This is a good question

One of these is not like the others.

no dude this is wrong. I do agree with marijuana and abortion is legal but seriously you are willing to help somebody kill themselves and then allow people to whore out their bodies what is wrong with you from a humanitarian stand point.

People should have the freedom to do what they want to do as long as nobody else gets hurt. YOu wanna sell your body for sex, go ahead. As for the assisted suicide, I believe people have a right to die with dignity, and choose when that death happens. Would you prolong the suffering of a terminal patient?

assisted suicide is more than that. I think that someone who wants to die is extremely selfish i also believe that most suicide cases stem from temporary issues and not thinking clearly at the time. Also you are allowing a women to harm herself and in most prostitution cases its not voluntary. She is forced to prostitution from gangs they dont do it because they love it 9/10 times.

You think it would be humanitarian to force someone to live in a paralyzed state? For me a true least, life wouldn't be worth living, and I'd sure as hell want to die, if I couldn't be used for experiments or whatever. People have the right to control their own lives.

Assisted suicide is a broad term it can be because they are depressed in which most cases is true. That is unhealthy and not right because someone has emotional problems they should just kill themselves. It is selfish because you are abandoning other people because all you are thinking about is you. IF you are depressed you are giving up on everybody that has loved you because you cant handle it. In fact the one assisting you you are forcing them to have the weight of killing you on them all the time that aint right.

Well no, because in the event of assisted suicide the doctor prescribes a lethal dose of medication, but doesn't administer the drugs himself. That job is the patient's. The patient also must give oral and written permission, be verified as mentally healthy, and, a week later, repeat oral and written permission. People have the right to do what they wish with their own body, after all, they own it.

yeah but people dont know best either or sometimes they arent thinking right. People still feel the weight regardless of consent. What about suicide based on depression will you assist that.

Trained professionals don't feel the weight, and usually there are hospital therapists to deal specifically with suicide guilt. As for people aren't thinking right, that's why they have to make the decision twice, a week apart, and be legally sane, with no mental health issues

what about depression last for a long time do you condone assisted suicide answer the question.

I believe assisted suicide should be legalized, but only for people suffering from a terminal illness that leaves them with no more than 6 months to live.

there we go that is all i had to prove was that not all assisted suicide is legal. Who gets to determine the extent of assisted suicide though?

Like I said above, assisted suicide must be confirmed by a trained medical professional, who is then allowed to prescribe a lethal dose of medication, but is not allowed to administer them. This makes the trained professional the one assisting with the suicide. The patient must be verified by a psychiatrist, and consent must be given both verbally, and written, with a signature. The patient must wait a week, and again confirm his request, both verbally and in writing. Only then can the doctor prescribe the medication.

but what if half the population disagrees. What if 1/3 says no 1/3 says complete assisted suicide and then 1/3 says hey i want it like how you want it. then who gets to determine that. Does 1 opinion usurp another? or is there some kind of tie breaker?

The government of the country decides.

In the US, it's the Supreme Court who'd decide

so 9 people get to decide the morals for the rest of the country? No the supreme court gets to determine there rights as protected by the constitution. Which the constitution if i recall does not tell people they are allowed to assist in someones death.

Those 9 people aren't exactly idiots. They didn't get there simply by standing in line

im not saying they are idiots but im not saying they are in positions to determine morals for the a country that has population of 321 million people.

There is a reason why they are there. And it isn't just them. There would be representatives from every state as well

no one can say someones morals are better then others because morals are morals. A phd does not mean you have better morals. A higher education does not mean you have better morals.

They wouldn't discuss morals, they would discuss ethics.

why are they more educated on an idea that has no right or wrong and get to determine which way it goes they still shouldnt be allowed to determine ethics. A majority can but 9 people just because their educated cant

Ethics and morals are different kiddo. Ethics are like saying "Animal abuse is bad" Its widely accepted. Morals differ from person to person depending on where they're from, how they're raised, exctera. Ethics are what society thinks as a whole.

yeah but if there is a division in it then its not widely accepted and 9 people dont get to say what is widley accepted.

I can say with almost absolute certainty that more people believe assisted suicide should be legal. Also, you aren't paying attention. I said that not only would it be the Supreme Court, it would also be debated by delegates from each state, along with mental health experts and leading physicians.

Idgaf what delegates think though and we dont know that and im saying hypothetically if there was a split down the middle not one side should be able to force their beliefs on another.

However, this isn't a hypothetical question. It is an actual topic of contention, and the majority agree with my points. The model I proposed is almost the exact same as the one they want to use, and so far you haven't found a single flaw

Selfish or not, suicide is ones own damn right, and it is selfish of others to force them not to do it, if they really wish to.

ok idk who is agreeing with you but ok. I didnt know there was a report that more then half the population agrees. It is not their right it is not protected in the constitution. It is not selfish to stop them it is trying to help them from making a decision that will kill them or harm them to a point where they are worse off then they were before the attempt.

If they need help, then yes. If it is because someone doesn't want to deal with losing them, that's selfish.

i know that im not saying that is a reason but im saying that leaving behind your family is selfish on their part.

It falls under the pursuit of happiness, and if they are already near death or better off dead, then there's good reason to give them their own way out.

Assisted Suicide is highly regulated and not a thing taken lightly. They won't help you die if it's just depression, you have to be terminally ill/ extremely debilitating medical condition with a low quality of life. In the end we offer this kindness to animals which is kind of twisted as they cannot consent to dying but not to terminally ill cancer patients or those suffering from ALS who want to die but can't do it themselves? Yes, choosing to take your life/having your life taken IS selfish but most families of the people wanting Assisted Suicide understand the pain and degradation they're constantly living in and support their choice, it's not the same as regular suicide where your pain is just merely passed onto others in a selfish way.

Hear, hear. Let's hope he listens this time. 8th time's the charm

Trashman is one dense muddafudda.

would have cared 8 hours ago dont care now

If it's not legal, it can't be regulated. If it's legal, then it can be put to safety standards like any other service

It can be regulated but it doesnt mean its gonna happen. Not to mention you are spreading stds to people and it is non productive. it does nothing for society.

It should be legalized, on the condition that prostitutes use or provide condoms

So according to trashmans logic, escorts spread STDs? Theres nothing wrong with prostitution if it's voluntary. Not to sound funny it's a service that's as old as humanity itself, a service people are obviously willing to pay for and if it can be legalised it can be regulated AND taxed bringing in more money to the economy. And yeah condoms should be a non negotiable requirement.

It's the whole stupid "Sex is sacred" tradition. Prostitution is a job. Even if you don't enjoy it. Most people hate their jobs.