What is the argument in favour of euthanasia for people who are not about to die?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ot-about-to-die.610895/page-7#post-1074249459

 

What is 'voting' if not imposing what we believe onto our civil laws, thus making choices for others they don't want you to make? Or do you not vote?

 

Yeah, so my point is that I distinguish it from life support being switched off.

 

That's a complicated question, with an even more complicated answer. Google 'pre-birth memories', and learn a few things. You can also watch some videos from "Next Level Soul Podcast" on YT.

I am, indeed, using them (more or less) interchangeably. If an action, any action, of Person A doesn't have a direct impact (or potential for a direct impact) to Person B, then neither Person B nor any government entity has any business intervening in Person A's individual freedoms. That means if I am, for example, hosting an orgy at my home, so long as the noise is not unreasonable and nobody is humping in the front yard, it's nobody's business. The same concept applies to things like smoking weed or other drugs, jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, and much more.

More on point, it includes the right to kill yourself with assistance from a consenting volunteer. I've been pretty clear about that in pretty much every post I've made on the topic, but you keep going in circles for reasons I have yet to grasp.

When I say 'potential for direct impact', I mean things like, say, shooting a firearm at/into someone else's home, but by luck or even planning, no person got hurt and no property was damaged that can't be fixed with $5 worth of spackle. The potential harm that comes from a bullet traveling through a home, whether it's thought to be unoccupied or not certainly justifies restricting an activity like that. Keep in mind that I'm talking about physical harm mostly, and to a lesser extent, the potential for monetary property damages.

If an action, any action causes no direct harm (or has a reasonably high potential for doing so), it's not the proper role of a government to restrict said activity. I realize 'has a reasonably high potential' is a bit open ended, but that's real life... These things need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

An irrelevant distinction. It's not a direct parallel, but it is similar to prostitution. As George Carlin used to say, 'Why is it illegal to sell something that it's perfectly legal to give away??'. And he's spot on. If it's permissible for me to kill myself, though as you have pointed out, are they going to jail a corpse?, it's permissible to have professional (or amateur) assistance in doing so. As killing one's self does not cause harm to another individual, that is a fundamental human right.

Your entire premise, the entire purpose of this thread, is to position your opinion that assisted suicide ought be made (or kept) illegal, a position I vehemently disagree with for the multiple reasons stated.

You are misinterpreting what I mean by affected. I'm not talking about emotional distress, or sadness, or anything like your premise implies. I'm talking abut direct physical harm, or the direct potential thereof. Sure, a spouse of someone contemplating suicide is going to be affected, at least if the relationship is good. That said, people don't just kill themselves for no reason. Sometimes the reason(s) may not be good, in your opinion, the opinion of another perfect stranger, or even that of a close loved one like a spouse. And certainly, between them, a spouse should have some influence and a vote, but not from a legal perspective.

Do you have a point?

For the same reason(s) they can't legally buy a beer or enter into a contract.

You are mistaking a personal firsthand experience with adherence and worship of a book made and assembled by men more worried about control than any aspect of spirituality. Our consciousness survives our death. I don't 'believe' that because some book written thousands of years ago by goat herders who thought a bacterial infection was punishment from a separate personality who is the HDIC (Head Dude In Charge), I know it because it happened to me. And many others, which you will learn plenty about if you spend some time viewing the podcast I recommended above.

That is not religion. That is spirituality, and I'm not even a fan of that word. Religion is adherence to dogma out of fear. Spirituality is about recognizing our true nature and trying to evolve ourselves as part of the collective consciousness that is all that exists.

PS... Just because I take some time getting back to you does not mean you wrote something that is 'too much' for me. Sometimes I'm chewing on things, sometimes I simply have not seen them. Unlike some members, I don't spend all day every day on this forum, though I do have my spurts from time to time. At other times, I'll go days, even weeks without even visiting.

 

Never been put in that situation, you?

 

Why would you NEED to have been put in that situation in order to know that it's not your choice to make for someone who chooses to murder someone?

 

I wonder if being a leftist would qualify for MaID? Sounds justifiable.

 

Some use the term murder differently then I do, abortion and death with dignity are not murder.... even though some try to call them that

 

I'm talking about ACTUAL murder! Isn't it the case that it's not your choice to make for someone who chooses to ACTUALLY murder someone?

