In the US, "nitrogen homebrewing equipment" is the dual-use dog whistle for AS supplies.
Similar to abortion and organ donation, this matter is about body autonomy. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.
Similar to abortion and organ donation, this matter is about body autonomy. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.
"Refusing to assist someone in doing something" seems to be different from "forcing someone to do whatever was already going to happen if they didn't do the thing you refused to help them do" to me.
It seems to me that it's not "force" unless there's an alteration to the natural course something takes by default. So in this case, "continuing to live for awhile" is the default natural course. Refusing to assist someone in altering that natural course isn't the same as "forcing them to continue living."
Likewise with pregnancy, the default natural course is to remain pregnant until miscarriage or birth. Refusing to assist (or allow someone else to assist) someone in altering that natural course isn't the same as "forcing someone to remain pregnant."
The nearer analogy would be if someone published a recipe and instructions for making the pill.
I think that would still be "assistance," but much more likely to be covered under free speech laws, that disseminating information about something (publishing instructions) is generally already protected.
Even then, though, were such publication to be banned, it would still be the case that nobody is being "forced to remain pregnant."
Those are both primary uses for those drugs so manufacturing and delivery isn't knowing assistance.
Then you suggest it is legal free speech for me to divulge that if you take one, wait 48hrs and take the second, it is precisely what would occur if you requested a drug induced abortion in a place that allows those?
In fact it sounds like, and forgive me if I assume incorrectly, your argument is meant to be opposed to assisted suicide, but I would use the exact same argument in favor of it, all forms of recreational drugs, (ethically produced) porn, and other such things that harm no one except potentially the person making the decision. Obviously there's a lot of grey area there but we don't need to get super pedantic.
If something is already underway, like a person is already alive or a pregnancy has already begun, it has a path along which it will continue without requiring additional force to reach it. "Force" is only necessary to change the course.
An object in motion is not forced to stay in motion. That's what happens in the absence of force.
For a person to continue living or a pregnancy to continue, they must continually exert, collect, and consume energy in the form of food and water. Why isn't that additional force? The 'natural' course of events, without any outside 'force', is for everyone and every living thing to drop dead in a couple of days tops.
"Okay, but obviously living beings were designed to continue living, seeking energy to continue sustaining their existence is obviously a natural course of events" you might say, but why does it have to end there? Why isn't the very natural path that all humans begin on, one of being a social creature that desires to assist others in their tribe, the 'default' force as well?
It really seems like there can't be any clear cut answer, and it's just philosophical sleight of hand. You also haven't addressed the point that if one person wants to help the other, preventing that is clearly a form of force.
The whole conversation is about taking action to end someone's life, and whether anyone who does not take action to assist someone in ending their life is forcing them to continue living. "Being alive" has a biological meaning and a natural course. These aren't just things we get to define as we will.
While I admire the gymnastics you're putting your mind through to try to maintain shortening someone's life intentionally could even remotely be considered "the natural course" such that force would have to be applied to prevent it, the only way to get there is to negate meaning in any word or any thing other than what any particular person ascribes to it.
Virtually by definition, no one can join you in your solipsism, so I'm afraid this conversation has run its course.
It's trivially easy to think of counterexamples to this statement.
I don't want to safely dispose of this industrial waste because that is too expensive and time consuming.
I don't want to feed my children.
I don't want to drive the speed limit.
I don't want to pay for that.
I don't want limit my amplifier's output to 1500 watts on the amateur radio bands. (edit: 500 watts on HF in France!)
I don't want to provide the good or service I have been paid for and I don't want to return the money.
I don't want to add to this list anymore....
But if you only want to talk about suicide: we already "force" suicidal people to stay alive via suicide prevention measures (nets under bridges, restrictions on drug purchases etc.) that make it harder or less convenient to kill yourself. These measures reduce suicide rates and I'd say they're moral.
Okay, so what if we're only talking about "assisted" suicide? If someone really wants to die, should we let them? I get where you're coming from, but let's not pretend it's always this simple. Suicidal people aren't famous for thinking rationally, and just because someone says they want to die that doesn't mean we should take it at face value. There are already cases in Canada of people seeking euthanasia not because they're terminally ill but because they're poor, and see suicide as preferable to poverty/homelessness:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin...
There's the "slippery slope" we were warned about.
PS I'm not sure what you think "bad faith" means, but my post was not written in bad faith.
Those are all negative, in those cases you're not allowing someone to do something (which is different from forcing someone to do something). There are other forms of suicide prevention though, like forcing suicidal people to take medication
These measures won't stop a truly determined person, but they stop a lot of people. It's well understood that erecting even a minor inconvenience in front of a suicidal person can be enough to keep them alive. Popping all your paracetamol out of the packaging takes enough time to give you a chance to reconsider the whole thing.
By forcing someone to do something, we prevent them from doing something else.
Well this was poorly thought through. I guess I’ll never need to tell the truth under oath, hand over alimony checks, wear clothes, avoid being drunk on the street at noon…
I'll remember this the next time I need to pay taxes, am drafted to serve in the military, or have to abide by a court judgment I don't agree with.
The tough thing about principle arguments is that they're like trains, not taxis. You're stuck with them until their conclusions. You don't just get to choose where you want them to go.
That's all it takes.
Your argument certainly doesn't depend on timing, does it? France has had conscriptions whenever it needed them. If it needs them in the future, you can be sure it will have them.
This is the first I've heard of this, and I've been in the homebrewing scene for awhile now. If someone told me they got nitrogen homebrewing equipment, I'd be pretty stoked because nitro beer isn't that common at all among homebrewers. Got anything to back this up?
I always thought nitrous oxide would make a great fizzifier. Talk about giggle water! And it is much more soluble than even co2 so you could actually make it bubbly.