though, do they?
Nor can it be 'integral to liberty' as the judge also says, to allow a person to kill themselves. After death, when they do not exist, there is no liberty. How can you be protect a liberty which goes out of existence while being protected? Yet this is not the real question anyway, if, as you should, believe in a life beyond this earth.
Did you have a choice in being born? No? Then why should you think you have a say in when you die?
We are not talking here about people taking actions, soldiers, for example, which might result in their death. They are not willing themselves to die but are rather willing to risk death for a cause greater than themselves. Neither should anyone ever equate human suffering with animal suffering and as such justify euthanasia. We are not mere animals; we are sentient, thinking beings on a much higher level. Our lives are not to be dispensed with simply because they face a horrible trial.
In the end, our lives are not ours; if so, we would have willed our births and not simply have had them foisted upon us. As it is, it is below the dignity of human life, even a willing human life, to kill itself merely to avoid anything, even suffering. Our lives are not so shallow as to be ended as with the dumb animals. Assisted suicide as such is not justice. It is cowardice.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment