This is unfortunately one of the rare cases where allowing euthanasia DOES make sense with the consent of the person of course but will be mistreated and used as an example of why it should be opened up to doctors can treat humans like horses if they break their leg.
Yeah. It's just unfortunate that instead of, I dunno, researching extensively into treatments for these various diseases, we would rather just remove the problem, as it were...
But I agree that in her case it was probably the "best option". But it shouldn't have been. I guess that's the point, unfortunately...
But I admittedly wouldn't want to keep living like that either, so... Yeah.
rare cases...will be mistreated and used as an example of why it should be opened up
It's one of their favorite tactics. Rape and incest for abortion, gay couples can't make healthcare decisions, as well as many lies by omission or obfuscation to mislead people about historical events.
That was one of the arguments for gay marriage, when it was a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people who experienced that, and was basically meaningless. It was an emotion ploy to get their way and push the agenda that had been decided upon.
To go into the specifics, it was basically when one member of a homosexual couple had some health issue (and generally needed to be in a coma or otherwise unresponsive, I'd assume), and couldn't make their own decision, and their partner didn't have permission to make those decisions, so it fell to their "hateful, homophobic family" instead. I'm sure it happened, but it doesn't even make sense to act like it was happening on the large scale, but that was the mainstream argument, and no one really questioned it. As I said, it was a statistically insignificant thing that was used as an emotional wedge issue.
Similar to how statistically almost no abortions are due to rape or incest.
The second largest problem I have with all this is that I know how it will be weaponized against my fellow whites in the future. A catch-all solution proposed by those in power.
This is unfortunately one of the rare cases where allowing euthanasia DOES make sense with the consent of the person of course but will be mistreated and used as an example of why it should be opened up to doctors can treat humans like horses if they break their leg.
Yeah. It's just unfortunate that instead of, I dunno, researching extensively into treatments for these various diseases, we would rather just remove the problem, as it were...
But I agree that in her case it was probably the "best option". But it shouldn't have been. I guess that's the point, unfortunately...
But I admittedly wouldn't want to keep living like that either, so... Yeah.
It's one of their favorite tactics. Rape and incest for abortion, gay couples can't make healthcare decisions, as well as many lies by omission or obfuscation to mislead people about historical events.
..? 🤔
Context?
That was one of the arguments for gay marriage, when it was a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people who experienced that, and was basically meaningless. It was an emotion ploy to get their way and push the agenda that had been decided upon.
To go into the specifics, it was basically when one member of a homosexual couple had some health issue (and generally needed to be in a coma or otherwise unresponsive, I'd assume), and couldn't make their own decision, and their partner didn't have permission to make those decisions, so it fell to their "hateful, homophobic family" instead. I'm sure it happened, but it doesn't even make sense to act like it was happening on the large scale, but that was the mainstream argument, and no one really questioned it. As I said, it was a statistically insignificant thing that was used as an emotional wedge issue.
Similar to how statistically almost no abortions are due to rape or incest.
The second largest problem I have with all this is that I know how it will be weaponized against my fellow whites in the future. A catch-all solution proposed by those in power.