Just because Christians say something for a stupid reason doesn’t mean that the opposite is automatically 100% true. If you read the article, the film isn’t coming at it from a Christian perspective at all but rather a leftist one.
Of course, “grandma” in your example should be allowed to die peacefully. But you can’t use an extreme example to argue for a general case. There’s plenty of room in between the extremes of, “Forcing grandma to live in constant pain” and “On demand suicide for anyone who wants it.”
With those two tactics, you effectively shut down a necessary discussion on the issue - anyone who disagrees must be coming at it from an extreme, Christian perspective and can be automatically dismissed. But when we look at a young, healthy person doing it, we have to consider the broader sociological implications. Like, could the existence and normalization of that option be used as a justification against providing accommodations or trying to understand the source of the problem? Or, could the breakdown of the taboo against suicide lead more people to follow through when they might have otherwise reconsidered and gone on to work through their problems?
Suicide is violence, and very often it is violence that is directed at someone who is not the actual source of the problem. Sometimes it’s the kindest, gentlest people who go down that path, not because of anything inherent to them as an individual, but because of external factors and shitty people.
Most crucially, no matter what laws are enacted, we must fight to maintain the social taboo, and push back against anyone who tries to dismantle it. Whether a person walks into a doctor’s office and blows their brains out, or whether they politely ask to go through a particular procedure and sign all the forms, the end result is the same and should be regarded in the same way - the only thing that’s changed is how it’s dressed up. The idea that if it’s legal and beurocratic, it’s no longer a tragedy must always be rejected, and it’s worth thinking about how to ensure that remains the case when thinking about what laws to allow.
I stopped considering your wall of text when you claimed that old people using medically assisted dying to relieve their terminal illness was an “extreme case”.
That’s just an extremist take. Legal euthenasia was implemented and is used in the overwhelming majority for these exact cases. You have a moral issue with it (as you’ve pointed out) and take issue with me calling it Christian. Your morals against euthenasia (calling it both “suicide” and “violence”) just shows your bias.
You are correct. There is no room for a nuanced discussion when you come at it with such an extreme take. Take care.
You completely misunderstood. I didn’t call it “extreme” to say that grandma should be allowed euthanasia. What I said is that that’s an extreme example, as in, a case where extreme circumstances make euthanasia a reasonable option.
Before I used the word “extreme” I literally said, “Of course, ‘grandma’ in your example should be allowed to die peacefully.” In fact, I even called the idea that she shouldn’t be able to, “an extreme position.” At that point, I can only assume it’s a willful misinterpretation to dismiss criticism. There is nothing “extreme” about my position that euthanasia should be legal but only in special circumstances, it’s literally the moderate position on the issue.
Just because Christians say something for a stupid reason doesn’t mean that the opposite is automatically 100% true. If you read the article, the film isn’t coming at it from a Christian perspective at all but rather a leftist one.
Of course, “grandma” in your example should be allowed to die peacefully. But you can’t use an extreme example to argue for a general case. There’s plenty of room in between the extremes of, “Forcing grandma to live in constant pain” and “On demand suicide for anyone who wants it.”
With those two tactics, you effectively shut down a necessary discussion on the issue - anyone who disagrees must be coming at it from an extreme, Christian perspective and can be automatically dismissed. But when we look at a young, healthy person doing it, we have to consider the broader sociological implications. Like, could the existence and normalization of that option be used as a justification against providing accommodations or trying to understand the source of the problem? Or, could the breakdown of the taboo against suicide lead more people to follow through when they might have otherwise reconsidered and gone on to work through their problems?
Suicide is violence, and very often it is violence that is directed at someone who is not the actual source of the problem. Sometimes it’s the kindest, gentlest people who go down that path, not because of anything inherent to them as an individual, but because of external factors and shitty people.
Most crucially, no matter what laws are enacted, we must fight to maintain the social taboo, and push back against anyone who tries to dismantle it. Whether a person walks into a doctor’s office and blows their brains out, or whether they politely ask to go through a particular procedure and sign all the forms, the end result is the same and should be regarded in the same way - the only thing that’s changed is how it’s dressed up. The idea that if it’s legal and beurocratic, it’s no longer a tragedy must always be rejected, and it’s worth thinking about how to ensure that remains the case when thinking about what laws to allow.
I stopped considering your wall of text when you claimed that old people using medically assisted dying to relieve their terminal illness was an “extreme case”.
That’s just an extremist take. Legal euthenasia was implemented and is used in the overwhelming majority for these exact cases. You have a moral issue with it (as you’ve pointed out) and take issue with me calling it Christian. Your morals against euthenasia (calling it both “suicide” and “violence”) just shows your bias.
You are correct. There is no room for a nuanced discussion when you come at it with such an extreme take. Take care.
You completely misunderstood. I didn’t call it “extreme” to say that grandma should be allowed euthanasia. What I said is that that’s an extreme example, as in, a case where extreme circumstances make euthanasia a reasonable option.
Before I used the word “extreme” I literally said, “Of course, ‘grandma’ in your example should be allowed to die peacefully.” In fact, I even called the idea that she shouldn’t be able to, “an extreme position.” At that point, I can only assume it’s a willful misinterpretation to dismiss criticism. There is nothing “extreme” about my position that euthanasia should be legal but only in special circumstances, it’s literally the moderate position on the issue.