Re: I'm appalled

[Guest guest]

Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ...I just simply can't believe what I am seeing here!

>

That's because you are totally out in left field. There is no comparison

to be made.

Red

[Guest guest]

On Dec 11, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ...I just simply can't believe what I am seeing here!

I can't either. I really don't understand the progressive mindset,

either - this is one of the very few issues they believe personal

choice is more important then the good of society as a whole.

[Guest guest]

> > ...I just simply can't believe what I am seeing here!

> I can't either. I really don't understand the progressive mindset,

> either - this is one of the very few issues they believe personal

> choice is more important then the good of society as a whole.

Moreover, they (and usually I count myself one of *something* like

them, as you know, since you generally refer to me as a commie <grin>)

tend to believe that " personal choice " occurs in some sort of vacuum

that isn't influenced by prejudice and misconception.

Then there's the lack of differentiation between:

1. " Quality of life " issues that are based on widespread

discrimination rather than on the state of one's mind or body itself.

(These are viewed as inevitable, unchangeable, etc, and just part of

the landscape -- if they are viewed as anything at all consciously.)

2. Total and complete misconceptions about what the experience of

certain things *is*, and unfounded fears based on said misconceptions.

(Such as " I would rather die than not be able to walk. " Generally

after a certain adjustment period -- what that period is, is actually

a known quantity, but I forgot what it is -- people are just as happy

as *or sometimes happier* than they were before, in those situations,

and that's backed up by research, not pulled out of my ass.)

3. Unpleasant aspects of being disabled that can easily be mitigated

but the means for mitigation is not always there for various reasons.

(Nearly all pain, for instance, can be managed properly at this

point, but effective pain management is not offered to certain people.)

4. Actual unpleasant aspects of being disabled (which are usually

magnified beyond belief in the eyes of the non-disabled or the

not-disabled-in-that-particular-way).

Oh, and in response to an earlier post, I've had severe central pain

for as long as I can remember and only got it treated in my early

twenties. By the time I got it treated it was usually too severe to

get out of bed and often severe enough that I made involuntary noises

(which is rare for me). I think I have a pretty good idea what (both

treated and untreated) chronic pain is like, and am not sure why it

would change my opinion on these issues (except that I believe pain

management is *really* neglected by a lot of professionals and thus

they don't understand a lot of aspects of it, and thus many patients

don't believe it exists for them).

(http://www.painonline.org/intro.htm and

http://www.painonline.org/bowsh.htm are both articles on the kind of

pain I have if anyone is interested. It seems surprisingly common in

autistics.)

[Guest guest]

At 10:01 PM 12/11/2005, Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ....I can't believe what I am seeing here! Doesn't anyone realise that

>euthanasia becomes accepted here,that we will be one of the major targets?

>You think we have problems now,with not being accepted? Just wait until the

>NTs have a legal way to get rid of us,and all other disabled people....the

>murder of Terri,who could have been saved if her damn husband hadn't been

>trying to kill her all those years,and the murder of children who are

>imperfect','will not have a good quality of life',and other idiot " reasons "

>herald what will be in store for us! Why waste our breath here,banging our

>gums together about how bad CAN is,and other autism groups? To be

>pro-euthanasia is to wish for a world where we will be fighting for our very

>lives against those who despise the very existence of the disabled,who

>regard us as a nuisance and a drain on their resources,etc....

And I can't believe you would try to deny me my legitimate choice not to be

kept alive by artificial means. Isn't that what we are supposedly fighting

for? The dignity of our lives? Well, I'll tell you something. As far as I'm

concerned, there isn't a hell of a lot of dignity in being brain-dead.

This has nothing to do with disability. If you want them to use

extraordinary measures and, even if brain dead, live on a machine for

whatever time you have left, that is YOUR privilege, and I certainly don't

advocate pulling the plug if those are your expressed wishes.