 

You have given your standard on what you think should make something illegal: "If an action, any action, of Person A doesn't have a direct impact (or potential for a direct impact) to Person B, then neither Person B nor any government entity has any business intervening in Person A's individual freedoms." How DARE you impose your will on me!

 

Should possession of child pornography be a crime?

Jumping out of an airplane is a weird example, as I'm pretty sure that nobody has ever suggested making it illegal. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet on the other hand is the classic libertarian argument, but if someone was to crash and split their head open, who foots the hospital bill?

No it doesn't. I think that previously you have said that it SHOULD be a right, but it isn't of course. Perhaps you intended to say "it should" rather than the above.

You don't make a distinction between what YOU can do to yourself and what someone else can do to you?

It seems that funny man Mr. Carlin did not take into account the abuse which can occur in prostitution. But I guess acknowledging that would have been devastating to his "joke."
Perhaps you would also point to the inconsistency of prostitution being illegal, but porn production being perfectly legal, and on that point I would be with you. What's the difference between the two? Well, one might argue that the 'abuse' element does not exist to the same extent in porn, but here is the State Department's justification from 2004 which says nothing of that:

“The United States government takes a firm stance against proposals to legalize prostitution because prostitution directly contributes to the modern-day slave trade and is inherently demeaning.” https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2004/34021.htm

Whatever it is they meant by "demeaning", it is certainly clear that there is no possible way that they could have argued in any logically sound way that the same does not apply to porn, unless they think that the addition of a film set and cameras is a meaningful difference.

Again, if someone else is killing you, then it's not "killing one's self."

And this means that I am imposing my views on you? Do you not have any opinions on what should be illegal?

Yes, my point is that it is very telling that you did not come up with a much less clear cut, more controversial scenario! You went straight to the least controversial, the MOST clear cut scenario.

Ok, so in order for you to be logically consistent here, you would have to say that children SHOULD be permitted by law
to buy a beer or enter into a contract, but they should just be subject to more scrutiny. Is this the case?

You are conflating "religion" with "organised religion." You have a BLATANTLY religious position, and we can now add "pre-birth memories" to your ever growing list of religious ideas.

Fair enough.

 

if one uses the word "murder" to describe things that are not murder, no one knows what one is talking about

 

I'm using it the way that the law uses it! I thought I made that clear when I said "ACTUAL murder!"

 

so abortion is not murder then is what you are saying? if so, we agree...

 

Of course. Why? Because children, especially pre-pubescent children, are harmed in the making of it. Dumb question, and unrelated to the topic or even topicS at hand.

The point about jumping out of an airplane it that it is potentially deadly, and for the last century or so, with our war on drugs and many other examples, our nanny state gubmint has decided to protect us from things that are bad for us, whether we like it or not. As for who foots the bill, as in all things, it should be the person who receives the service, or a representative (normally an insurance company) who has agreed to take on that burden.

In some states, assisted suicide is legal, though you are correct that many others infringe upon our birthrights. And not just in this area.

With my consent, no. If I decide to start smoking again, and ask someone for a smoke (or even a whole pack), that is still my choice to make as a free adult person. The person who gives me the smoke is not responsible for anything, and in fact, may be entitled to my gratitude. Depending, of course, on what it is we're talking about.

The abuse that occurs happens specifically because sex for money is a crime. Sex between consenting adults, regardless of gender or quantity, should be equally permitted whether or not money changes hands. A legal prostitute has legal recourse in the event of any number of things, like being held prisoner, or being forced to do so against their will, or just about anything else you can imagine. I have seen the sex workers from legal brothels in Nevada get interviewed, and they're quite happy with their life, and their quite large paychecks. If I could get someone to pay me for it, I would, but I am sometimes shocked just how many have done so just for fun! But, I think that's a big of unreasonable low self-esteem talking.

As for the State Department's 'excuse', it's bullshit, I know it, you know it, and most importantly, they know it! But, they have to say something like that to justify their own existence and their own jobs. It's the same with, as just one example, weed still being a schedule 1 drug, which means no medical purposes whatsoever. As a disabled person who takes prescribed opioids by the fist-full, I can tell you from personal experience that weed is the best pain killer I have ever taken. But, it gets you high, which much of the time is fine, desirable even, but sometimes, depending on what you're doing, it might be inappropriate, for example driving.

Anyone who considers a healthy sex positive attitude to be demeaning needs a reality check.

