?

Log in

No account? Create an account

2068 words about freedom and law - 1370°C

Aug. 2nd, 2005

02:13 am - 2068 words about freedom and law

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Penn and Teller are infecting my brain. so, this is what i've been thinking about today.


I know i have some friends with deeply different views on these sorts of issues than i have. My own feeling is that our personal freedoms are of utmost importance. I've always supported people's right to do whatever it is they want. However, there's a limit, and perhaps the only thing i've ever taken from any religion i've looked into/tried to practice: do whatever you want so long as it doesn't negatively effect others. For this reason, your right to personal freedom does not, for me, allow you to gun down your co-workers. Also, I genuinely like social programs and laws that benefit the common good.

As a very simple-minded example, i support seatbelt legislation in cars, but do not support motorcycle helmet laws. Here's why: if the driver of a car loses control, a seatbelt will keep him properly positioned to drive his vehicle. It could make the difference between a donut skid and an accident that injures others. By the same token, buckled passengers are less likely to be tossed about in such a way that they interfere with the driver. I have seen the crash-test-dummy videos where a back-seat passenger is thrown forward so forcefully that it breaks the seat in front of them, as well as the back of the person in that seat. So, my feeling about seatbelt laws is that they are primarily designed for the safety of the other people around, and this argument is much stronger than the idea that you have the *right* not to put on a seatbelt because it's inconvenient. People who argue that seatbelts in accidents cause bruises clearly have a point, however, their position simply isn't convincing. What's a chest bruise or even a broken rib or two compared with being tossed so you can't reach the steering wheel or crushing the spine of the person sitting in front of you? Now, before you jump down my throat, oh devotees of Ayn Rand, i know some of you might just say that your own comfort is simply more important than someone else's life. To you folk, i have no response, but hopefully you can still see the contrast i'm trying to set up. Motorcycle helmet laws do not have any social component. A helmet protects the driver's own (or his passenger's) noggin in the event that she comes off that bike. Wearing a helmet is designed to protect the bike rider. Now, i'd never get on a bike without a helmet myself, but i do believe that if people want to take chances with their own skull, they ought to have the right, just as they ought to have the right to endanger or take their lives in any way they see fit. Legislation like the helmet law are designed to protect stupid people from injuring themselves which, to my mind, is clearly an infringement of personal freedom. It's your life, do with it as you wish.

Some of you out there are already pondering a slippery slope argument to try to say that if i'm willing to give up any personal freedom (that is to say, my right not to buckle up) in order to serve the common good, then what's to stop the government from using "common good" reasoning to take away more important freedoms, or...all of them? I don't doubt that there are people (many of whom are currently holding office) who would in fact try to take away one freedom at a time until there's nothing left but an Orwellian nightmare. But slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason. Just because i am willing to give up my "right" (if it even is a right) to be more comfortable in my car in order to prevent harm to others, doesn't mean that either myself or others would be willing to give up rights where the balance is different. Each instance needs to be weighed on a case-by-case basis to see if the social good that comes from these laws has more import than the bit of personal freedom that's being given up. And no, we're not all going to agree which way the scale will tilt, and neither will our legislators. but they need to be discussed, debated, mulled over, and supported with evidence.

Let me go into something more complicated. I believe that the idea of a smoking ban is a serious grey area. On the one hand, everyone should have the right to smoke if they so choose. If they want to trade whatever health problems might arise for the pleasure of smoking, it's their body, and they have a right to do with it as they see fit. On the other, smoking is annoying to many non-smokers. As someone who smokes sometimes, i still don't want to smell smoke when i'm eating, for instance, nor would i want to be stuck in the recycled air of a plane full of smokers for hours on end with nowhere to go. Yet the case that smoking ban supporters make is nearly always about the health hazards of second-hand smoke; the bans protect the health of non-smokers who work in bars, restaurants, etc.. This is a strange case to make. First, there's not a single proper scientific study that shows that second hand smoke causes cancer or other illness. A 1993 EPA study, cited by nearly all official smoking ban advocates, was thrown out as specious by a Federal District Court in 1998, while a WHO press release that indicated passive smoking caused lung cancer pointed to a study that actually stated that there was no link between childhood exposure to second-hand smoke and lung cancer and the link between the two in adults was not statistically significant. You don't have to buy into this premise. But for the moment, go with me here. If there's nothing that definitively proves second hand smoke actually endangers health, then the smoking ban goes back to one thing: other people find smoking annoying.

