Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
But I have a problem with your premise. The "I have the right to kill myself slooooowly" argument isn't the same as an argument for the right to commit suicide (as in immediately taking one's life). It's murky. It's like saying we're all committing suicide by living in large cities because we might get lung cancer and heart disease from the pollution.
Again, the smokers, drinkers, gamblers, and tanners aren't barred from doing their thing. They just have to pay more for it because the likelihood that someone among them will require medical/social services related to their activity is rather high and well-documented.
|
Well, is your life yours to do with as you please or not?
If it is, then why can't the government/private services draw a line on "If you do these few pre-determined, gallactically-stupid things, we aren't going to save your ass when you get sick from them." That avoids the taxation and expense of services outright. Just don't save them. They knew what they were doing. It's sort of like smoking/tanning for 15 years earns you a "D.N.R." tattoo across your forehead. Why are we duty-bound to save these people, regardless of their behavior?
The only murkiness is how long you let someone engage in the behavior before they get their tattoo.
P.S. Since someone will think I am serious, I don't really think the tattoo should go on their forehead. Maybe their cheek, though.