Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I don't know what you are on about, Chris, to be honest. It's not up to me to set out the legislation! The principle would be that the person has a terminal illness and suffering intense pain, providing no real quality of life. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding this? I just hope that you never have to face this position personally, but this might be the only thing that would open your eyes to what we are speaking about.
Fortunately, doctors do understand and step up the morphine to bring it about anyway. No doubt, you are appalled.
|
Mmm. As an attempt at deflecting the question this is pretty poor. I’m having a hard time deciding whether you don’t have an answer, or whether perhaps you don’t even understand the question.
Let me try it another way. This isn’t Parliament and nobody is asking you to set out legislation. What this is, is a discussion forum. For a discussion to move forwards you have to be able to defend and build on the position you choose to take.
Now, your opinion is that euthanasia should be permitted, and that it is ok as long as it is ‘properly regulated’. Fine, if that’s your opinion. But you said that several pages back. The problem is, opinions are like assoles. Everybody has one. So what. If you’re interested in having an actual discussion, as opposed to repeatedly excreting your opinion every eight hours, then you have to develop an argument. One way of doing that is to define, in some way, what you mean by ‘properly regulated’.
I’m curious to know whether you’re capable of doing that, or whether, when challenged, your only recourse is to parody and denigrate what you think other people believe.
Over to you.