Monday, June 19, 2017

Assisted dying polls

From ACT's Free Press:
"The End-of-Life Choice Society have released a Horizon Poll showing 75 per cent of New Zealanders want assisted dying legalised. Taking out don’t-knows, only 11 per cent are opposed. This is extraordinary support, and is consistent with previous polls from Reid Research (71-24) Colmar Brunton (75-20) and Curia (66-20). It is time for opponents to concede that, whatever other arguments they may have, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of change."
As previously stated, I'll not try and persuade or argue with detractors. Each is entitled to their view and they can express it here. Just don't tell me that there is some 'greater good' reason for ceding autonomy over my ending (within the context of this bill).

109 comments:

Redbaiter said...

Son: Mum, you've been sick for a while and we, your sons and daughters, are finding it very difficult to meet the costs of your treatment.

Mum: OK son, what are you saying?

Son: Well we think you've had a pretty fair innings, you're 75 now. The money spent keeping you alive would be better spent on education etc for your grandchildren. We think you should agree to be euthanized.

Mum: OK son, I can see how it would be selfish of me to cling to life when it is causing you and your siblings and all the grandchildren such hardship. Get the papers drawn up, and let's get it done.

Psycho Milt said...

Son: Well we think you've had a pretty fair innings, you're 75 now. The money spent keeping you alive would be better spent on education etc for your grandchildren. We think you should agree to be euthanized.

You need to present a case for how the above conversation would be more likely to occur than its current equivalent:

Son: Well we think you've had a pretty fair innings, you're 75 now. The money spent keeping you alive would be better spent on education etc for your grandchildren. We think you should commit suicide.

Good luck making that case, because there isn't one.

Mark Hubbard said...

Straight from the gutter of your own mind, Red. Most of us have loving, functional families still. (Always thought that's what you promoted?)

This bill is only about those who are terminally ill within 12 months of death. They will have to be of sound mind and convince two independent doctors of their wish to die with dignity: that's plenty of safeguards: your shameless, disgusting scare-mongering is just that; shameless, disgusting scare-mongering. Although at least you're not using Lindsay's forum to accuse her on cheering on youth suicide (which as I stated, has nothing to do with this bill, your conflation of the two sheer evil).

You have no right, none, to be making the decision about the manner of my death if I want to leave a valueless, pain-racked body with my loved ones around me. I wish no right in any decision concerning your death. That also has always been the value system you push (when convenient to you).

You say you're not Xian, however, your argument, it's essential dishonesty, it's bullying disregard of MY rights, it's callousness of results (Rosie Mott dying alone gasping for breath with a plastic bag over her head) is Xian all right.

My choice doesn't affect you. You have no right to be in this debate. And you've lost me on anything else you promote because I do not like a bully who uses vicious emotive blackmail like you're using across last two threads. Same tactics - emoting over reason - that the SJW's you hate use.

Mark Hubbard said...

Just read Psycho Milt's post: spot on. Again pointing out the dishonesty at the heartlessness of Red and his compassionless, busy-body God-Squad trying to force their primitive beliefs into the beds of the dying where they have no right to be.

Anonymous said...

Personal responsibility. What's not to like?

Most likely mum is gaga anyway and dooped up to the eyeballs in a "rest" home. Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

If the kids can't pay or won't pay - who should? Taxpayers? Singapore style court orders confiscating relatives assets? Or the resthome throw mum onto the street.

Don W said...

Redbaiter, what you are proposing is murder not euthanasia. When adult children want to bump off their old mum who has past her use by date and has become a nuisance, that is not euthanasia. No doubt when you are forcing your mum to sign the papers to end her life, you will also be forcing her to change her will in your favour. Would you like your children to do that to you.?

Mark Wahlberg said...

Went out for popcorn, what have I missed?

Redbaiter said...

"a Horizon Poll showing 75 per cent of New Zealanders want assisted dying legalised"

And they vote this way for what reason exactly? Because they subscribe to the view that "No one owns your life but you". Or any other so called Libertarian based reason? This is nonsense, and we know this because- No one votes for Libertarians. Once they garnered 8000 votes, but since then their support has dwindled to the stage where they can't finance an election run. Overwhelmingly NZers prefer to vote for a collection of despicable statists.

NZers have for decades voted for more and more govt in their lives. Voted for more and more of their income to be stolen. A referendum to reduce the size of govt failed dismally. So from these facts we can deduce one thing. NZ is not today a country that puts any great value on personal liberty.

