Recent comments in /f/massachusetts

homefone t1_jaejgxw wrote

>HAVE to be talking about at-risk groups

No.

>It IS a right, and you do not get to strip someone of their dignity because you don’t agree with their medical choices.

I don't think it's a medical choice, I think it's killing oneself. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you're saying it's a right, you need to show that it's a right.

0

AReluctantEssayist t1_jaejaym wrote

First of all, this particular WPA project wasn't silly, it was an effort to inform the American public of the poverty in the Midwest brought about by the Dust Bowl and therefore show the importance of the New Deal, which is why it is different from the Jerusalem of hipsters putting the TMNT on a manhole cover.

Second of all, the WPA was an effort to get every able-bodied American to work to revive the faltering American economy which, I reiterate, is quite distinct from a piece of government-sanctioned fanart.

13

socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeikg1 wrote

Sentimentalizing human life is connected to being anti-choice and if you can’t see how, you’re absolutely anti-choice.

And the fact that you think that there would be no psych eval or screening process in place boggles my mind. What, did you think doctors would just blow terminally ill patients’ heads off with shotguns if they decided to die with dignity?

1

socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeiene wrote

In order for your argument to make any sense you would HAVE to be talking about at-risk groups, because otherwise you WOULD be talking out of your ass and there’d be no point continuing this.

And “No it isn’t” is something a child says when they’ve lost the argument. It IS a right, and you do not get to strip someone of their dignity because you don’t agree with their medical choices.

2