i feel like this is a fundamental difference we probably won’t be reconciling, but i do see where you’re coming from and apologize if i came off a bit dickish. while i do still support it, you’ve at least helped add some more nuance to my stance. thanks for bearing with me.

my point is “a few people might feel pressure if they have multiple options, so no one should have any options” sounds utterly ridiculous in any other context. i do understand where you’re coming from, and that euthanasia is higher stakes, but we shouldn’t be torturing millions of people so that thousands might accidentally stop suffering a couple months early when they actually wanted to draw it out.

and to answer the inevitable follow up, i don’t see why it’s easier to advocate keeping euthanasia banned when we could instead be advocating for doctors not being allowed to suggest it, or not be allowed to give it to non-terminally ill patients.

maybe we shouldn’t have hospitals, since it pressures people to get checked into them if they otherwise would want to stay home. it’s not fair to the minority of people who prefer to suffer, so let’s take away everyone’s freedom of choice.

My opinion is that it’s FINE. Just fine. It’s bold, it’s deep, but it’s not really a looker. I don’t get all the strong opinions surrounding it.

i’ve heard a lot of the soldiers who did heroin in vietnam came back without any problems.

the human brain is weird.

gotta save room for the public urinators.

I never thought to wonder what brain waves are.

This is not at all what I expected.