Brittany Maynard ended her own life before her tumor could rob her of it

[Rikurzhen]

A person wanting to commit suicide because their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them is wrong. But someone wanting to commit suicide to avoid the horrors that their terminal disease will bring them is not wrong. Using your religious beliefs to stop them is what is wrong.

Why is suicide due to depression wrong but suicide to avoid pain associated with terminal disease OK?

Because depression is treatable.

So what?

So, there is a difference between hastening an inevitable event by a short time and ending a life that can be lived fully.

Why do you believe that you own that person's life?

 

[Rikurzhen]

When one is engaged in using his or her religious values to tell and make another what he or she thinks is best, then, yes, that is a form of sharia.

That invalidates almost the entire liberal world view. Now what will liberals do?

That makes no sense.
You're trying to say Kurtz and his Authoritarian arrogance represent Liberalism?

I'm saying that Liberalism operates just like a religion. Religion is merely a category of ideology, one which appeals to mysticism. Remove the condition of mysticism and Liberalism is all about telling people what to do based on liberal views of what is best.

Whenever a Conservative tries to tell us how a Liberal thinks or what a Liberal believes in, they reveal two essential flaws in the way they acquired and rationalizes their own political outlook.

President Obama giving religious instruction to women on how they MUST live their lives:

Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maybe you should learn your terms before you engage and then find you have nothing but appeal to ridicule.

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7] and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries of the Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America.[8] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was classical conservatism. << -- Duh Innernet​

And Gay used to mean happy. Definitions change. The liberalism we know today has little to do with historical liberalism. Speech codes, for Pete's sakes, not to mention stomping on human rights.

Liberalism began as a rejection of state religion and in turn became a state religion.

Ignorant nonsense.

There are no 'speech codes,' whatever that's supposed to mean; and no one is “stomping on human rights,” the notion is delusional and ridiculous.

Liberalism is now and has always been the advocacy of pragmatism and the rejection of blind adherence to dogma – religious or political. Liberalism is now and has always been the advocacy of the right of individuals to self-determination, the right of individuals to engage in personal expression, and the right of individuals to make personal, private decisions concerning one's existence absent interference by the state: the right of a woman to decide to have a child or not, the right of a gay American to marry whomever he wishes, and the right of the individual to determine end of life matters also absent interference by the state.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Maybe you should learn your terms before you engage and then find you have nothing but appeal to ridicule.

>> Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7] and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries of the Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America.[8] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was classical conservatism. << -- Duh Innernet​

And Gay used to mean happy. Definitions change. The liberalism we know today has little to do with historical liberalism. Speech codes, for Pete's sakes, not to mention stomping on human rights.

Liberalism began as a rejection of state religion and in turn became a state religion.

Ignorant nonsense.

There are no 'speech codes,' whatever that's supposed to mean; and no one is “stomping on human rights,” the notion is delusional and ridiculous.

Liberalism is now and has always been the advocacy of pragmatism and the rejection of blind adherence to dogma – religious or political. Liberalism is now and has always been the advocacy of the right of individuals to self-determination, the right of individuals to engage in personal expression, and the right of individuals to make personal, private decisions concerning one's existence absent interference by the state: the right of a woman to decide to have a child or not, the right of a gay American to marry whomever he wishes, and the right of the individual to determine end of life matters also absent interference by the state.

Bakers and photographers and innkeepers excluded. Not to mention all those who fight for human rights.

 

[WinterBorn]

A person wanting to commit suicide because their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them is wrong. But someone wanting to commit suicide to avoid the horrors that their terminal disease will bring them is not wrong. Using your religious beliefs to stop them is what is wrong.

Why is suicide due to depression wrong but suicide to avoid pain associated with terminal disease OK?

Because depression is treatable.

So what?

So, there is a difference between hastening an inevitable event by a short time and ending a life that can be lived fully.

Why do you believe that you own that person's life?

I have no problem with legalizing suicide, but our society has deemed it illegal to try (with the exception of the terminally ill).

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why is suicide due to depression wrong but suicide to avoid pain associated with terminal disease OK?