Ok. Fine. That's a perfectly lovely reason to stay away from smokers, to sit in the non-smoking section of a restaurant (and to expect a non smoking section to honestly be smoke free), and even to ask your friends if they wouldn't mind stepping away from you while they're indulging their habit. However, to me this annoyance may not be quite enough to warrant legislation. Moreover, this issue could easily be solved by certain bars and establishments specifically advertising that they are smoking or non-smoking. A bar owner/manager could make that decision on his own. Those who didn't want to work/recreate in places where smoking is allowed could simply visit non-smoking establishments, while smokers could stick to smoking friendly places if this issue was so important to them. Keep in mind, even in places where smoking is allowed in bars, clubs, and restaurants, it's almost always verboten in office buildings, retail stores...really, any place that you would reasonably expect that people not be smoking, and workers don't lobby their jobs for the right to smoke indoors. By the same token, i've honestly never heard a waitress or bar staff member who would complain that people smoke in their workplace, because it's simply expected. If you didn't want to work in a smoking environment, you could easily ask your restaurant boss to only let you staff the non-smoking sections (dunno if this is good everywhere, but i've known a lot of wait-staff and that request has always been honoured) or simply not work in a bar. I suppose it just seems to me that this is a thing that can be easily left to the individual businesses. Is the perceived "right" to breathe smoke-free air in any given place any more convincing than the perceived "right" to smoke where you like? Are either of these things actually rights or personal freedoms? Why is it ok to legislate to assuage the annoyance of non-smokers, but people would be outraged if i were to suggest that there ought to be a law to prevent people from wearing so much perfume or cologne that it causes an allergic reaction in those who are sensitive to chemical smells?

This is grey because we do have quite a lot of totally un-contentious legislation that boils down to annoyance. Many cities have pooper scooper laws, which pit the annoyance of having to carry around bags and shovels and handle your dog's waste against the sheer ickiness of having to smell, or heaven forbid step in, poo. I'm guessing there are plenty of dog owners who simply fail to pick up their dog's leavings but who wouldn't get into a heated debate about the loss of personal freedom due to the law, and i'm willing to actually bet that almost everyone would rather have poo-free parks and walkways.

So, when is it ok to legislate on the basis of annoyance? How great does the annoyance have to be, and how great the sense that personal freedom is being trampled? I'm torn. Because I really do wish that cities not only had pooper scooper laws, but genuinely enforced them, while i find smoking bans a bit silly. I would much rather be in a smoke-filled club than stuck in the office or the elevator with some chav drenched in Chanel No. 5. But even so, I wouldn't want the government to legislate that she not be allowed to wear it.

The line and the balance seem to always need re-adjusting. I suppose my own guidelines can be distilled to what i've said already above. If it's something that does not effect others (and i realise it could easily be argued that if you drive your motorcycle without a helmet, crash, and are killed when a helmet could have prevented it, your loved ones will be cracked up over it. But i'm hoping you all know that's not what i mean when i say this), your personal freedoms should not be infringed upon. Ever. But i don't want my grey area opinions to come down to mere Utilitarianism, because i'm really not a Utilitarian, i do think that the side of the scale on which personal freedom lies is already weighted before i add a situation to it. Then again, i do believe that the teeming masses *need* guidance and help to be better (or at least more socially and environmentally functioning) people. I'm not a one-issue voter, and i don't quite fit neatly into any political party's ideals. And sometimes, i think my tendency to take *everything* on a case-by-case basis renders my world view a little inconsistent. And moreover, too much Plato has invaded my mind and i genuinely believe that some people are better (though not necessarily by birth) than others.