You are the instigator. You are the cause, the reason it is happening, and it is with your complete consent. You, in this case is of course the person asking for assistance in dying. Someone helping you is, in many cases, if not most or even all, doing you a kindness, not doing something that society should involve itself in. It's none of anyone's business.

Of course it does. But not just me, and not only me. Whenever an action is prohibited, then whoever is doing the prohibiting is both imposing their will on someone who might do whatever it is, as well infringing their freedoms. In some cases (e.g. murder, rape, robbery, etc.) such an infringement is justified. But (and this will answer your other question) when there is a victimless crime, there is no just cause for it to be prohibited. There are grey areas, such as my example of shooting into a (presumably) unoccupied home, but those are typically pretty obvious. In the case of assisted suicide, unless you are one of the participants, and furthermore, are being forced against your will to participate, nobody is being harmed without their consent.

All kinds of dangerous things, and others that cause harm, are completely legal. It would land me in jail for a long time if I cold-cocked you in the head and knocked you out, but if we had both consented to participate in a boxing match, and I knocked you out (or vice versa), that is allowed.

Victimless equals should not be a crime.

I thought I've been pretty clear, but I guess not. Assisted suicide should be legal for adults in all cases, if it is truly a consensual act by all parties. I have no problem requiring some shrink intervention to insure that- assuming it's not a time sensitive situation where the person who wants to die is in tremendous pain, including mental, but someone that bad off is likely under a doctors care in the first place...

It should be legal, with more stringent requirements and restrictions, a list of which I haven't given enough thought to, for children.

Asked and answered. BUT... I think we should have ONE age of majority, and whatever it is, 18, 21, 100, I don't care, all legal things should be legal... Booze, drugs, buying a gun, contracts, entering the military, and so on.

No. I have a spiritual position, based on first-hand personal experience, and a shitload of research from other similarly situated persons. Not books written by goat herders thousands of years ago, that are deemed to be the all, end all, unchanging, now and forever. That's bunk. As we learn more, things change. Because they should.

 

Obviously abortion is not viewed by the law as murder, otherwise thousands of doctors everyday would be getting arrested.

 

It's not about whether you are making a CHOICE for someone. It's also not your choice to make for someone who chooses to commit a crime, is it?

 

The scenario is that someone has possession of child pornography, which they did not pay for. It was just on the internet and they downloaded it. So it's NOT that they have paid someone to produce it for them, which would actually be a separate and much more serious charge.

No, it's very much related because you have given your standard for what should be illegal, and that standard is 'physical/monetary harm.'

Oh, so is your point that a ban on drugs is no different to a ban on skydiving? That sure would be a wild point.

I'm sure that you do not mean that because something is "legal", it is therefore a 'right.'

No, the 'assisted suicide' equivalent of this scenario is asking someone for a gun, and then you use that gun on yourself to commit suicide. If someone gives you a cigarette, YOU will smoke it, and that act of smoking does not involve the person who gave you the cigarette. This is not the same as the act of someone killing you, which you have ZERO part in. You have merely consented to it. There is no 'consent' element to your cigarette scenario, so I can't see why you thought it was a good one to use.

The difference is that with prostitution, it doesn't involve only the two people engaged in the sex act, whereas it does with 'free' sex. I'm talking about the pimps of course.

Prostitutes being held prisoner - does that happen alot?

Would you say that it is an act of 'bodily autonomy?'

"Whoever is doing the prohibiting?" It's not an individual! It's the government, elected by the people which is doing the prohibiting!

That is YOUR opinion which you are imposing on me! How DARE you!

So if someone consented to being tortured, it should be legal to torture them?

Is robbing a bank a victimless crime?

I have not said anything which indicates that I don't understand your position. Yes, you've been most clear that assisted suicide should be legal for adults in all cases. Which is EXACTLY why you should have been able come up with a much less clear cut, more controversial scenario, and why you should NOT have had to go straight to the least controversial, the MOST clear cut scenario. Which was:

"If I'm about to die a horrible and painful death within the next 30-days, I don't have time for some government flunky to take 2-years to decide my fate for me."

What do you mean "requiring some shrink intervention?" Intervening in what?

Then why shouldn't it be legal for children to buy alcohol, or enter into a contract with more stringent requirements and restrictions than for adults?

A ''spiritual position'' is a 'religious position', plain and simple.

You're talking here about "organised religion."