However, I find it equally appalling that you are trying to make my simple

decision that I don't want life support if I am in Terri Shiavo's position

into some kind of broader " societal issue " . It isn't. It's about choice,

pure and simple. MY choice. You want to live like that, you tell your kids

and your family. I don't, and my choice is just as valid as yours. It has

nothing to do with euthanasia and everything to do with my right to choose

my life. Terri Shiavo situations can easily be prevented by the use of a

living will, and if she had had one, we would have known what she wanted

and there would be absolutely nothing to debate. I challenge everyone in

this discussion to make a living will in time for the New Year.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Merry Heaven's Day! Visit http://www.savebigo.com and find out how you can

win the Gift of Big O!

[Guest guest]

.....well,I don't want you and those like you getting this country in the

same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over there,where you can kill

yourself legally....this country was founded on Christian principals,and one

of those is Thou shalt not kill.

Gail, Anja & Mullen,

my German Shepherd & Greyhound

Service Dogs

& Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«

Live simply. Love generously.

Care deeply. Speak kindly.

Leave the rest to God.

-- Re: I'm appalled

At 10:01 PM 12/11/2005, Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ....I can't believe what I am seeing here! Doesn't anyone realise that

>euthanasia becomes accepted here,that we will be one of the major targets?

>You think we have problems now,with not being accepted? Just wait until the

>NTs have a legal way to get rid of us,and all other disabled people....the

>murder of Terri,who could have been saved if her damn husband hadn't been

>trying to kill her all those years,and the murder of children who are

>imperfect','will not have a good quality of life',and other idiot " reasons "

>herald what will be in store for us! Why waste our breath here,banging our

>gums together about how bad CAN is,and other autism groups? To be

>pro-euthanasia is to wish for a world where we will be fighting for our

very

>lives against those who despise the very existence of the disabled,who

>regard us as a nuisance and a drain on their resources,etc....

And I can't believe you would try to deny me my legitimate choice not to be

kept alive by artificial means. Isn't that what we are supposedly fighting

for? The dignity of our lives? Well, I'll tell you something. As far as I'm

concerned, there isn't a hell of a lot of dignity in being brain-dead.

This has nothing to do with disability. If you want them to use

extraordinary measures and, even if brain dead, live on a machine for

whatever time you have left, that is YOUR privilege, and I certainly don't

advocate pulling the plug if those are your expressed wishes.

However, I find it equally appalling that you are trying to make my simple

decision that I don't want life support if I am in Terri Shiavo's position

into some kind of broader " societal issue " . It isn't. It's about choice,

pure and simple. MY choice. You want to live like that, you tell your kids

and your family. I don't, and my choice is just as valid as yours. It has

nothing to do with euthanasia and everything to do with my right to choose

my life. Terri Shiavo situations can easily be prevented by the use of a

living will, and if she had had one, we would have known what she wanted

and there would be absolutely nothing to debate. I challenge everyone in

this discussion to make a living will in time for the New Year.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Merry Heaven's Day! Visit http://www.savebigo.com and find out how you can

win the Gift of Big O!

[Guest guest]

> And I can't believe you would try to deny me my legitimate choice

> not to be kept alive by artificial means.

That's another thing that confuses me. You're being kept alive by

artificial means already. We all are. What you really have to be

saying, then, is that there are *certain* states that you do not want

to live through. I don't hear many people say that all the people

who'd have died of food poisoning before refrigerators are better off

without these artificial means of deriving sustenance, or that heaters

and air conditioners (in areas where people could die of cold or heat)

are wrong, etc. So it's all about the kind of person being " kept

alive " , not about the fact of being " kept alive " .

> However, I find it equally appalling that you are trying to make my

> simple decision that I don't want life support if I am in Terri

> Shiavo's position into some kind of broader " societal issue " . It

> isn't. It's about choice, pure and simple. MY choice.

No " simple decision " is without a societal context. You can argue

that your decision is right based on a societal context, and the other

person can argue that her decision is right based on a societal

context, but anyone who believes (in any context, regardless of the

decision) that decisions are theirs, theirs alone, and unconnected to

" societal issues " of any sort, is not seeing an essential part of

reality. Even autistic people are not that unconnected to the world.

It is not appalling to bring the rest of the world and the ways that

our " personal " decisions affect the rest of the world into a

discussion of decisions that *are* affected by and affecting the rest

of the world all the time, whatever your position on the issue is.

It's only *realistic*.

> I challenge everyone in

> this discussion to make a living will in time for the New Year.