Because depression is treatable.

So what?

So, there is a difference between hastening an inevitable event by a short time and ending a life that can be lived fully.

Why do you believe that you own that person's life?

I have no problem with legalizing suicide, but our society has deemed it illegal to try (with the exception of the terminally ill).

Then philosophically we have no disagreement. The issue is why laws exist which presume to value a person's life higher than the value he assigns to it. To forcibly keep someone alive against their will imposes harm on the person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, she is unique, because she could care less about this type of sneering attitude: "She made a publicity play of her own death for a cause, not for her peace if mind."

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

And, once again, any god who demands that his followers undergo the horrors that faced this woman, without the hope of any cure or respite, just to satisfy his own "rules" is nothing more than a petty and cruel deity. And since your god has not actually spoken, you have no way of knowing what he wants or doesn't want. Using your book to rule the lives of those who do not believe in it is simply wrong. It is morally wrong and unconstitutional. But if you ever have a loved one in this woman's shoes, I hope you can live with your decisions.

He spoke to Moses.

Exodus 3

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father—in—law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up."

4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"

And Moses said, "Here I am."

5 "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.


Exodus 19

18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.

21 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish.

22 And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.

23 And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.

24 And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.

 

[Godboy]

And, once again, any god who demands that his followers undergo the horrors that faced this woman, without the hope of any cure or respite, just to satisfy his own "rules" is nothing more than a petty and cruel deity. And since your god has not actually spoken, you have no way of knowing what he wants or doesn't want. Using your book to rule the lives of those who do not believe in it is simply wrong. It is morally wrong and unconstitutional. But if you ever have a loved one in this woman's shoes, I hope you can live with your decisions.

He spoke to Moses.

Exodus 3

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father—in—law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up."

4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"

And Moses said, "Here I am."

5 "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.


Exodus 19

18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.

21 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish.

22 And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.

23 And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.

24 And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.

YUCK! There is literally nothing more douchy than spewing scripture written by primitive and ignorant men. You hardcore Christians are doing yourselves a diservice every time you try using the bible to make a point.The rest of us cringe when we hear this stuff. Believe in god all you want, but at least have a little self awareness for fuck sake. This scripture nonsense makes you sound like a weirdo, which im certain was not your intention.

You should under no circumstances ever repeat the words you heard from the bible. Society will judge you harshly every time you do. We will assume youre bat shit crazy.

 

[R.D.]

Yup, she is unique, because she could care less about this type of sneering attitude: "She made a publicity play of her own death for a cause, not for her peace if mind."

750+ people have taken the same path. She chose to be a poster child and an advocate.

Why don't you show some respect?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I show respect for her choice and her willingness to continue the debate.

No Christian secure in his relationship with the Lord sees this issue as one of salvation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That makes no sense.
You're trying to say Kurtz and his Authoritarian arrogance represent Liberalism?

I'm saying that Liberalism operates just like a religion. Religion is merely a category of ideology, one which appeals to mysticism. Remove the condition of mysticism and Liberalism is all about telling people what to do based on liberal views of what is best.

Yeah....like those great liberal notions of telling people how they are able to legally have sex, and which drugs that they are legally allowed to consume.

Check out how the State mandates "correct" behavior in the bedrooms of college students. "Enthusiastic consent" at every escalation of intimacy.

Check out how Louisiana Republicans fought to preserve sodomy laws, so that law enforcement could bust adults having consensual sex.

Are there such laws now? Liberals are the new Puritans. You know how Democrats like to tell everyone that the parties switched positions on racism, well that fib finally finds a place where it becomes true - liberals are the new sexual prudes, using law to control the behaviors of consenting adults having sex.

The far right is the new Puritans wanting to punish those whose morality with which they disagree. Tough to be social cons.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I'm saying that Liberalism operates just like a religion. Religion is merely a category of ideology, one which appeals to mysticism. Remove the condition of mysticism and Liberalism is all about telling people what to do based on liberal views of what is best.

