X-Message-Number: 9917 Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:51:19 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #9914 - #9916 Hi Bob! In a sense your explanation points in the right direction, but it needs more. Basically a legislator wants to get elected. He will do whatever necessary to do so. My problem with that explanation is that not every legislator has the opponents of euthanasia voting for him in the first place, so that not every legislator will be affected by them. Sure, some will. We are seeing a very strong swing AGAINST euthanasia at the same time as most of the population is swinging TOWARDS euthanasia. I'd be surprised if all of those legislators taking stands against it are every one of them potentially beholden to the "anti"s. Possibly it is also a generational thing, too, but I doubt that is a good explanation either. I was actually hoping for a much more detailed explanation. Do those legislators who have NOT swung against euthanasia come from particular areas where the anti people are relatively sparse? What states are the strongest anti, and what are the least? I note the statement of at least one Oregon legislator to the effect that he was agin it but the will of the people of Oregon should not be frustrated by Federal action. Unfortunately, the present law requires autopsy afterwards, so it's useless for cryonics. But it may be a start. If all the antis can be defeated, the day will come when someone opposed to autopsy will ask for it, and that particular provision will be tested. Besides, what one state can do others can do too. If we look at this with the eye of someone 100 or 200 years from now, it all looks rather silly. Here we have people declaiming about the value of life, and not one of them has arranged for their cryonic suspension. Really valuable, this life. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9917