Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree if you're suffering from a painful terminal illness and want euthanasia, but I disagree in the case of irrational suicides (i.e. if the person is in good health etc.). I agree with the current laws that say a person can be put in a psychiatric hospital against their will if they're at risk of harming themselves or others.
My life is not yours to save against my will.
Suicide is one of the very few things which I'd say a person shouldn't have the right to choose for themselves.
Originally posted by karnachzIt's not for you to decide if I'm rational.
I agree if you're suffering from a painful terminal illness and want euthanasia, but I disagree in the case of irrational suicides (i.e. if the person is in good health etc.). I agree with the current laws that say a person can be put in a psychiatric hospital against their will if they're at risk of harming themselves or others.
Suicide is one of the very few things which I'd say a person shouldn't have the right to choose for themselves.
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, so they will let the 460 children stay with the Fundamentalist church but will not let the polygamists marry? Sounds reasonable to me. 😀
Who'd have thought you'd get a libertarian decision out of the TSC? But they upheld an appellate court ruling that the mass seizure of 460 children of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not warranted by Texas law.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/index.html
Even members ...[text shortened]... A five page decision from a group of judges on such a high profile case? I'm impressed.
Originally posted by karnachzAnd there's a difference between appraising and acting on your appraisal when it the action has nothing to do with you or any unwilling person.
There's a difference between appraising the rationality of a person and appraising the rationality of a particular action.
Don't be a meddling prick. Suicide is none of your business unless you're consulted.