Yeah....like those great liberal notions of telling people how they are able to legally have sex, and which drugs that they are legally allowed to consume.

Check out how the State mandates "correct" behavior in the bedrooms of college students. "Enthusiastic consent" at every escalation of intimacy.

Check out how Louisiana Republicans fought to preserve sodomy laws, so that law enforcement could bust adults having consensual sex.

Are there such laws now? Liberals are the new Puritans. You know how Democrats like to tell everyone that the parties switched positions on racism, well that fib finally finds a place where it becomes true - liberals are the new sexual prudes, using law to control the behaviors of consenting adults having sex.

The far right is the new Puritans wanting to punish those whose morality with which they disagree. Tough to be social cons.

Right. It's not liberals who are now calling for laws to ban catcalling. Hmm. Your universe sure is confusing to us normal folks. Why, it's almost like white is black and black is white over there where you live.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

God has no pity for a suicide.

Amen to this. How did that girl know that there was most definitely no hope? I believe that the Lord could have healed that girl and now because of what she went and did to herself already, we will never know.

God bless you and her family always!!!

Holly

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As already correctly noted – but warrants repeating – whether the issue is a woman's right to privacy, a gay person's right to equal protection of the law, or the right of an individual to make end of life decisions for himself, that one's religious beliefs are hostile to any or all of the above does not justify seeking to codify that religious belief and hostility in secular law.

 

[Pogo]

God has no pity for a suicide.

Amen to this. How did that girl know that there was most definitely no hope? I believe that the Lord could have healed that girl and now because of what she went and did to herself already, we will never know.

God bless you and her family always!!!

Holly

WE don't need to know. SHE did.

Just mind your own business and quit trying to micromanage others'.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah....like those great liberal notions of telling people how they are able to legally have sex, and which drugs that they are legally allowed to consume.

Check out how the State mandates "correct" behavior in the bedrooms of college students. "Enthusiastic consent" at every escalation of intimacy.

Check out how Louisiana Republicans fought to preserve sodomy laws, so that law enforcement could bust adults having consensual sex.

Are there such laws now? Liberals are the new Puritans. You know how Democrats like to tell everyone that the parties switched positions on racism, well that fib finally finds a place where it becomes true - liberals are the new sexual prudes, using law to control the behaviors of consenting adults having sex.

The far right is the new Puritans wanting to punish those whose morality with which they disagree. Tough to be social cons.

Right. It's not liberals who are now calling for laws to ban catcalling. Hmm. Your universe sure is confusing to us normal folks. Why, it's almost like white is black and black is white over there where you live.

"us normal folks" says the army of one.

 

[Vigilante]

When fully implemented, Obumacare would take care of this situation!

 

[Rikurzhen]

As already correctly noted – but warrants repeating – whether the issue is a woman's right to privacy, a gay person's right to equal protection of the law, or the right of an individual to make end of life decisions for himself, that one's religious beliefs are hostile to any or all of the above does not justify seeking to codify that religious belief and hostility in secular law.

Only liberals get to reserve for themselves the right to codify their religious beliefs into law and then impose them onto unwilling people who don't subscribe to the same religious beliefs. Other religions, nope tough luck. That's what happens in a religious war - some religions come out on top (Liberalism) and others lose (Christianity.)

 

[Pogo]

As already correctly noted – but warrants repeating – whether the issue is a woman's right to privacy, a gay person's right to equal protection of the law, or the right of an individual to make end of life decisions for himself, that one's religious beliefs are hostile to any or all of the above does not justify seeking to codify that religious belief and hostility in secular law.

Only liberals get to reserve for themselves the right to codify their religious beliefs into law and then impose them onto unwilling people who don't subscribe to the same religious beliefs. Other religions, nope tough luck. That's what happens in a religious war - some religions come out on top (Liberalism) and others lose (Christianity.)

This is like the lamest excuse ever --- don't like somebody's politics? Hey, call it a "religion" and claim you're being persecuted. Poster please. Liberalism founded this country. If you don't like it, go try North Korea and see what politics-as-religion really looks like.

Sheesh.