About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted:

Are you serious, John..


Nice argument from intimidation.

...that you can't understand the difference between a person refusing medical treatment (In this case, tube feeding) and a person demanding that rather than commit suicide herself, a doctor do it for her by lethal injection?


Morally I don't see the difference at all, so long as we're talking about the doctor and patient entering into the action voluntarily, and not the patient demanding any kind of enslavement from the doctor. I don't see why you make this distinction between assisted and non-assisted suicide when you wouldn't for any other kind of voluntary agreement.

I won't point out that letting someone die and killing her are two quite different things, because to do so would be condescending of me.



In other words you have no case to make.




(Edited by John Armaos on 12/15, 12:34pm)


Post 21

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 12:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are you serious?

Post 22

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obviously you have no argument to make, so I'll take your latest response as a concession.

Post 23

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sorry, John, but that "argument by intimidation" thing was really funny.

Look, I oppose setting up a legal institution by which doctors would themselves administer a lethal drug to a person who wanted to commit suicide. I oppose the doctor being the proximate agent of death. I don't oppose doctors prescribing lethal drugs to patients (indeed, I oppose the need for prescriptions) and I don't oppose patients refusing treatment. Your saying that since I supported a person's right to refuse treatment I thereby supported legalized suicide is a straw man that doesn't require me to respond with any argument. You mischaracterized my position, and I have pointed that out to any readers of this thread.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So once again, you can't give a moral argument why a doctor and patient cannot enter into a voluntary agreement for assisted suicide. And again, you use arguments from intimidation in lieu of such a reasoned argument.

From Ayn Rand Lexicon: Argument from Intimidation

"There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate."

"The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. “Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?” And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: “I am,”—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: “Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!” “Really.” “But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!” “I don’t.” “Oh, come now!” “Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!” “Will you tell me the reasons?” “Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval."



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't oppose doctors prescribing lethal drugs to patients (indeed, I oppose the need for prescriptions) and I don't oppose patients refusing treatment.


Then explain what is the moral difference should a patient that does not have the physical capability to carry out the suicide enter into a voluntary agreement with a doctor that is willing to assist? Basically you're saying a doctor can assist in the suicide by prescribing the lethal medication, and by taking a patient off of life support, but the line is drawn at the doctor administering the lethal medication?

Post 26

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Not that I can't, John. There is no reason for me to do so. Your having mischaracterized my stance doesn't constitute a rebuttal. If you really want to revisit the old argument, find the old thread and challenge me there on something I myself actually said.

As for the supposed argument from intimidation,

.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
f you really want to revisit the old argument, find the old thread and challenge me there on something I myself actually said.


I recall that I did. And your response then was quite similar to what it is now. So I'll just take it that you concede the point.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.