So that isn't the basis of their support for mass suicide of the elderly.

So what is the true basis for this support? Its the same basis that convinced them to vote for redefining marriage. So limp were they on this issue they didn't even demand a referendum, but passed the decision on to those they obviously regard as their elitist betters. The bunch of mainly statist scum that populate the Beehive.

They'll support the legalising of drugs for the same reason. Not because they value personal liberty, but because they've been persuaded over decades that this would be the cool thing to do. Persuaded by such fatuous argument as "the war on drugs doesn't work" when at the same time they lamely submit to the idea that a war on guns will work, and all we ever need there is more legislation and more control. Just keep ceding more and more of your rights to govt and eventually all gun crime will disappear.

These are the people who support aged suicide because it represents some kind of freedom to them?? Never, and only a complete idiot would make this assumption.

The real reason lies in remarks above from Psycho Marxist. Note how he's drawn to euphemisms? Note how the value of life is not the issue to him? Its merely a matter of semantics. Of pedantry.

Psycho Marxist, an unrelenting communist for all of his life, is cheering for the suicide of the elderly. He really doesn't see anything wrong with it or any danger. That's because he's actually a victim.

Cont/.....

Redbaiter said...

Psycho is not so much a Cultural Marxist himself. He's a victim of Cultural Marxism. His tiny brain has thrived on his great gulps of Marxist kool-ade over decades. He doesn't know it, which is how its meant to work of course. The greatest success of the strategy lies in its stealth and gradualism. Frogs in slowly warming water.

Most of NZ has been infected with this disease, and more so in recent times, and it is this infection that pushes the country's thinking towards support for suicide of the elderly. As it pushes it towards so many ideas designed to divide us, destroy our culture, destroy our unity, destroy our social homogeneity and leave us ripe for eventual communist revolution.

Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory have a number of primary objectives, but the one we are concerned with here is the breaking down of our traditional Western values. The same idea that underpinned the redefinition of traditional marriage. That being the gradual destruction of everything that cemented us into an homogenous united functioning society.

The left want our values destroyed. All of them, so that when they eventually take over, they can rebuild from scratch. The value being attacked and weakened here is the value we put on life. Always a defining characteristic of our Western civilisations. We sacredly revere each person's life. While sub-cultures across the globe, noticeable for being behind us in terms of human achievement, do not share this value. North Korea today. Cambodia some time ago. Germany when the Jews were dehumanised.

Not today, you see. But further down the track. This is just one step in thousands the left have planned over their long journey. As same sex marriage. As drug legalisiation, so is killing of the aged. The gradual undermining of the values that cement our culture and our society to bring slow but sure political advantage and ultimate victory to the left.

Those who see it as some kind step towards liberty are tragically wrong. In truth and reality, and over the long term, it is a step in the opposite direction.

Mark Hubbard said...

Red, you're so busy falling over cultural Marxists under your bed, you've allowed yourself to be at best a bully - you are no different to a SJW anymore - at worst, a mindless drone.

You say, quote: '"a Horizon Poll showing 75 per cent of New Zealanders want assisted dying legalised" ... And they vote this way for what reason exactly? Because they subscribe to the view that "No one owns your life but you". Or any other so called Libertarian based reason? This is nonsense, and we know this because- No one votes for Libertarians. Once they garnered 8000 votes, but since then their support has dwindled to the stage where they can't finance an election run.'

I despair. The issue of euthanasia has nothing to do with idiot party politics, libertarians or elections. That 75% probably have never heard of the Libertarian party, because it's not relevant. The majority of Kiwis want a compassionate (rights based) euthanasia law. That law won't affect any of the decisions you make around your death, so you have no right to force your will on that majority and their individual rights.

And of course in your last post you then draw in same-sex marriage (no link to euthanasia), drug legalisation (no direct relationship to euthanasia other than medicinal cannabis should be freely available for pain relief), etc. You bring these in because you are a bigot and bully. Correction, re euthanasia and your bigotry against same-sex marriage: a Christian bully-boy. You disgust me. And God help us, we have a parliament full of meddling bullies like you.

Tim Darlington said...

Thanks for the personality assessment. Did you have any argument for why that conversation would be more likely to occur if the bill passes than it is now, or are we supposed to infer one from your ramblings about "cultural Marxism"?