Some people can be trusted with a far more vast set of personal freedoms, while most people would piss where they eat. My example would be that if _goodmanbrown_ somehow became supreme dictator, i'd be totally cool with that. He and i disagree on a lot of things, and i'm sure something i've said here has made him seethe, but i trust his judgement. I trust that it's well thought out, that he would protect my rights as well as his own and yet see that society as a whole still functions. And while i know that ilcylic would want all personal freedoms to take precedence, the world as a whole would likely fall apart if he gave *everyone* the rights he'd want for himself. As for myself, i'd probably have a Meritocracy, and end up giving carte blanche to a group of people carefully weeded out by harsh testing, and keeping just about the system we have now for nearly everyone else. Sometimes, i genuinely wish that i believed all people were created equal (hrm...maybe they start off equal and upbringing fscks them up, dunno), but they clearly don't end up equal as adults--there are plenty of people better and more competent to run things and handle responsibility than i am, and plenty who are totally useless. not a popular opinion, i'm sure, but i hope it tempers your wrath that i do wish i could buy into it.


unrelated Penn and Teller quote of the day "We belong to a club called the USA. As members, we pay taxes to support public, government-run schools. And those schools get run according to the club handbook, The United States Constitution. The Constitution says our club steers clear of religion. That's the deal we made; if we pay for it with taxes, it can't have religion in it. That's in the pesky bylaws. So as long as we're all paying, no religion in school. And no magic tricks in Church...ok...that's just a bad example."

Current Mood: too thoughtful as always, but

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:ickle_tayto
Date:August 2nd, 2005 12:37 am (UTC)
(Link)
I dunno,

While I agree with you on the principle of letting the stupid weed themselves out of the gene pool (saves me the bother) with the bike helmut thing.. I am currently enjoying the smoking ban in ireland as I don't smoke.. I don't stink of smoke at the end of the night and I have saved a fortune in dry cleaning bills as my dry cleaning clothes don't have to be de-smoked after every night out. Plus I have mild asthma which is to some degree a hell of a lot better now that I am not second hand smoking whenever I am out.

but these are personal reasons.. not moral ones.. again I don't have a moral point of view on smoking. If people want to spend their hard earned money on em off with them.. I personally wouldn't.. at least not on legal smokes.. but thats me.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:gothaminserenia
Date:August 2nd, 2005 01:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
Penn and Teller are infecting my brain

Whoa, what's this? Are you beginning to follow the views of outward libertarians?! ;-P I don't have cable, so I haven't see their show. But I've heard a lot about them. Penn Gillette is a hardline atheist. I like him.

do whatever you want so long as it doesn't negatively effect others.

I doubt you'll hear disagreement from any of your friends on this. It's just a matter of how the line is drawn.

i support seatbelt legislation in cars ... Here's why: if the driver of a car loses control, a seatbelt will keep him properly positioned to drive his vehicle.

I disagree. Accidents happen within moments, within fractions of a second. Accidents are over with faster than the time it could take you to react to them. Trust me, I know. Whether a driver is seatbelted or not is irrelevant to whether he/she maintains control of the vehicle.

My dad is deadset against seatbelts ... largely as a result of an accident some years ago when another driver hit him in the driver's side door. Had he been belted, he would've been crushed, rather than free to be pushed into the middle of the car.

I would maintain that the types of risks that a motorist takes should be his/her own choice. But I've always buckled my belt, since I think the benefits clearly outweigh the inconveniences. Nonetheless ... every time I see one of those overhead signboards on the freeways that say BUCKLE UP - IT'S THE LAW, I promptly undo my seatbelt. Maintaining my personal sense of integrity is more important than pleasing those who would bully me into compliance.

before you jump down my throat, oh devotees of Ayn Rand

Heehee! ;-P

A 1993 EPA study, cited by nearly all official smoking ban advocates, was thrown out as specious by a Federal District Court in 1998, while a WHO press release that indicated passive smoking caused lung cancer pointed to a study that actually stated that there was no link between childhood exposure to second-hand smoke and lung cancer and the link between the two in adults was not statistically significant.

I've not heard of these particular studies ... though I know many of the studies cited by the anti-smoking nazis, such as the Montana study, are highly flawed. I agree that the secondhand smoke dangers are dubious ... though they're enough to get people around here whipped up in paranoia.