I already have a similar document stating my wishes. I don't see any

point to making a new one.

[Guest guest]

> Go move over there,where you can kill

> yourself legally....

You can kill yourself legally in America, too.

> this country was founded on Christian principals,and one

> of those is Thou shalt not kill.

I do believe in separation of church and state despite agreeing with

you on the euthanasia issue. I do think that it's possible to form an

ethical decision on this without invoking a specific religion though.

(Our country is, always has been, and should be, made up of people of

many different religions and lack thereof.)

[Guest guest]

On Dec 11, 2005, at 9:34 PM, Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ....well,I don't want you and those like you getting this country

> in the

> same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over there,where you can

> kill

> yourself legally....this country was founded on Christian

> principals,and one

> of those is Thou shalt not kill.

The infanticide in Holland is even more scary.

Under the new proposed guidelines, I could have been murdered (I was

not expected to survive; my parents were told that there was no hope;

I was to be severely mentally retarded, and was expected [this was

the one they got right] to have trouble walking and running [although

I'll add that I have competed in long distance running competitions,

finishing in the middle of the pack]).

[Guest guest]

Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ...I can't believe what I am seeing here! Doesn't anyone realise

> that euthanasia becomes accepted here,that we will be one of the

> major targets?

C'mon, Gail, let's not get hysterical; one thing doesn't equal the

other. In this case, the " one thing " is Doctors in the Netherlands

causing or allowing the deaths of babies that are not viable. Isn't

that right? There are a few, maybe a couple of dozen, babies born

each year in the Netherlands that don't really have a chance, even

if you spent hundreds of thousands of gilders or whatever to make

them live longer. They are saying, " To what purpose? "

" We " would become major targets of euthanasia? How would that be,

when we are not usually diagnosed until 2 or 3 years of age? They

are not killing 2 yr olds in the Netherlands, saying they are not

viable. There are children who are born without brains, or their

brains are not enclosed by their skulls, but hanging out. These

are very extreme cases they're talking about.

I am not " for " anyone deciding that someone else should be killed,

but only *my* right to decide when I have had enough suffering,

and to end my life with dignity. As a Health Aide, I've seen a lot

of suffering, in those with strokes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc.,

and I *do not choose* to live that way, especially since I would

have to do it in a Nursing Home. And in a way, it might be even

worse to die that way in front of one's wife for 50 years, in one's

own home. I know for certain that it's very hard for a wife to be

the primary caregiver in such cases. Deleterious to their health,

too. Stressful.

Dying is a very personal thing, one of the most personal things

you can do. Damned right I'd put my personal choice ahead of

" the good of society " if it meant that society required that I

suffer from pain and waste away for 2 yrs from cancer on the

adrenal glands, like my stepfather did. He was lucid for awhile

on his last day, and with my mother, my wife, and I at his bed-

side, he looked down at his emaciated body and said, " Ain't this

awful? " Those were his last words. If we had been under the

" Oregon Plan " , he could have decided what he wanted to do, after

his Dr. had explained to him what he had, and what the prognosis

was.

> To be pro-euthanasia is to wish for a world where we will be

> fighting for our very lives against those who despise the very

> existence of the disabled, who regard us as a nuisance and a

> drain on their resources, etc....

Don't get too excited, it won't come to that, at least, until the

world's population tops 10 billion or so, and then we'll have even

bigger problems anyway.

Clay

[Guest guest]

At 11:34 PM 12/11/2005, Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

>....well,I don't want you and those like you getting this country in the

>same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over there,where you can kill

>yourself legally....this country was founded on Christian principals,and one

>of those is Thou shalt not kill.

I find it incredibly ironic that you are treating me precisely as you

dislike being treated. You have no right to tell me to move anywhere. I was

born here, same as you, and I have news for you--I'm not a Christian, and

that is also my privilege. Why don't you practice YOUR Christian principles?

You would have every right to attack me if I was trying to shove my beliefs

down your throat, but I am not. I have stated repeatedly that if you wished

extraordinary measures to be taken, that is your privilege and your right.

Don't you DARE try to run MY life by your beliefs. It's just as ignorant as

someone automatically assuming you eat like a pig and need to exercise some

self-control and go on a diet because you're heavy.

I would go to bat for ANYONE here if I knew what their wishes were in the

event of them being in a situation like Terri Shiavo was. I would go to

court to keep you ALIVE, Gail, and I would go to court to pull the plug for

Jerry, because to me, human dignity is about having the freedom to choose

what is best for you, and that includes the freedom to choose whether or

not you are on life support.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Merry Heaven's Day! Visit http://www.savebigo.com and find out how you can

win the Gift of Big O!

[Guest guest]

just me personally, I wouldn't want to be kept alive,

but I do want to keep it in the self choice catagory.

Gail.. I just don't see this becoming as big an issue

as you do currently. maybe it will at some point,

maybe it won't. At this point, my family is very very

well aware of my issues, and I thank the powers that

be, that currently we have that choice.

Serena

--- Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ....well,I don't want you and those like you getting

> this country in the

> same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over

> there,where you can kill

> yourself legally....this country was founded on

> Christian principals,and one

> of those is Thou shalt not kill.

>

>

> Gail, Anja & Mullen,

> my German Shepherd & Greyhound

> Service Dogs

> & Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

> DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

> »§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«

> Live simply. Love generously.

> Care deeply. Speak kindly.

> Leave the rest to God.

> -- Re: I'm appalled

>

> At 10:01 PM 12/11/2005, Gail & her Service Dogs

> wrote:

> > ....I can't believe what I am seeing here!

> Doesn't anyone realise that

> >euthanasia becomes accepted here,that we will be

> one of the major targets?

> >You think we have problems now,with not being

> accepted? Just wait until the

> >NTs have a legal way to get rid of us,and all other

> disabled people....the

> >murder of Terri,who could have been saved if her

> damn husband hadn't been

> >trying to kill her all those years,and the murder

> of children who are

> >imperfect','will not have a good quality of

> life',and other idiot " reasons "

> >herald what will be in store for us! Why waste our

> breath here,banging our

> >gums together about how bad CAN is,and other autism

> groups? To be

> >pro-euthanasia is to wish for a world where we will

> be fighting for our

> very

> >lives against those who despise the very existence

> of the disabled,who

> >regard us as a nuisance and a drain on their

> resources,etc....

>

> And I can't believe you would try to deny me my

> legitimate choice not to be

> kept alive by artificial means. Isn't that what we

> are supposedly fighting

> for? The dignity of our lives? Well, I'll tell you

> something. As far as I'm

> concerned, there isn't a hell of a lot of dignity in

> being brain-dead.

>

> This has nothing to do with disability. If you want

> them to use

> extraordinary measures and, even if brain dead, live

> on a machine for

> whatever time you have left, that is YOUR privilege,

> and I certainly don't

> advocate pulling the plug if those are your

> expressed wishes.

>

> However, I find it equally appalling that you are

> trying to make my simple

> decision that I don't want life support if I am in

> Terri Shiavo's position

> into some kind of broader " societal issue " . It

> isn't. It's about choice,

> pure and simple. MY choice. You want to live like

> that, you tell your kids

> and your family. I don't, and my choice is just as

> valid as yours. It has

> nothing to do with euthanasia and everything to do

> with my right to choose

> my life. Terri Shiavo situations can easily be

> prevented by the use of a

> living will, and if she had had one, we would have

> known what she wanted

> and there would be absolutely nothing to debate. I

> challenge everyone in

> this discussion to make a living will in time for

> the New Year.

>

> Z

>

>

> INTP

> Generation X

> 68.44181% - Geek Goddess

>

> Merry Heaven's Day! Visit http://www.savebigo.com

> and find out how you can

> win the Gift of Big O!

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gail wrote:

>....well,I don't want you and those like you getting this country in the

>same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over there,where you can kill

>yourself legally....this country was founded on Christian principals,and one

>of those is Thou shalt not kill.

This is getting too ridiculous for me.

Jane

[Guest guest]

actually, technically last I checked.. suicide was

against the law.. just no way to prosecute. Now,

maybe that has changed and I'm not as up to date as I

once was....

Serena

--- alfamanda wrote:

>

>

> > Go move over there,where you can kill

> > yourself legally....

