JUST A THOUGHT - EUTHANASIA, IN A STATE WHICH VALUES FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL. PART 1.

If the State does not mind killing and maiming healthy people; if it does not see that as amoral or immoral, not illegal to kill and cripple health people in their thousands, tens and hundreds of thousands. 

Then with what credibility, with what  moral or legal legitimacy does it declares or decrees, that it is not moral and legal.  

For people who are approaching or have approached the stage where they become either the involuntary or unconscious prisoners of their bodies, should be denied the right to end their lives? 

That they should not have the right to make provisions giving others the authority to assist them to leave the world? 

After all, it is not so much about 'having life', which is the crucial factor. It is the ability to live it by using it.  

While it is the case that you have to have life to live, having life does not mean that you have the ability to live, in a meaningful sense.

And then we have the imbecilic law makers making laws forbidding people to exercise their right to end their lives, and the judges supporting them, by ruling against euthanasia. 

The same duo that rule it legal for the government to  deliberately take the lives of healthy men and women, by sending them of to make war. 

Is this not utter madness? Evidence that the State tends to use its citizens for its own convenience, caring very little about their individual welfare?!

The argument that euthanasia would place the lives of some vulnerable people at risk of their relatives ending their lives, without their consent, is not a very forceful or is sufficient compelling one against legalising voluntary euthanasia. 

Until free people can legally make arrangements to end their lives, by their own hands and/or with the assistance, they are being denied their most basic freedom; that of bringing to an end a life which is no longer capable of sustaining being lived, but continues to torture them and those who are close to them.