Alan, sorry that I kept you up late last night...but I always learn from our conversations You're a good friend, and a good man.
: For example, there are numerous societies that consider euthanasia ethical (including doctor-assisted suicide here in Oregon);
Within strictly defined limits, of course. In Oregon, if I remember right, the person must be judged by a panel of doctors to be terminal, and the person must pass strict tests to prove to the state that he is of sound mind and knows exactly what he is doing. This is precisely what my example about me and my wife is all about; we fully agree with Oregon's law. This stance, I think, is consistent with the general intent of my above expressed opinion.
In this context I'm compelled to ask: What gives us the right to assert that the opinion of a Board of medical professionals, after "strict tests," is any more valid than the opinion of a theological body, even after not-so-strict tests?
I've alluded to the Aristotleian rationalism of western civilization in another thread, and I think it's also relevant here. Your/our/my (apparent) compulsion to put up demonstrable scientific evidence misses the essence of our individual human existence.
If I may be so bold: "Live and let live, die and let die, do unto others as..." is not a bad way to go.