 

Still, even someone in the possession of free child porn, at some point, by some person, in almost all circumstances for a profit motive, someone had to make it in the first place. Where I am less clear, even to myself, is whether or not 'simulated' child porn (e.g., cartoons, or actual adults that appear that they could be minors) should count. My reason is not in any way supportive of even simulated child porn, but we now know that after internet porn became widely available, the incidents of rape went down. One very reasonable reason for that was people were getting their rocks off with internet porn, and no longer had that urge. If, by making simulated child porn legal we could simultaneously cut down on incidents of real child rape and porn, I think I could live with that. However, I'm not fully wed to that idea, and I'm not sure if it's something that can be ethically tested. OTOH, if data exists (for example, if there are studies that says that pedos who watch simu kiddy porn are statistically much less likely to act out, then... Well, we'll see if/when that data ever is available.

But real child porn should, in all instances, get the possessor (and of course maker and buyers) in hot water. Something that should go without saying.

Probably repetitive, but someone is harmed by it's very existence.

Drugs are illegal because of (well, primarily and originally racism, but also...) they are potentially deadly, and many people believe, but experience has taught me differently, that it is impossible to be a user and still be a productive member of society. Well, skydiving can be just as lethal as drugs, and not just to the person doing the jumping, though the latter is probably rare. Yet, likely more common that Person B overdosing because Person A got high on whatever some legislative body has prohibited. I view the war on drugs to be as destructive, if not moreso, than prohibition was, and for the same reason.

If they were legal, from the seed to the lab, to the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, and end-user, then said end-users would be assured they are getting the substance they asked for, that it was made with quality control to include no contaminants that might be deadlier than the drug itself, and of a consistent purity. That will eliminate overdoses because some dealer got high on his own supply and forgot to cut his product before he sold it.

In addition, it has the benefit of putting legitimate businesses in charge of the operation, businesses who use lawyers, not bullets, to settle disputes, and will eventually (though not overnight) put the cartels and street gangs out of business, at least as long as it isn't done as a blatant revenue grab like what CA has done with legal recreational weed, and by taxing it so highly and making it so difficult and expensive to get into the business, the State itself has become just another cartel, and they use their law enforcement agencies (at least specifically in CA) to act like cartel agents, burning their competitor's fields down and, when possible, kidnapping (arresting) the people growing/selling 'without a license'.

Make the licenses more reasonable and easier to get, and the taxes low enough that legal stuff can compete with the illegal stuff, and those problems go away.

All in all, like I said, the war on drugs is worse for our society than are the drugs themselves. And since members of the homo sapiens species have a natural affinity for mind-altering substances, you will never legislate away the demand.

Not necessarily, as governments screw up all the time. Some legal things shouldn't be, and other illegal things should be. But that says nothing about essential birthrights. To my view, anything that does not cause non-consensual harm, physically or financially, has no business being prohibited in a so-called 'free' society. That is for adults, as we have touched on several times, children are naturally treated differently than adults, and have fewer freedoms, and for good reasons usually.

They'll both kill you, just one is slower. The only actual difference is the timeframe required. That is semantics as far as I am concerned, and yes, though it should be clear, I think it should be legal to both give someone a cig or a gun, even knowing they plan to off themselves as a result. Though there are better ways to go if you ask me.

'Pimps' are only a byproduct of the criminalization of sex for money. If it were legal, and someone demanded money for 'protection' to be a free-agent's 'pimp', the sex worker has the option to go to law enforcement for help. With prostitution being illegal, they have no recourse. Now, there may be providers of a sort, the same that strip joints actually charge the strippers to work there... a brothel can legitimately charge it's prostitutes to use the facilities and benefits from their business development activities. But it would not be mandatory, just potentially easier and more lucrative.

It's literally no different than why kids are buying what they think is Xanax or Percosets, but getting fentanyl.

So I've been told, though I have experience with the porn business, not the sex for money business. I know and have known a lot of porn stars, both male and female, and not a single one of them, some of whom you probably have heard of, is being forced against their will to do what they do. With legalized prostitution, it would be the same, and if you decide to quit working for someone and go out on your own, that would be possible because legit businesses don't kill people for quitting their jobs.

If by that you mean, 'My body, My choice', then yes. If I own myself, and want to rent out my genitals to someone who wants to get laid, or want to put a mind-altering substance into my own body, I should have that legal right in all circumstances, assuming consenting adult humans.