Redbaiter said...

NZ's political problems are exacerbated by the insularity of its population. A weakness fully exploited by a sinister and cynical media, who decides for them what they should know and what they should not know. Who tells them what to care about and what not to care about.

NZ voters are generally blissful enough about being exploited in this manner. They are largely unaware the media has changed from a relatively objective organisation reporting on unfolding events into a manipulative force working towards a common global political objective.

This compromised media force make sure the big picture is concealed, and voters are encouraged in an obsession with minutiae. Elections are not fought on any significant policy differences. The mission is to discredit any political group that might provide voters with an option other than socialism.

The insularity of NZers and the deceit of the political group posing as the media are two factors helping to obscure the fact that the same pattern is being followed in every Western county. UK, Canada, Australia, USA, all the same issues are being driven by the same forces. Its an obvious pattern.

The pattern is a strategy, and the groups behind that strategy are always the same kind of people with the same objective. Anyone who looks at the big picture, globally and over time, can see that objective is plainly global socialism.

A plethora of insular gape jawed stooges (AKA useful idiots) like to claim this coordinated effort does not exist, or that to claim it does marks one as a conspiracy theorist. Absurd and silly, when those behind the plan make their intent clear in any number of publications readily available to the public. Its no conspiracy. The plan is in plain sight.

Socialist International (Helen Clark was a senior figure there for many years, and still is AFAIK) have thousands of words on their website explaining the strategy and guiding disciples in its application. Saul Alinsky, recognised as a long term mentor of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, has laid it out in his book Rules for Radicals, and western universities are busy everywhere feeding these ideas to naive gullible students.

Broadly, the idea is a cultural revolution that eventually breaks down our cohesive societies (mainly by attacking our bedrock values) to the point where we are so divided and weak socialists can assume total power. With every group opposing them gradually extinguished.

To ignore this plan, or claim it does not exist, especially when that is done by those who claim to value liberty, is the utmost folly.

To join in and in blind ignorance push the very ideas, little or big, designed to bring this plan to its conclusion is even worse. Ironically, it could easily go by the euphemism "assisted euthanasia" of Western society. More accurately suicide.

Mark Hubbard said...

Red: tell me what right you have at my bedside determining the circumstances of my death?

It's as simple as that. Explain it to me.

And without mentioning your mantra of cultural marxism - WHICH HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE EUTHANASIA DEBATE - answer to PyschoMilt's first question to you on this thread.

You're a typical bully: very good at strutting around like a peacock in jackboots telling us all how to live in the drek dystopia you would create, but you never answer a straight, relevant question. You really have become what you hate: look i the mirror - it's a SJW. Milt and I - who have very different politics - have given you two pertinent questions: answer them clearly, concisely. You're at my bedside, you've muscled Mrs H outside, and for some reason you think you have a right to deny me a death with dignity even though that doesn't affect you, so as you hand me the Glad plastic bags, you tell me why as I gasp for breath in the barbaric death YOU forced on the likes of Rosie Mott, why you are there?

Any respect I may have had for you in the past, is totally used up.

Mark Wahlberg said...

How does my dying an ugly prolonged death by way of terminal cancer stop the march and domination of world socialism?

Redbaiter said...

Countries that have been to the abyss usually have a much more mature understanding of Progressives and their strategies than New Zealand. Take Poland for example. Suffering so much from the past predations of various ideological tyrants and invaders it is now a solidly conservative nation.

Unsurprisingly, support for legalised suicide there is relatively low. Neither do they support drug legalisation and/ or homosexual marriage. The also value their Christian heritage. They are a strong united coherent country, starkly different to many of their progressive European neighbors.

They will not go the way of France, Venezuela, Chicago, or Baltimore (for example). Places that have enthusiastically elected progressive politicians and supported their policies, and now risk losing everything.

Its worth giving a a bit of thought to the value of Christianity. Explain why one doesn't have to be a believer to appreciate its worth.

Progressives hate Christianity for its a serious (although not the only) bulwark against their own religion. Marx hated it. Stalin hated it. Nth Korea tries to stamp it out. The totalitarian thugs and murderers running China try to extinguish it. They all recognise it as a serious obstacle to their wish for complete and utter power over the people.

