3 ms·
> Life is inextricably linked with death. Sure > If you have the right to live, you must also have the right to die. This is a non-sequitur. In fact, in so f
by anon291 4y ago
> Life is inextricably linked with death.
Sure
> If you have the right to live, you must also have the right to die.
This is a non-sequitur. In fact, in so far as all human rights descend from the one in question being alive in the first place (since the dead have no rights), it makes no sense of a right to die. In the same way a right to liberty involves no right to sell one's liberty. Just like your freedom, you do not own your life. We know this because you cannot sell either your life or your freedom, thus you don't own it. Thus, despite having a right to it, you don't have the right to rid yourself of it.
Here's another example. My children have a right to live in my house and receive support from me. They have no right to either sell my house or not receive support from me. Although they have a legal right to my money and protection, they cannot dispose themselves of it.
Life and freedom are similar. They are something we enjoy and have a right to, but not something we own.
> That belief is largely entrenched in our medical system too but stops short of doctor assisted suicide.
Choosing to not undergo therapies that may or may not lengthen your life is not morally equivalent to actively choosing death.
- shanebellone 4y agoStraw man.
- anon291 4y agoYou claim a right to life implies a right to death, without any reasoning. I've pointed out why that doesn't follow (namely, the notion that one has a right to live is predicated on one being alive. You don't have rights after death). I've also pointed out that we have other rights that you cannot dispose yourself of to show that the right to life is of the same nature. What is your rebuttal?
- shanebellone 4y agoYou're comparing property law to bodily autonomy. How can I take you seriously?
- anon291 4y agoNo I'm comparing the right to liberty with the right to life. Both are about bodily autonomy. Euthanasia is the giving up of the right to life. I'm pointing out we don't tolerate any giving up of a right to liberty, period. You can be declared insane and have rights taken away... you cannot willingly say 'i'm giving up my right to be free.' By your reckoning that our rights extend so far as to also include abdicating them... we ought to tolerate giving one's freedom to someone else. If we want to ignore the monetary element, consider if you would be okay with someone signing over their labor to someone else in perpetuity as a charitable work. Would you allow such a thing? Why not? We're not talking about property now.
- shanebellone 4y ago- In states with Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws, you are not obligated to draw your own weapon, despite having the right to do so. You can opt to die rather than kill. - You can also opt out of treatment and receive terminal care.
- anon291 4y agoNeither of those are choosing to kill oneself. Choosing to accept one's fate or to not fight is just that. Choosing to off oneself before an intruder has the chance to kill you or choosing to euthanize yourself are active choices. You cannot honestly conflate active choice with passive acceptance of fate.
- shanebellone 4y ago"Fate" is a social construct that has no relevance in this discussion. You also define action and reaction arbitrarily. We always have choices. Your superstitions should not impact my life. I will not respond again.