A bar owner/manager could make that decision on his own. Those who didn't want to work/recreate in places where smoking is allowed could simply visit non-smoking establishments, while smokers could stick to smoking friendly places if this issue was so important to them.

Exactly! Well, I'm guessing you followed the raucous debate in my Heil to the New Puritans post, though you hadn't responded. Actually, quite a few nonsmokers approached me afterward & said they agreed with me, that smoking should be an individual's choice in bars.

if i were to suggest that there ought to be a law to prevent people from wearing so much perfume or cologne that it causes an allergic reaction in those who are sensitive to chemical smells?

Good point. But quiet, you! Lest you give any new ideas to the control-freaks who infest our government.

Some people can be trusted with a far more vast set of personal freedoms, while most people would piss where they eat.

If our society started treating people like responsible adults, then perhaps adults would start behaving responsibly.

while i know that ilcylic would want all personal freedoms to take precedence, the world as a whole would likely fall apart if he gave *everyone* the rights he'd want for himself.

Have you been watching the evening news lately? A world falling apart is the world we live in now!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrousoxide
Date:August 2nd, 2005 04:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
you're from Minnesota! have you honestly never experienced a snow-skid that you recovered from simply because you're a good driver? if somehow, the g-force of that skid slid me away from the steering wheel, that just wouldn't be possible.

and yes. Penn and Teller as aethiests. i'm all for aethiests ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:gothaminserenia
Date:August 2nd, 2005 10:41 am (UTC)
(Link)
Uff da! Any snow or ice skid strong enough to slide you out of your seat is also strong enough to be uncontrollable by steering.

One time I lost control on a highway at 60 mph, when I hadn't realized the roadway was icy. The only thing I could do as I looked out my side window at the oncoming cars was think "oh shit". I was in the ditch within 3 seconds or so. I was belted, which kept be from bouncing around in the car, but it certainly didn't help me steer. There was no time to steer.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrousoxide
Date:August 2nd, 2005 10:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
i guess i have had those experiences. donuts on the highway when hitting black ice that i didn't know was there. of course, it's not *certain* that i'd have been knocked out of my seat, but i was certainly battered about and did have time to steer/brake effectively.

also, was once in a minor fender bender caused by er...(_goodmanbrown_ help me out here...what was it?) a case of soda or something sliding and knocking the automatic shifter lever into reverse after someone rear ended me lightly. increase that if it were a passenger person bouncing about the car...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:_goodmanbrown_
Date:August 2nd, 2005 09:01 am (UTC)
(Link)
Beware claims of "no proven link." This is the new refuge of the science-deniers, of which there are many both in the libertarian set and in the government. Remember that there is also no proven link between human activities and global warming, or between increased access to birth control and reduced rates of abortion, or between reproductive selection pressures and speciation events. In all of these cases, the deniers are abusing the word "proof." I don't know the data on second-hand smoke, so I don't know if this is an instance of the general phenomenon, but I do know that I'm getting pretty sick of people bloviating about the absence of proven links.

Regardless, direct physical harm to third parties is not the only form of harm cigarettes can bring along. In an insurance society, the unhealthy life decisions of individuals harm everyone. In short, gothaminserenia's cigarette habit harms me in the form of my increased insurance premiums to subsidize his treatment for future diseases.

Public smoking bans seem to be effective at reducing the number of smokers without controlling access to cigarettes (which would be a real infringement of freedom). Is this justification for banning cigarettes in public places? I don't know. But I know it isn't an easy question to answer.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrousoxide
Date:August 2nd, 2005 10:28 am (UTC)
(Link)
once you see the Penn and Teller stuff, you'll get that bit. incidentally, they're not actually libertarians at all (despite gothaminserenia agreeing wholeheartedly with them, and i *did* look up their data for myself. there are really only the 2 studies that i cited, and the first was discredited by a high court (they found that the people who did the study plain made things up) while the second didn't find anything, and only the press release said they did. but that's why i asked people to go along with me for a bit, assuming that health risks weren't an issue...i wanted a good grey area that was actually contentious, and it seemed like a good one.