Our Christian heritage made England and its colonies the strongest and the most free nations on earth. The gradual destruction of this heritage can only have one aim, and that is to destroy that freedom. Look at the UK today. Gone. No freedom of speech anymore. People jailed for thought crimes. They are a nation that yielded fully to Progressives, and now they pay the price. They are not Poland.

Canada is fast heading for the same destination as the UK. The battle rages in the US and Australia. NZ has long ago surrendered, much like the UK, and it will only be a matter of time here before we are as lost as that country.

Its remarkable how any people here claim to revere freedom but subscribe enthusiastically to ideas that will eventually destroy it. As I said in a previous comment, the effectiveness of Cultural Marxism lies in its stealth and gradualism, and its ability to infect so many victims without their knowledge.

That is the big picture. Give progressives everything they want and there's no doubt whatsoever that they will eventually have the total power that is their obsession. NZ can be Venezuela or Poland. In my humble opinion the die is already cast, but I will not be part of that decline and neither will I support any ideas that I think will accelerate it.

Mark Hubbard said...

Christian Red: none of that comment has anything to do with dying with dignity. Nothing at at all. It's just a parade of your bigotry.

Go away, Red. Just go away you inhuman monster.

Mark Hubbard said...

Again, Red, have the guts to give a straight answer: tell me what right you have at my bedside determining the circumstances of my death?

It's as simple as that. Explain it.

Do you believe I own my body? You obviously don't, so why do you own me?

Mark Wahlberg said...

I said to myself 'Look, but don't touch,leave it alone, no good will come of it."

But here I am, like Red, my fingers are possessed.

Poland!! That's Red's shinning example of enlightenment?

I read an article from a recent Economist magazine which suggested Poland, after recent elections, was heading toward becoming an Illiberal Democracy. I didnt know what that meant, so I asked my friend Mr Google? Its just a fancy term for a new age totalitarian dictatorship.

Like Red I dispair at the state of politics in new Zealand today. Living as I do in the old Blue Ribbon seat of Keith Holyoake's Pahiatua electorate, which by the way was gifted to John Falloon when Holyoake became Governor General. It was often joked the National Party could stand Mickey Mouse in a blue ribbon seat and the faithful would elect him. I used to think this fanciful, until Todd Barclay arrived on the scene.

Now when I stare at the wall and contemplate life I ponder the thought- what if Jesus really did walk on water???

I on the other hand am a Pirate and have a peg leg. Water aside, I'm still trying to master walking on soft sand.........................

Anonymous said...

Frankly I don't believe that the poll is correct.
It's simply another name for suicide, and suicide is wrong.
It's also a PC/leftist wish, all fitting in with their agenda.
Course we will never get a binding referendum on it.

Redbaiter said...

Anonymous- Pretty much in agreement with you, although not sure about the poll. One needs to consider the effect of thousands of Lizzie Marvelly type communists being pumped out of a derelict education system controlled by post-modernist Marxists.

As well indoctrinated Progressives, they too will call anyone disagreeing with their collectivist mantras names and attempt to de-humanise them. Uncontrollable rage is also frequently part of it. Its all brainwashed people have.

Hate speech, so called bullying, homophobia, islamophobia, are all perverted concepts designed to shut down dissent, and its only a small step from this dehumanisation by words to putting people in camps and then there's the next step, which is killing them. These poor ignorant of history dupes don't realise the potential evil of the habits they have acquired.

As you say, the agenda is the thing, and there's been so little resistance these mis-educated thugs are now reaching plague proportions in the West. Its most notable that Libertarians, who profess to lust after liberty, have frequently sided with these barbarians in their mission to destroy everything that made the West great.

Gary Johnson, who ran for selection as Republican party candidate was an absolute buffoon. Evan McMullin who ran representing the Libertarian party is even worse. In their enthusiastic support for multi-culturalism (just one example, but probably the worst) these idiots have the potential to totally destroy Western society and the freedoms it cherishes.

This is the thing with Libertarians, and its sad they cannot see that aligning themselves with the Marxist destroyers of the West is a massive mistake. Its a policy that puts one in mind of the Vichy Police in France and their alignment with the Nazi Party.

As for the issue here, these mantras about "ownership" demonstrate that Libertarianism is a Scientology like cult rather than the reasoned ideology it makes itself out to be. They make an illiberal extension of the private property concept that has underpinned Western freedoms for so long and try to apply it to their body or their life or their thoughts or whatever. Artificial inverted navel gazing ideas that have no basis in reality.