So what? It still amounts to a group of individuals violating the birthright freedoms of another individual. Put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

You are not harmed if victimless crimes you think should be illegal are not. It may go against your religious beliefs, but I couldn't care less... Religious beliefs have no place in civil law, if other reasons cannot make a standalone case that a specific action should be criminal. One of those reasons, that should be an absolute requirement in all cases, is that someone would have to necessarily be harmed, or have a reasonable possibility (back to firing a gun into an 'unoccupied' (is it?) home) of harm, either physically or financially. However, with consent, you can waive your right to not be harmed, as in the example of a mutually consensual boxing match, in which one or both participants might be injured, or even killed.

Seems you are unfamiliar with the BDSM community. Yes, it should be legal... With consent from all involved.

Stupid question. Obviously not.

The only thing I'm trying to insure with psychiatric involvement is that the person electing suicide, for whatever reason, is making a truly informed decision. The stronger the case (just as a simple example, someone is about to die a very painful death, vs. someone who is just tired of living, but who has no other actual issues), the less important the independent analysis becomes, to the point that in some cases, it may not necessarily be needed at all.

However, you're really getting deep into the weeds about how to legalize such a thing than the simple question of should it be or not.

It should be.

Children lack the mental capacity to understand and make good decisions about a good many things, and as such, they can do stupid stuff (and DO!!!), and they can be taken advantage of, like when parent's brainwash a child into worshiping some fictional deity simply because that's all they know, and their parent's told them if they didn't, they will burn in hell.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that. There is no religion that fits the data that I both experienced and have researched. Now, if Hinduism and Buudhism got together and made a baby, that resulting POV may be on the right track, and closer to reality than any other religion, but even then, if it's considered finished, with no further development or data points recognized as being valid, as most Abrahamic western religions are, it will still be wrong.

We did not know everything there is to know about spirituality some 1,800 years ago, or whenever the Council of Nicea was. The reincarnation issue alone invalidates most 'organized' religions, which is one reason it gets rejected by so many... Because if it's real, and IT IS!, it completely nullifies the position that many individuals have sincerely held for many decades since their own childhood. That can be a bit mentally... challenging. My own mother would have told me that my after death experience was just demons trying to trick me so that I go to hell, but at that point, had her religion been correct, that would have been unnecessary, for my beliefs all by themselves would have been enough to punch my ticket to the hothouse.

 

My thoughts:

As a Christian conservative, I believe I know what is best for people and are better equipped to make decisions for them. As long as there is life, there is hope. So I thin suicide, assisted or otherwise, should remand 109% illegal in all states.

Trump power. White power. Trump power. White power.

 

Sure, but what does that have to do with the free possession?

Why? That BLATANTLY goes against your 'physical/monetary harm' standard for what should be illegal, in a way that possession of real child pornography does not, because at least that can be traced back to, as you say, some person who at some point, in almost all circumstances for a profit motive, had to make it in the first place, leading to the harm of the child.

"Birthrights" as in 'natural rights?'

How the hell can someone plan to off themselves as a result of receiving a cig?

Who is the "free-agent?"

Wow. Even MORE reason why prostitution should remain illegal.

Yes, I am sure that if prostitution became legal, pieces of absolute human WASTE pimps would transform into being good, decent, law abiding, upstanding citizens running legit businesses.

I am talking about assisted suicide. Would you say that it is an act of 'bodily autonomy?'

Because of who they vote for?

Again, that is YOUR opinion which you want to impose on me. How DARE you!

Oh, waterboarding occurs in the BDSM community?

Oh, so who are the victims?

Do you mean if someone was mentally ill, they should not be approved for assisted suicide?

Ok, yet you think that they should be permitted by law to receive assisted suicide, so long as certain "stringent requirements and restrictions" are met. But isn't it the case that you believe that they should NOT be permitted by law to buy alcohol, or enter into a contract, regardless of any "stringent requirements and restrictions?"

What you mean is, there is no "organised religion" which fits the data that you have both experienced and have researched. You STILL have not addressed my challenge on your conflation of "religion" and "organised religion", despite multiple opportunities to do so. Why is that?

Well no it wouldn't have been, because you didn't die did you.

 

Trump power, white power?

 

What do you have against Trump and whites having power?

 

You seem in need of very simple, elementary school answers, so I shall give you one. Call it contributing to the delinquency (and/or abuse) of a minor. Easy.

