- 1
- 2
- next
- | single page
‘Choice Exit’ strategy merits consideration
To the editor:
I recently saw a program on public TV about a certain strategy called “Choice Exit” that is legal and happening in a few states out West. The way I see it, this is just another way of assisting suicide to individuals who deserve it because of their life-threatening illness. The document I am suggesting is entirely different and is not assisting one to commit suicide.
The strategy I suggest is this: Before one gets ill, they should be able to legally sign a document that will be enforced when and if they become so ill that they no longer can feed themselves or take care of themselves in any way. Some have described this condition as being in a vegetative state, not aware of reality in any way. I think most of us would not want to exist in this state.
I see this in nursing homes, and to some extent it happened to my wife with Alzheimer’s. I think if she knew in advance that she would end her life the way she did that she would have signed such a document. I would never want to endure the awful torment of such a disease. It takes all of the dignity of life, not knowing anything or anyone, and yet being kept alive for what? Just let me die.
What do you think?
Jack Myers
Hagerstown
Why is government redefining marriage?
To the editor:
Who is creating the standard?
There is a problem that bothers me more than the arguments being made for or against same-sex unions, and it is the government redefining the bedrock of society. If marriage is being redefined by our lawmakers that will now include the covenant of two people of the same sex, then what will stop them from eventually redefining it to include three or four people as marriage, or making marriage a renewable contract on a yearly basis? Once we remove these standards, then who are the people who make the new ones?
The Bible was our compass and standard bearer. Once we remove God and his standards of behavior, we then take it upon ourselves to redefine the order of conduct we will live by. In other words, who will replace God in setting society’s order for our future? Just things we need to think about!
Reuben Egolf
Greencastle, Pa.
Loss of traditional family unit will disassemble nation
To the editor:
On the first of this new year, a wedding was performed by the mayor of Baltimore, a gay marriage of two senior men. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, during the ceremony, was quoted as saying “there is no human institution more sacred than that of the one you are about to form, true marriage. True marriage is the dearest of all earthly relationships.”
Isn’t this the essence of liberal thought on the subject? It doesn’t matter that they have just redefined true marriage. For centuries, it meant the union of a man and woman, but it is no longer sacred under that definition. This hypocrisy is typical of the progressive movement.
To the editor:
I recently saw a program on public TV about a certain strategy called “Choice Exit” that is legal and happening in a few states out West. The way I see it, this is just another way of assisting suicide to individuals who deserve it because of their life-threatening illness. The document I am suggesting is entirely different and is not assisting one to commit suicide.
The strategy I suggest is this: Before one gets ill, they should be able to legally sign a document that will be enforced when and if they become so ill that they no longer can feed themselves or take care of themselves in any way. Some have described this condition as being in a vegetative state, not aware of reality in any way. I think most of us would not want to exist in this state.
I see this in nursing homes, and to some extent it happened to my wife with Alzheimer’s. I think if she knew in advance that she would end her life the way she did that she would have signed such a document. I would never want to endure the awful torment of such a disease. It takes all of the dignity of life, not knowing anything or anyone, and yet being kept alive for what? Just let me die.
What do you think?
Jack Myers
Hagerstown
Why is government redefining marriage?
To the editor:
Who is creating the standard?
There is a problem that bothers me more than the arguments being made for or against same-sex unions, and it is the government redefining the bedrock of society. If marriage is being redefined by our lawmakers that will now include the covenant of two people of the same sex, then what will stop them from eventually redefining it to include three or four people as marriage, or making marriage a renewable contract on a yearly basis? Once we remove these standards, then who are the people who make the new ones?
The Bible was our compass and standard bearer. Once we remove God and his standards of behavior, we then take it upon ourselves to redefine the order of conduct we will live by. In other words, who will replace God in setting society’s order for our future? Just things we need to think about!
Reuben Egolf
Greencastle, Pa.
Loss of traditional family unit will disassemble nation
To the editor:
On the first of this new year, a wedding was performed by the mayor of Baltimore, a gay marriage of two senior men. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, during the ceremony, was quoted as saying “there is no human institution more sacred than that of the one you are about to form, true marriage. True marriage is the dearest of all earthly relationships.”
Isn’t this the essence of liberal thought on the subject? It doesn’t matter that they have just redefined true marriage. For centuries, it meant the union of a man and woman, but it is no longer sacred under that definition. This hypocrisy is typical of the progressive movement.
