Recently through my social media channels, I linked to this article on how assisted suicide laws in Belgium were leveraged to allow kids as young as nine and eleven to take their own lives. It's dangerous that children who don't have either the experience or the maturity to know the true value of life are given the opportunity to end it, even though they may be sick. I said so in my post, But that isn't the point of this article.
When I posted the piece on the Come Reason Facebook page, I received a response from Scott Womack pushing back against my statement that the news was disturbing. Never before have I had a conversation where it ended with my interlocutor telling me I was wrong for being logical and consistent! I've reproduced the conversation below, but you may always read the original here.
“The eldest of the three was a 17-year-old suffering from muscular dystrophy; the other two were 9 and 11. The 9-year-old had a brain tumor and the 11-year-old had cystic fibrosis.”
Human rights > cultural sensitivities.
The oath has also been updated, also the oath is ceremonial not obligatory.
BIOEDGE.ORG BioEdge: New Hippocratic Oath for doctors approved
Suicide has no take-backs.
Suicide is other peoples business not yours.
In addition child sex trafficking is illegal.
Certainly isn’t religious law that prevents child trafficking from happening.
Indeed Religious law Often serves as justification
So yes might (The ability to cage monsters) does to the best of its ability make right.
Whereas you offer salvation to convicts convicted of horrible things, in order to make things right.
You can either base your laws on power or on principle. Totalitarian regimes do the former.
Reasonable people do the latter. Pointing to fallacies is by definition unreasonable.
BTW, on the salvation comment, that's the second time you've yelled "Squirrel!" during our discussion. Red herrings are just as much of a logical fallacy as argumentum ad baculum.
You are just as irrational a capable of biases as I am.
Matter fact I’ve come to guard against people who are always consistent. GK Chesterton said that consistent people in lunatic asylum‘s.
I believe consistent people watch themselves too closely and likely suffer from a impairment in seeing and judging reality.
In this case the reality of human rights which were given by constitutional law not God.
Yours irrationality is performing mental gymnastics in order for your total worldview to make sense.
There’s a world of people you’ve missed in your equations between your totalitarian regimes and “rational” people.
I must say, at least Scott is honest! Of course, he's completely misunderstood Chesterton (that would be for another post), but to think that if 100% complete mental consistency isn't possible we should give upon the endeavor altogether is, well, breath-taking. What do you think? Let me know in the comments below.