View Single Post
Old 2019-09-09, 04:36   #9
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

2·3·1,669 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
So basically you are in favour of various arbitrary restrictions based upon ... what criteria?

Why would you poke your nose into someone else's business? If they want to go then that is their choice.
Currently many areas have prohibitions on people ending their one life. I am for changing from a complete ban to a more rational scheme. Would you rather have the complete ban in place?

Opting for "a permanent solution to a temporary problem" is suicide. Dealing with a terminal condition that is painful or has sever decline in the quality of life is different. The restrictions are not arbitrary. They are thought through, designed to prevent abuse (by over eager family members, pushy doctors, or even euthanasia advocates), provide certainty, and will help forestall reactions by opponents that might cause a reversion to a total ban.

So, you are in support if for instance, a teenage receives some criticism from a peer, grabbing gun at home at home and splattering their brains all over?
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote