This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

You EVIL CIS SCUMS, every single one of transhwumen's cosmetic surgeries is LITERALLY saving lives! PAY UP!!!

submitted by [deleted] from (reddit.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]mvmlego 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Thank you for explaining your viewpoint. How would you apply those principles to the subject of euthanasia? Undoubtedly, it can be a procedure that eliminates pain, but it's also a procedure that many consider to be morally wrong to various extents. Presumably, this would fall under your category of controversial procedures that need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. What exactly does that handling process look like? Is the question of whether it should be taxpayer-funded simply a matter of whether it is, in the majority's opinion, a good procedure?

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I support passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when you pull the plug, or don’t give medication to someone to keep this person alive. If someone wants to die, there’s no point keeping him on life support. So yeah, if the patient wants to die, let his next of kin pull the plug. Active euthanasia, where you give lethal medication to someone to kill him, is another story. I’m not sure if I’m okay with this. I definitely don’t want to fund this.

[–]mvmlego 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think I got my point across, in that I was wondering what you think about how a given society should decide whether or not to fund controversial things, with euthanasia being the operative example. Still, I won't pester you any more. I appreciate your reply, and I happen to hold rather similar views on euthanasia, myself.