>

> You can kill yourself legally in America, too.

>

> > this country was founded on Christian

> principals,and one

> > of those is Thou shalt not kill.

>

> I do believe in separation of church and state

> despite agreeing with

> you on the euthanasia issue. I do think that it's

> possible to form an

> ethical decision on this without invoking a specific

> religion though.

> (Our country is, always has been, and should be,

> made up of people of

> many different religions and lack thereof.)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> C'mon, Gail, let's not get hysterical; one thing doesn't equal the

> other. In this case, the " one thing " is Doctors in the Netherlands

> causing or allowing the deaths of babies that are not viable. Isn't

> that right? There are a few, maybe a couple of dozen, babies born

> each year in the Netherlands that don't really have a chance, even

> if you spent hundreds of thousands of gilders or whatever to make

> them live longer. They are saying, " To what purpose? "

I lack your faith in the medical establishment, based on personal

experience.

[Guest guest]

> actually, technically last I checked.. suicide was

> against the law.. just no way to prosecute. Now,

> maybe that has changed and I'm not as up to date as I

> once was....

I don't think it is, in America. I'm pretty sure that's an urban myth

(of the sort that isn't true).

[Guest guest]

I always thought that was one of the stupidest laws on the books. Talk

about victimless crimes, or maybe automatic punishment, depending on your

viewpoint...and how exactly do you prosecute a corpse?

Elayne

http://www.huntfamilyhome.net

" The government thinks you're an idiot. " -- Radley Balko,

www.theagitator.com

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Serena Pridgen

> actually, technically last I checked.. suicide was

> against the law.. just no way to prosecute.

[Guest guest]

At 11:56 PM 12/11/2005, alfamanda wrote:

>I don't think it is, in America. I'm pretty sure that's an urban myth

>(of the sort that isn't true).

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html

Technically, suicide may not be against the law, but an attempt strips you

of your rights and subjects you to medical and institutional control just

the same as if you were arrested--except if you get arrested, you get to

talk to a lawyer.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Merry Heaven's Day! Visit http://www.savebigo.com and find out how you can

win the Gift of Big O!

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I lack your faith in the medical establishment,

> based on personal experience.

Wha? I don't have any faith in Doctors, not after having two

septoplasty operations last year, and they Still didn't get it

right! Not after the only other hospital stay I had, back in

1969, after a horrific accident, and they did an exploratory

surgery on my abdomen, just because they thought I looked pale,

and therefore must be bleeding internally. If they had *asked*

me, I could have told them I had just come to California from

New york, and that's why I didn't have a tan in January! They

used wire for the stitches, and they're still in there. No, I

don't trust Doctors at all.

However, the babies in the Netherlands which are now being

legally euthanized, I think it would be obvious to anyone

that they're not going to make it.

Clay

[Guest guest]

> That's another thing that confuses me. You're being kept alive

> by artificial means already. ... I don't hear many people say that

> all the people who'd have died of food poisoning before

> refrigerators are better off without these artificial means of ...

This is a good reason why I want to allow terminination of my

life should I get to the point where I would deem it necessary.

I don't want someone (parents, the state, the State Church) to

tell me I can't because refrigeration is artificial. (All foods

are " chemicals " , but I read labels to avoid chemical substances

added to my food. That's my right.)

I may not find a handy definition that defies the " refrigeration

is artificial life support " test, but still want, as Jerry said,

" I authorize you to pull the plug and wrap the cord around the

neck of anyone who tries to stop you. "

I could say, " extraordinary means " (which is the actual

criteria, as opposed to the colloquial " artificial " ), but I've

eaten microwaved food. Microwaves are pretty extraordinary.

I've occasionally microwaved week-old chicken stock to assure it

was safe, so I've used " extraordinary means " . But still, please

pull the plug.

- s

[Guest guest]

> in the same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over

> there, where you can kill yourself legally....this country was

> founded on Christian principals, and one of those is Thou shalt

> not kill.

I for one don't consider Holland to be a less moral country and

hope that the US doesn't become a theocracy. Before accepting

the invitation to leave, I'd invite those writing the exile list

to move to the Islamajamia of Iran.