insurance premiums. that *might* be true. but unlike auto and life insurance, health insurance seems to take these factors into account (at least, if you're gettting individual insurance which you pay for out of your own pocket, they ask these questions and your premiums are based on your own health habits). but nonetheless, it again seems like an annoyance issue. for me, "harm" is not defined in terms of money paid out. it's annoying. nothing more.

not to say that there isn't a link. i suppose left to my own devices, i'd say there was.

but that's exactly what i'm trying to highlight. that the smoking ban isn't as easy a question to answer for me as the helmet v. seatbelt thing.

finally, it seems to me there are an awful lot of smokers in Dublin when the *entire country* has a smoking ban. doesn't seem to reduce the amount of smokers, just the amount you see indoors.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:_goodmanbrown_
Date:August 2nd, 2005 02:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Surely any politically relevant notion of harm out to extend to financial harm. I think that it is fair to claim harm, for example, at the hands of the miserable bastard who stole my Tevas in Milwaukee. If theft and extortion constitute harm, it is hard for me to see why needlessly high insurance premiums, driven up by people who recreationally damage their own health, should not count.

As for whether or not it constitutes enough harm to warrant legislative attention-- that's what I don't know.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrousoxide
Date:August 2nd, 2005 02:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
ok, should have been clearer. i meant harm for the purposes of this specifically. and also, i'm thinking that expense is probably a bit different than theft.

we should work out whether health insurance works this way. i'm fairly sure it doesn't, due to tons of adverts for those dodgy health and life insurance places where you don't need to declare your prior health problems in order for them to agree to cover you at a certain rate. with group plans, i know it's different, but i know if you're out hunting individual insurance plans, they ask a ton of health questions and your premiums are based on your answers (not, i suppose that you can't just lie).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:gothaminserenia
Date:August 2nd, 2005 10:57 am (UTC)
(Link)
Hardly. Last time I checked, my insurance bills came to my address, not yours.

Proof is a confirmed link between a cause and an effect, with all other potential causes shown to be unimportant. Proof is the language of science, which in turn is the language of fact. Anything that's not proven is just somebody's theory ... or, more often than not today, somebody's paranoid hysteria.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrousoxide
Date:August 2nd, 2005 11:12 am (UTC)
(Link)
two things there. auto insurance *definitely* works that way. ask them and they'll tell you. if there's an increase, for example, in uninsured motorist collisions, then the "uninsured motorist" portion of your insurance goes up. this also explains ludicrously high (that is to say, way over the inflation percentage) insurance premium increases every year. i've had that conversation with Geico on several occasions "but i've never been in an accident since i was insured with you, and i've not got any tickets on my record, why is my insurance going up another 50$ for 6 months?" "because we have to increase premiums based on what we pay out on other people's accidents." bah.

ok. the other bit. there are proven links between cause and effect and then there are correlations. any real scientist will state that and make the difference clear. if i eat a whole lot of asparagus and then die after my meal, and this has happened to enough other people, scientists might suspect a correlation between ingestion of asparagus and death. however, further testing will likely show that (unless we all choked on the asparagus or were terribly allergic) that it was just a coincidence. the logical fallacy, if i remember correctly is called Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (that is, because x happened prior to y, x must have caused y).

to clarify, the two tests i cited found neither a cause and effect relationship nor a correlation.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:_goodmanbrown_
Date:August 2nd, 2005 03:45 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The whole idea of insurance is that it is a pooling of risk. Lots of people get together and pay small amounts into a pool, so that if a major expense befalls one of them, they do not have to bear the cost out of pocket. If I buy insurance for an expense I know I'm going to incur, I'm ripping off those who are pooling their risk with mine. The classic case is the bar owner who takes out an insurance policy before torching his bar. It's clearly unethical, and also, in that case, illegal.

The case with your health isn't so different. You are taking advantage of (relatively speaking) low premiums, kept down by the non-smokers, at the same time as you behave in a manner that makes it more or less certain that you'll incur massive medical expenses. While this is perfectly legal, I'd say it is still pretty unethical. Although I wouldn't support a government effort to force you to stop smoking (that is something you ought to do for yourself) I have trouble getting all broken up about a government effort to discourage you from smoking, given its socially deleterious effects.

