It’s easy to have a strong opinion against this when the last time you went to a physician was 10 years ago.
Your argument is couched in the same form as the argument: “Someone needs to find people who are in favor of criminal’s rights and follow up when their child gets raped or murdered.”
No. If your morals are conditional, they are not morals.
Have you thought that, being clear-eyed, you may not yet have the experience of being terminally ill and in pain that cannot be medicated away? The only prospect for life being permanently chained to a bed awaiting your death?
How easy it is to serve these strong opinions when you are healthy.
> Your argument is couched in the same form as the argument:
If you have no experience of something you need a much stronger argument to prove you are not only correct, but correct to the point it overrides somebody elses freedom.
Also. Comparing support for MAID with defendant rights is a false equivalence. The correct equivalence there is whether or not someone still favors criminal rights if they were personally on trial. Not someone who personally becomes less magnanimous to criminals they are personally affected by. The equivalence the other direction would be asking loved ones about someone else's decision to undergo MAID, and asking them subset of folks around them who aren't ready to let them go yet how they feel about MAID. (Though in both cases of MAID and not wanting the wrong person to be thrown in jail for a criminal action as a victim, I suspect the drop in support is less than you think it is.)
Hypocrisy doesn’t make the moral stance wrong, it just means humans are weak and sinful.
Just want to add context matters and comparing my argument to arguments against pro-lifers is unfair.
Assisted suicide only terminates a single life of an individual who has made a choice in a good state of mind.
Even if argument seems the same as your second example it isn’t. Not every issue is the same and context matters.