- s

[Guest guest]

> ....I can't believe what I am seeing here! Doesn't anyone

> realise that

> euthanasia becomes accepted here,that we will be one of the major

> targets?

No, I don't realize that. I realize that if state-determined

euthanasia like performed by the Nazis is performed, I would be

a target. Last I checked, the only Nazis today are a bunch of

fringe lunatics hiding in the remote reaches of the US.

I feel quite safe in Holland.

> Just wait until the NTs have a legal way to get rid of us,and all

> other disabled people....the murder of Terri

True, autistic people can write " living wills " . If Terri were

autistic and ended up in her condition, those who followed her

wishes would have done what they did. Only with more difficulty

because people would say she was really conscious but autistic.

In fact, she seemed to perseverate on the flashlight.

- s

[Guest guest]

> ....well,I don't want you and those like you getting this country

> in the same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over

> there, where you can kill yourself legally....this country was

> founded on Christian principals,and one of those is Thou shalt

> not kill.

Yeah, tell that to the American Indians, to the people who died

in the War Between the States, the Spanish American War, the War

of Texas Succession, etc., etc.

There is no established " Christian principal " which tells a

person (Christian or otherwise) that they must have a trocar

stuck into their abdomen for no purpose other than keep someone

in those conditions alive.

At some point, someone has to make a decision. If the concern

is that the decision may be for the wrong reasons, then I guess

we can address that as a country. For me, the " wrong reasons "

does not mean that cessation of life support is always wrong.

If someone is concerned that autism may be deemed a valid reason

for euthanisia, we can address that issue as well. Right now, I

don't feel threatened and I don't see that threatening our less

functional brethen either.

Taking it further, in at least Oregon, I can get an Rx for

assisted suicide (after medical approval). I don't want some

State Church leader telling me I don't have that right. Yes, I

know that Terri wouldn't have qualified for Oregon's assisted

suicide law, but I wouldn't want the same State Church leader

telling my next-of-kin they couldn't pull the plug.

- s

[Guest guest]

> However, the babies in the Netherlands which are now being

> legally euthanized, I think it would be obvious to anyone

> that they're not going to make it.

I think I would likely have been in the same place as these babies.

The doctors were wrong.

[Guest guest]

> Taking it further, in at least Oregon, I can get an Rx for

> assisted suicide (after medical approval). I don't want some

> State Church leader telling me I don't have that right. Yes, I

> know that Terri wouldn't have qualified for Oregon's assisted

> suicide law, but I wouldn't want the same State Church leader

> telling my next-of-kin they couldn't pull the plug.

I'd also say I don't want the state telling me to pay taxes.

[Guest guest]

> Agreed. I believe one other " Christian principal " has to do with not

> passing judgement, and allowing others to make their own choices. If

> there's a God, it's up to him/her to judge us, thank you, and we'll

> live wherever we please, and die with dignity where we can.

> Freedom of

> religion anyone?

Actually, passing judgement on choices is allowed and even explicitly

commanded.

Passing judgement on the heart is forbidden.

> Good healthy level of tolerance there, I see. And once again missing

> the point.

Tolerance has nothing to do with not saying someone else is wrong.

That said, I am not anti-euthanasia because I'm a Christian. Sure,

that strengthens my beliefs in that, but I was against abortion,

euthanasia, and the death penalty long before I was a Christian. I

am against anything that will cause Grandma to want to kill herself

before she wants to (and that includes euthanasia where she has an

easy way out for the sake of her family).

The reason is simple - the wrong of killing someone who shouldn't

have been killed is far worse then not killing someone who should

have been killed. Because all three of these areas (abortion,

euthanasia, and death penalty) have significant gray areas, and you

never know for sure if you are right - regardless of whether or not

you believe some people should be killed, I feel it's better to error

on the side of caution.

It's plenty possible to hold that belief without sharing my religious

beliefs. And many disability organizations definitely don't share my

beliefs (in some, I'd be shocked to find a Christian or a

republican!), but do hold the belief that euthanasia is wrong (most

don't make a statement on abortion or death penalty, although most

that do support abortion and oppose the death penalty).

People do confuse issues quite often in this type of debate.