Its an approach that would be tolerable at least except for the fact they commonly use these misconceptions as the basis for supporting the Marxists.

"Ownership" of ones life or one's body just doesn't work as a rational concept, and its sad to see such confusion giving rise to support for the enemies of our Western culture and its traditional reverence for liberty.

Mark Hubbard said...

No, ffs, euthanasia has nothing to do with Marvelly.

Again, comparing euthanasia in the circumstances of this bill to suicide is pure evil (and childish).

I hope MPs read this thread so they see that those bullies against allowing individuals this rational and compassionate choice are superstitionists, frankly insane, and not worth the time of day.

Red, in your argument above you are barking. In your refusal to answer a direct question - what gives you the right to govern circumstances of my death - you are a dishonest, cowardly charlatan. I used to have respect for you; that is completely gone.

Redbaiter said...

"In your refusal to answer a direct question - what gives you the right to govern circumstances of my death"

My time on the internet is limited. I can't waste it responding to idiotic tangled twisted questions produced by a thought process that has no connection with reality.

You are here enthusiastically advocating for govt to have that right, (via new legislation covering hundreds of pages) and apparently totally blind to this contradiction.

Don't expect me to respond to any more incorrectly premised gobbeldy gook questions. If you've got an argument, then lay out the case. Mindless and simplistic questions begging an answer you want and will approve of won't do it.

Here is a real question for you, re the scenario in my opening comment. This is going to happen. Without a doubt. How many such sly murders will you countenance as a result of your legislative victory?

One? Two? Five hundred? How many are acceptable? Deal with the goddamn reality for once.

MaryLou said...

"My choice doesn't affect you. You have no right to be in this debate. And you've lost me on anything else you promote because I do not like a bully who uses vicious emotive blackmail like you're using across last two threads. Same tactics - emoting over reason - that the SJW's you hate use."

Really Mark? Everyone's allowed a voice on this topic, even Red :).

I've long been a fence-sitter. You're quite right in what you say, but don't think for a moment the criteria won't change with time, and that there won't be some old-persons either guilted into it deliberately or not, or make the decision themselves without reference to their children. Like most, I want to see the safeguards written in both now and with any subsequent amendment, then I might be persuaded to vote yes. I'd say a lot of people feel the same way. Not necessarily against, just cautious of unintended consequences.

Redbaiter said...

I see Cameron Slater is taking the usual progressive view on this issue. But when did he ever stand against Cultural Marxism? Today he writes-

"All that aside, it is time we have this debate. Just like we did with Homosexual law reform and Marriage Equality"

We didn't have the debate. Politicians had the debate and arrogantly denied NZ citizens a referendum. I'm sure the same path will be followed on this issue. NZers will dotingly allow a house of confirmed statist scum to make the decision for them.

MaryLou- Good comment, thought you might like the following excerpt, from an article I read today. Cynical? Maybe, but I think the lady is speaking truth.

-------------------------------------------

Ilora Finlay has specialised in the care of the dying for more than 27 years. She is an independent member of the House of Lords and current president of the British Medical Association. She co-chairs Living and Dying Well, a think-tank, and opposes the Assisted Dying bill brought before the House of Lords by Lord Falconer last year. Here she describes some of her clinical experience.

JENNY (not her real name) was a week or so short of her sixtieth birthday when she came into the hospice. She had advanced cancer and she, and her family, knew the end was close. And her family were devoted. Not a day went by without one or more of them at her bedside.

We stabilised Jenny’s condition; she was comfortable, more independent and able to have quality time with her family. And, as often happens with good palliative care, the prospect of her imminent death receded. Then came her birthday. It was a muted affair, but understandably so as it was clearly her last.

But then the family visits gradually fell away. “It’s a pity your family can’t come so often these days,” one of the nurses said to Jenny. “Oh,” she replied. “They won’t be in so much now. You see, my fixed-term life insurance expired on my birthday.”

Mark Hubbard said...

Red, you say 'My time on the internet is limited. I can't waste it responding to idiotic tangled twisted questions produced by a thought process that has no connection with reality.'

But it's the simplest question. Why do you get to dictate the terms of my death, when I wish no such control over yours? Answer it.

Mark Hubbard said...

MaryLou

That's a red herring argument, and invalid scare-mongering. This bill only concerns those with terminal illness within 12 months of death. Anything outside of that requires new debate.