You have that precisely backwards. Nobody was harmed, indeed, in the case of cartoons or similar, nobody but the artist/writer(s) are even involved in the production of simuporn, ergo they cannot be harmed. Furthermore, if it has the same dampening effect on actual child predation cases that the widespread availability of internet porn had on adult on adult rape cases, it might actually prevent it. That is, however, a large if, at least as far as I know, at this point in time.

Semantics.

Thousands upon thousands of people die every year due to smoking. Now, since life is a fatal sexually transmitted disease in and of itself, there is the aspect of, 'You gotta die from something', but regardless the end result is the same, just on a more glacial timeframe.

A self-employed prostitute, who doesn't have a pimp, brothel, agent, or any other sort of rep. They do their own self-marketing, perhaps based on having a book of business built up over time. The point is that someone who wants to engage in the world's oldest profession will be able to do so free of fear of a 'pimp' demanding tribute, as the sex worker would have legal alternatives to protect themselves that are currently not available.

Once again, you have it backwards. With sex work being legal, trafficking in sex workers becomes much less necessary, therefore much less prevalent. If I am a would-be customer who has a choice between legal workers who are involved of their own free will, and illegal ones who have been trafficked, I would choose the legal way every day of the week. You may have gathered that I am big on consent, as are most people.

I'm quite sure they won't. But they will find themselves in the same boat the street gangs will find themselves when the war on drugs comes to an end, which is only a matter of time. They might want to be profiting from the business, but they won't have a place. Nobody will need them, and their very presence might cause their own arrest, if they are guilty of using force to coerce people into conforming to their demands.

But they will still be pieces of whale excrement.

Stop playing word games. The answer is clearly yes. Anyone else following along knows that without clarification being necessary.

Not 'who', but rather 'what'. When you vote to violate people's individual freedoms without just cause, you are wrong, and in many cases when you get outside of the areas we've been discussing that is actually a Constitutional requirement... Government must demonstrate a compelling societal interest to ban literally anything, something difficult to impossible to do with regard to victimless crimes.

Someone being allowed to do something that you don't think should be allowed 'just because' (or even worse, 'because my gawd says so') is not imposing a thing on you. If I pay a woman (or 5, or a combination of men and women, or whatever) to have sex with me, assuming they are truly informed and consenting adults, you cannot claim to have been wronged in any way, shape, manner, or form.

I've never seen it, but so long as it is consensual, go for it. Consent is also big in that community. I have, however, seem people spanked, humiliated, leashed, cut with a knife (superficially, but still drawing blood), and whipped with various implements, burned with fire (again, superficially) and more, and even experienced one or two of those things myself. Nobody was nonconsensually harmed, so... It's all good!

Whomever owned that which was stolen. Stupid question with an easy answer.

Not at all. If a person possesses the mental capacity to make fully informed, adult decisions (as opposed to say, a 39-year-old who has Downs Syndrome and is a ward of their parents who still lives in diapers and has the mind of a 5-year-old), they have the right, regardless of what mental illnesses they may have, to choose to end their own life, with or without assistance.

Look, I'm a pretty simple guy, who has a pretty simple definition of freedom.
1- Does it involve adults, or at least those with the mental capacity of an adult?
2- Does anyone involved get hurt without their express or implied consent?
3- Does anyone not involved get physically or financially harmed?
4- Is every participant of whatever activity under discussion a willing, consensual one?

If the answers are yes, no, no, and yes, then whatever action it is that is being discussed should be available for a free person to choose to partake in. Regardless of the semantic games you wish to play.

Someone who has good cause to want to end their own life, despite being a minor, ought be permitted to do so under certain conditions that I have not completely flushed out in my mind. But, absolutely, it should be much more stringent than with able-minded adults, and for the same reasons that booze is generally not legally accessible by them. You are conflating issues, on purpose.

Because it simply is not a religion of any kind. The belief that your consciousness survives death (in my case, and many others, it is far more than a 'belief', it is a known fact) does not necessarily indicate adherence to a religion. There is no 'holy book', no HDIC (head dude in charge), no structure, no facilities, no meetings, no bowing down, no authority figure, either man or spirit, and no structure. It has more in common with actual atheism than it does with organized religion. There is no such thing as 'disorganized' religion.

Yes, I did. And, I should have stayed that way, but I guess it wasn't my time. But even as little as a decade or two ago (or if I had decided not to seek help the instant I did), I would not have been brought back successfully.

 

I don't, but why did you only specify "white?"