Proof is the language of mathematics. Evidence is the language of science. This is the equivocation that libertarians and Christian fundamentalists have been aggressively pursuing in recent years to try to convince us that we shouldn't believe in global warming (e.g.), despite overwhelming evidence that its happening. My point was merely that, just because the Bush administration or their libertarian advance troops tell us that no harmful effects of second-hand smoke can be proved provides exactly no justification for holding the belief that second-hand smoke has no harmful effects. They are misunderstanding the very notion of proof.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ferrousoxide
Date:August 2nd, 2005 03:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
well, that's the thing. the 2 studies i cited, at least aren't about Bush or his gov't doing anything. they're way too old for that. no one here is misunderstanding the notion of proof, it's just that this part of my example doesn't matter a whit. i only even brought those studies up because i wanted an example that *i* felt was more grey than the helmet/seatbelt thing, and wanted to quickly and dirtily extract out the clearest reason for smoking bans, that is, the 2nd hand smoke bit.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:_goodmanbrown_
Date:August 3rd, 2005 01:19 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yah, I know. I'm not objecting to your use of the example, per se. I'm just saying that I don't trust anyone when they talk about an absence of proof, anymore. (And there is confusion about the notion of proof on this thread, but I'll address that in a separate post, if I have the time.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:gothaminserenia
Date:August 7th, 2005 10:45 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd be very interested to see the 1998 Federal review of the EPA study, as well as the study cited by WHO. Do you have links?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:gothaminserenia
Date:August 2nd, 2005 09:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
To use the terms "libertarian" and "Bush Administration" in the same sentence, let alone to claim that they (we) are the "advance troops" of the neo-cons, is to profess a blatant ignorance of politics.

In fact, some studies I've seen have indicated that temperature rises may not be due to overall global warming at all, but rather due to "urban heat island" effects of urban areas encroaching over the decades upon once-rural weather stations. Studies have also shown that the Earth is subject to centuries- or millenia-old "supercycles" of such things as ocean currents & solar sunspot cycles, which scientists do not yet fully understand, but which are also believed to strongly influence the variation of atmospheric temperature over thousands or tens of thousands of years. That global temperatures have been rising over the past hundred years of modern climate recordings (a tiny blip in the earth's history) is fairly well-established. What is not well-established is that human activities are the cause of these changes. Proof, and not political hysteria, is what is needed at this point. Because if you're going to advocate a position that would burden the world's industries, and prevent billions of poverty-stricken people in Third World countries from reaching the same First World standard of living as the rest of us, you'd damn well better be right about it!

Yes, insurance is the pooling of risk. But since I've never had a health insurance claim of any kind despite fifteen years of paying premiums, I'm a bit peeved that you'd tell me I'm acting "unethically". Well, apparently health insurance costs aren't really that high for you ... since you've chosen to pay them, without switching to another provider or bypassing insurance altogether. Oh, but perhaps in the future I could file a claim someday. Well, while the link between excessive smoking & health problems is quite strong, I knew a lady who smoked like a chimney and lived to age 90. Smoking is not a major burden on the health care system ... and even if it is, it's not the only one. My question is: what "risky" behaviors do you partake in? Alcohol is also a proven cause of health problems. Would you advocate an Alcohol Prohibition II ... since it worked so well the first time around? Would you seek to restrict fast food, and condemn people to eating dry grain breads, yummy soy burgers, and nutritious kelp, to keep down your health insurance premiums? Would you advocate a War on the Obese, since overweight people tend to have more health problems than those who are physically fit? Would you rail against other "risky" activities, such as rock climbing, motorcycling, & sky diving? Would you join with the neo-cons to ban gay activity, or even unprotected sex, in order to halt the spread of STDs, so that your health insurance costs might come down? Would you prefer that people live their lives huddling in fear in their basements, so that they might arrive safely at the door of death? Would you seek to extend peoples' lives by denying them the activities which make people feel alive?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)