46 thoughts on “Do we call them “Suicide Shirts” or “Murder-wear””

  1. I saw this same T-shirt at a window display walking past a Headshop in Portland except it said Portland at the bottom instead of South Dakota. How ironic.

  2. Just who is behind this? Who is funding it? I went to their page but didn’t see any proud disclaimers. This is another reason why it should be much, much harder to get these initiated measures on the ballot. Legislators, are you listening????

      1. Shut up, Anonymous 11:46 a.m.. There, how do you like MY witty and clever retort?

        1. Well considering Springer is the one who posted at 11:46 am, your retort is pretty stupid. Like Springer.

    2. Why do you think it is your business? So, the tyrannical state isn’t un-American enough? You think you and yours should decide what gets on the ballot?

      1. We just need to have a more stringent process so every nutjob in the state can’t put something on the ballot. I would guess that Springer thinks it’s his business since he is a citizen, though that designation means little to socialists like yourself.

  4. Why is it any of your business if somebody decides on their own to end their suffering? It happens all the time and it is NOT anybody else,s business….. What is “appalling” is those thinking they should have a right to tell somebody they have to go through an agonizing road to death?

      1. Jaa Dee,I think he is referring to keeping older people alive a few extra weeks to collect thousands of more dollars through tests, drugs and hospitalization.

  6. I hope this means no family member can never take a loved one off life support ever again! Murderers!!!!!

    1. Your comment is misleading and deceptive.

      There is a moral AND legal distinction between:

      1) Ceasing extra-ordinary life sustaining treatment which allows death to occur naturally.

      2) Taking extra-ordinary life ending treatment which is to cause death.

      Only #2 is murder (defined legal term) and you know it.

      1. I don’t care what the “legal” definition is! The murderers at planned Parenthood are just as bad, they all should be in jail! All life is precious!!!!

          1. There is a big difference between abortion killing an innocent unborn vs using the death penalty for a person who by choice committed a heinous crime.

          2. As Springer said, you can’t compare someone found guilty of ending someone else’s life with an unborn child, so your post is nonsensical except to a Democrat/Progressive.

      2. There is no difference. Take a person off life support is ending ones life. Remember the Terry Schiboe case.

  7. Angie and Melissa should rename and promote their organization as the “Death Dealers”. It just seems more appropriate.

  8. The debate about assisted suicide isn’t just about those who are terminally ill. It’s about all of us. It’s about whether South Dakotans will authorize laws that allow killing in our state.

    The proposed measure doesn’t just make suicide legal. It does more. It implicates all of us in the act of killing. It’s not just the handful of people it takes for the sick person to take his life. The proposal is for ‘all of us,’ all 850,000 residents of South Dakota. By passing a law that enables the taking of a human life, we are all implicated in the act.

    The idea that assisting a suicide shows compassion is misguided. Suicide eliminates the person, and results in suffering for those left behind—grieving families and friends, and other vulnerable people who may be influenced by this event to see death as an escape.

    True compassion doesn’t put lethal drugs in a sick person’s hands and abandon them to suicidal impulses or to self-serving motives of others who may want them dead. True compassion helps vulnerable people with their problems, instead of treating them as the problem.

    If this measure moves forward I will do everything in my power to fight it. Call me if you would like to help.

    1. Fred,

      Succinctly said. Nice job. I have one small addition.

      Wanton destruction of our own property is allowed under our personal property rights in most circumstances. But I can’t burn the interior of my condominium because of the adverse effect it would have on all my neighbors. Even our property rights have limits.

      How much more precious is our very life than our personal property? How much more precious is our very life than our personal property to those who love us? To our neighbors? To our society?

      Giving one the privilege to destroy their life is more analogous to a condominium interior than burning a pile of leaves in a remote field in the country. Yet, the argument is “its their life. Let them do what they will with it” without any regard to its inherent value to themselves, to those who love them, and to all of us in general.

      Fred, raises all very practical considerations (sick person trying to make a rational decision or a sick person trying to minimize being a bother to others or a sick person being pressured to die by others) which absolutely are critical but there are deeper ethical/spiritual/philosophical considerations which touch on who we are as a society and our view about the most vulnerable among us.

    2. Why is it any of your business if somebody decides on their own to end their suffering? It happens all the time and it is NOT anybody else,s business….. What is “appalling” is those thinking they should have a right to tell somebody they have to go through an agonizing road to death?

    3. Obviously Fred you have seen a loved one suffer in pain and agony wishing to go on. Pray that you never do. I for one want that choice available to me if ever needed. It is selfish and cruel for a loved one to ask of a terminal ill patient to hang on and suffer.

    4. I am not so sure we need this law….I believe we do have death with dignity. I would leave the decision making up to the patient, families and Dr. And that is how it is now. The state really shouldn’t be involved.

  9. Anonymous 5:43 p.m,

    I misread your first comment as sarcasm and thus misunderstood your initial point. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

    That said, medical and theological ethics do distinguish between normal humanitarian/medical care (provision of food, water, etc.) and extra-ordinary medical care (machines performing functions of organs) whereby:

    1) Denial of basic care (e.g. food and water is always illicit.

    2) Cessation of extra-ordinary care (e.g. ecmo machine) MAY be licit in certain situations where one should consult medical doctors, medical ethicists, and pastor. And when licit, cessation isn’t a dismissive statement about the sanctity of human life.

    1. There are medical units with a list of of patients to get treatment, patients that might be saved…. The medical professionals are not going to let a dying patient deprive another of the chance to live through the treatments offered by that unit..

  10. Life is life, one doctor may say a person can’t recover, the next might say they can. Stop turning the machines off your loved ones!

  11. Really sir!!!!- That is ridiculous—- Who do ,what do you and yours think you are—– Does the suffering of agonizing dying people make you happy?

    1. Wow! What a moronic post! You don’t make it any more intelligent just by using the word “sir”. What has anyone against this measure posted to indicate that the suffering of another makes them happy? You should really try to stop using the Demoncrat method of attacking with false accusations when you can’t think of anything intelligent to say.

    2. The Republican establishment just loves to control people. They seem to know wants best for us. Really????

  12. OMG. This world has gotten sick and crazy. Medicate people out of their minds to cope with pain and problems. THEN help pull the plug if all else fails. What a gig.

  13. Jaa Dee,

    There is no way your statement @7:38pm is true. We were assured there were no death panels or rationing of care under Obamacare. You really shouldn’t be spreading false rumors about the most perfect law ever passed.

    1. Oh, sarcasm! For a minute there, Troy, I thought your Colby Jack had slipped off your Ritz! ; )

  14. Some days I’m so confused.

    Life is sacred whether one is healthy or unhealthy
    Life is sacred whether one is born or unborn.
    But life is not sacred if one is guilty and not innocent.

  15. After birth abortions for the old and the sick. Nothing more nothing less. Sickness of mind leads to sickness of body in all cases.

  16. Wait, Troy, where is the scriptural basis for that interpretation? I was always taught if you have committed one sin you are no different in the Lord’s eyes than the man who has committed 100 sins. The whole imperfection thing, the reason Jesus died on the cross and all of that, other than the obviously rhetorical eye for an eye statement where is the justification for murder of sins of a certain magnitude?

  17. …Life is sacred whether one is healthy or unhealthy
    Life is sacred whether one is born or unborn.
    But life is not sacred if one is guilty and not innocent…

    1. That is my summary of what I see said above. It confuses me and doesn’t make sense.

      Life is either sacred or it is not. If only some life is sacred, the sacred is found in the “some” and I don’t know what the some is.

Comments are closed.