Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

I would like you to know that I was very pleased with a large amount of your response because it seems that I have in fact led you to an understanding of things which you did not argue against in your last response! I am also impressed with the small amount of religious truth such as "Jesus sacrificing himself for the sake of mankind" that you have chosen to include in your argument. This is all very good. The things which we agreed on (and hopefully more if I missed anything) include: 1) The fact that goodness can come from suffering 2) The truth of dignity and the problem with the phrase "dying with dignity" 3) The truth that euthanasia is murder 4) The meaning and power of the human intellect & will 5) The fact that suicide is a permanent solution for a temporary problem Before I begin, I asked you to answer two questions in my last argument but have not gotten a response. I challenge you again to answer them this time! Question 1) If we are unable to choose the time of our birth, then how can you believe that we have the right to choose the time of our death whenever we feel like it is time? Question 2) Society has never condoned euthanasia until the modern century, so why do we all of a sudden believe it to be acceptable? I hope you are not suggesting that "challenges" directly mean the same as "positives" but yes, you are very right, suffering in and of itself IS a challenge! Not only is it, but it can and usually yields many difficult challenges throughout the life of a person and this is why it is so vital that we learn how to view suffering as a positive thing, not as a reason to end our live or the life of another person. I believe you are misunderstanding me when it comes to "encouraging" suffering. Suffering should never be encouraged but it must be dealt with (when it occurs) in a positive light. For example, it would be corrupt and morally evil to believe lighting oneself on fire is a good thing to do because it would be an act of direct harm to the body; thus, it would be practically pointless to do so. However, someone who survives a house fire and is badly burned could use their suffering as a way to receive the "positives" of suffering as I have already explained. It is very logical (and a good thing) to reduce suffering; however, it is so to a certain extent. "Reducing" suffering should never be translated into "eliminating" a person because of it. In fact, the act of killing a person would be an act of false compassion and love. The fact about euthanasia is that it is an act which completely contradicts love and dehumanizes the person who is killed because of it. It also cheapens the love between the subject and his killer in the way that it is merely conditional and is not a love worthy of a human being. It is important to realize that Brittany"s husband is actually degrading her to the point where Brittany does not feel worthy enough of a human to live as she suffers in front of him and her family. Whereas Brittany"s husband believes he is loving his wife by allowing her to make the decision to die, he is actually dehumanizing her, and failing as a husband (ultimately as a man). Regarding your second paragraph, it is very important to know that death was not created (rather, it was a result of sin) to end suffering. Suffering and death were never even part of the plan of our world from the beginning of time. Suffering and death would be far worse today if Jesus never sacrificed himself on the cross to allow us eternal life with him. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the ultimate form of love and compassion for humanity and is everything opposite of cowardice. In fact, It was actually the climax of Jesus' human dignity while on earth and was something we will never fully understand in this world (it is a mystery); but we have to be careful not to equate a "sacrifice" to euthanasia because both are drastically and completely different! (I can explain the difference in greater detail next round if you would like). See, it is very difficult to extract God completely out of the argument against euthanasia because God is so much a part of life and death. Regarding your "interpretation" of God, as I do respect it, it would go against God's very nature for him to allow and welcome the destruction of a life which he created. I hope you can see the deeper problem here and understand that I have not argued completely from a religious point of view; rather, I have included truth from both Natural and Moral Law. Regarding suicide, I do have the right to judge the action of another and say that the act of suicide is in fact gravely wrong. (Read carefully) I do NOT have the right to judge the state of a person's soul from the actions I know they commit and therefore could never judge the knowledge a person has about the morality of suicide. Also, I do appreciate the breakdown of Brittany Maynard's situation but I have done my research already...As I said before, I am very pleased with the knowledge you have mentioned to me about religion but I am clueless as to why you are so aggressive towards it..almost hateful if I must say! Another question, since I don't have the right to say that suicide is bad, how do you have the right to say it is good? I am not understanding the logic or basis of any of your arguments. I am sorry if I have caused you any frustration but it is not my job to be "politically correct" when proclaiming the truth to you or to anyone. I also suggest you re-read the information I provided on "rights" and how they differ from "freedom" as I don't think you read it fully in my last argument. As always.. With Love, Katie Adams