Shapley wrote:I'm not avoiding the question, I just think you don't like the answer.
I haven't seen the answer, so how can I tell if I like it or not?
Shapley wrote:We can kill animals because we think we have too many of them, or because they don't hunt, or because we're just tired of them. How is that bing more compassionate?
This is all strawman building. We have laws against cruelty to animals, against causing them unnecessary pain. This is not addressing the question at all.
Shapley wrote:If you choose the kill your animal to ease what you perceive to be its' suffering, that is your choice, but keep in mind you could do the same even if it wasn't suffering.
I'm not sure what I can do to make you see the point, because you're all around it, but still blind to it.
Shapley wrote:Without codified laws we are not a nation.
I'm not denying that, but there are many, many, many of those "codified laws" that are clearly unnecessary, clearly not in the best interests of liberty (which is REALLY why we rebelled), clearly intrusive into places the government has no business being.
Shapley wrote:Without a process to determine, legally, that specific conditions are met before we terminate a human life, we have reduced people to being no better than animals, to be kept or disposed of based on our own selfish desires.
It's clear to me we're worse off than our animals in the case of agonizing terminal illness.
Shapley wrote:You call my approach 'one size fits all', yet I have proposed fifty sizes, one for each State, to be determined as the voters of those States believe that the situation should be handled.
What you have proposed for your state is total abolition - no decision necessary, or even allowed.
Shapley wrote:I simply do not understand how your position can be squared with the law, or with the basic moral requirements to protect human life.
Oh, please. There are no "basic moral requirements to protect human life." If there were, we wouldn't have wars, we wouldn't have executions. Our government and its agents make life and death decisions all the time.
Shapley wrote:You offer no safeguards for the child who has no voice of his own. You seem to believe that only those doomed to suffer will be killed, and that no doctor, no parent, no guardian would terminate a healthy life while hiding under the protections of no-questions-asked euthanasia.
For at least the second time, where do you get this from "each situation deserves its own decision?" You're just building strawmen. And it's getting old.
Shapley wrote:You've not defined who or how the determination would be made.
Neither have you, beyond a vague "due process." I've noted who should be making the decision, and that examination of the facts of the case needs to be part of the decision making process.
Shapley wrote:I, at least, have offered a mechanism for making that decision.
No, you've made the decision, at least how you feel it should be for your state, and individual situations be damned.
Shapley wrote:it offers a safeguard, an appeals process, if you will, to the innocent life that is threatened by the knife.
Again, you seem to feel that I'm advocating offing infants just because someone feels like they don't want to be bothered. And that's simply not true. I feel the decision should be made by those involved, though, not by uninvited outsiders.