You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
Not at all. The default stance would be “I do not care one way or the other if someone has access to MAID.”
By taking a stance against MAID, you are in fact deciding that they should not be able to die now. No one is asking you to personally do the killing, but you take umbrage with the idea that it would be accessible to people, so you are therefore deciding that they should be die now, but later.
I am not advocating for a stance for or against MAID. I have not stated my position on it. All of my comments are pointing out a flaw in your argument that I observed.
deleted by creator
You are missing the point. You are doing that right now. You are deciding that they shouldn’t die now, but later. You are deciding when other people should die.
deleted by creator
Not at all. The default stance would be “I do not care one way or the other if someone has access to MAID.”
By taking a stance against MAID, you are in fact deciding that they should not be able to die now. No one is asking you to personally do the killing, but you take umbrage with the idea that it would be accessible to people, so you are therefore deciding that they should be die now, but later.
deleted by creator
I am not advocating for a stance for or against MAID. I have not stated my position on it. All of my comments are pointing out a flaw in your argument that I observed.