Now that we're done with that, we can get around to the actual topic sentence of this column:
I am a major supporter of individual's rights. I believe that everybody should be allowed to do anything they want so long as it doesn't screw anyone else over. In other words: if it hurts not, do as thou wilt.
I can think of one major limitation to this idea. Small children don't always know what's best for them, although sometimes they know far better than their parents. As limitations to the rule go, though, that's it.
Honestly, if your actions don't hurt anyone else, why should people care what you do? They shouldn't, but they do. There are all kinds of people out there who think they know what's best for everyone.
That's poppycock. This country was allegedly based on the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those goals are not being met if we citizens can't live how we choose.
To me, life, liberty and happiness mean the right to have some control over our own lives. If we're going to control our lives, we need to be able to decide to end them. Right now, we're not legally allowed to make that decision.
There's been a lot of hoopla recently about doctor-assisted suicide. The Supreme Court didn't like the idea, casting another blow to the rights of the individual.
Well, if I ever get diagnosed with something terminal and painful, I'd certainly like the option of embracing death and getting it over with. "No!" the government says. "You'll take your death long and drawn-out, thank you very much."
Part of the problem is that people confuse doctor-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Euthanasia is "putting to sleep" animals in the pound or people in comas. That definitely violates an individual's rights. Doctor-assisted suicide, though, is suicide, assisted by a doctor.
The Supreme Court's decision wasn't a surprise, though. Our government just refuses to give suicide its props like some other cultures have. Instead, our government tries to take a "preservation of life" stance.
Strange for a government that still allows the death penalty. Preservation of life is good to an extent, but if someone honestly doesn't want to live, why should the government be able to make them? The pursuit of happiness is being denied.
Now, there are some people out there who might think they want to die for no good reason. They're not terminally ill, they're just depressed; it happens. Should a person like this have the right to kill himself, even though he probably shouldn't? Yes.
On the other hand, the person's friends, loved ones, or whatever have the right to try to talk him out of it. Making someone want to live usually isn't hurting them unless it's a torture device and you plan on killing them later.
Why do I think everyone should have all these rights? Because we (everyone, as individuals) can't hope to live the way we really want unless we have the ability to make all our own decisions.
Of course, if we make our own decisions, we have to face the consequences of those decisions, and some people don't like that idea. They want everyone else to clean up their mess.
Well, that violates the gold-like rule I mentioned at the top. It also gets in the way of attaining our freedom. People who aren't willing to live up to their mistakes make those of us are look bad. The government looks at them and plays keep-away with our liberties.
I think you can draw your own moral.
click here if you’d like to comment on this column.