I don't think that makes the comparison flawed. "life for all" is still a decision, and when applied to those that don't want to live is very comparable to deciding to kill those that don't want to die.

I mean, I get why they do it (probably legal obligations and stuff like that) but the "life must be saved at all costs" ideology really irks me. I'd personally much rather be left to die instead of forced to live longer and suffer in agony for ages, especially if it was something terminal so instead of preventing your death they're just delaying it and prolonging your suffering instead. Actually, better than that even would just be a bullet to the head, that would be the humane thing to do.

Yes, there are differences. But fundamentally they both result in someone's life being taken away. That's the thing, from my point of view you're essentially arguing that it should be ok to kill someone. That's not a viewpoint I'll ever understand.

Nice quote find :O

I just don't see killing someone and executing someone as the same though. Basically I don't think those that take the rights of others deserve any themselves. That would include the right to life. I dunno, maybe that makes me a hypocrite? But I just don't see the lives of a innocent people as equal to those of murderers.

I just don't see killing someone and executing someone as the same though. Basically I don't think those that take the rights of others deserve any themselves. That would include the right to life. I dunno, maybe that makes me a hypocrite? But I just don't see the lives of a innocent people as equal to those of murderers.