I'm sick and tired of this dishonesty from teh against bullies.

(For the record, I believe euthanasia should be available for a wider series of ills: such as paralysis, etc, anything where the value I place on life falls below the pain of living. It's my goddamned body and my life and death. But I don't get that with this bill. Stick to what the bill is about.)

Mark Hubbard said...

Mary-Lou, sorry, reading deeper into your answer:

There is plenty of safeguard with this bill. The person has to be of sound mind, and convince two independent doctors of their wish to die with dignity. That's fine by me.

And it's not about the safeguards. They come. The debate is about my right to die with dignity and that's no one else's business. We know there will be car crash deaths: that doesn't mean any of us advocate the end of driving cars. We need the right granted, the safeguards follow in tandem with that.

Anonymous said...

Yep, it is completely agenda driven, all about destruction of decency, so sad that Western govts are buying into it, just like all the other 'progressive' bs that is poisoning the West. We have a progressive red govt in office in NZ, and just as with the gay marriage scam and the anti smacking nonsense, this will end up getting through. Bill English is also Labour pinko lite.
Where is William Wilberforce when one needs him!!!

Mark Hubbard said...

Anonymous, you're the stupidest, most bigoted, poster I've seen for a long while.

I can't believe what callous, ignorant slime the against campaign are. It almost makes me identify with the authoritarian Left, these authoritarian, thick-as-shit right wing God-squad medieval monsters.

You all claim to be champions of Western values, but none of you barbarians would know an Enlightenment if it was rationally explained to you.

Sickened by all of this.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"Where is William Wilberforce when one needs him!!!"

Wilberforce synonymous with ending slave trade. Slaves didn't own their own lives - an abhorrent idea.

Redbaiter said...

"It almost makes me identify with the authoritarian Left"

They're definitely your closest political allies.

Why?

They used the power of big progressive govt to impose a redefinition of traditional marriage upon the population at large. They denied the voters a referendum on the issue. You supported all of this.

They commonly become incoherent with rage and abuse people rather than debating the point. You to a tee.

They frame senseless questions based on delusional premises and then demand that they be answered, when to answer them would only ratify the idiotic ideas they are predicated on. You do this all the time too.

Many of the left do not recognise how their opinions are shaped or what forces are working to drive them in a certain political direction. You again.

You demand with so much arrogance and signalling of virtue that people answer your questions, but you hypocritically ignore any questions directed at yourself. Again, a typical debating characteristic of the left.

You're driven by a need to personalize the argument. Rather than discuss the issue objectively, you seek to de-legitimize and dehumanise your opponents. Again, a stark and typical tactic of the left.

So yes, you're right about at least one thing in this discussion, and that is your close political attachemnt to the left and their methods.

There's much more I need to say on this issue. I've explained my case as best I could, and if you don't get it, its not a problem I'm responsible for. People will die in terrible circumstances, and deny it as much as you want, it will be the responsibility of everyone who supports this legislation.

I'll finish with my usual lament, and that is that once again we're distracted from the real battle to fight over an matter that like homosexual issues, only effects a very small percentage of the population. Sure, there might be some matter to be concerned about, but really it pales into insignificance against the issue of socialism, Marxism and the overall governance of NZ.

That's it you see. The Cultural Marxists don't want us thinking about the big issues, like spending, debt, big govt, corruption, cronyism, waste, regulations etc etc. They only want to promote issues that confront or jar our traditional culture. And when this issue is done, they'll wheel out the next issue, which they no doubt already have waiting in the wings.

The left have this country so firmly in their grasp nothing will save it. And things are this way because the people who should be resisting them have been beguiled by them. Or worse, as in the case of the National Party and Mark Hubbard, become them.

Mark Wahlberg said...

Lindsay, 31 comments, whats the record for number of replies to one of your posts?

the problem with Reds comments, as long as they are, is they are all the same and ultimately boring.

Red's vitriol reminds me of the frustrated school teachers from my youth who blamed me for their own failings.

If they taught me anything, it was who and what I never wanted to be.

Mark Hubbard said...

RED:

The simplest of questions. Why do you get to dictate the terms of my death, when I wish no such control over yours? Answer it.

It has nothing to do with Marxists, other than I am talking about owning my life (and I can't be free if I don't own my life).

Mark Hubbard said...

By the way, Red, you say 'They used the power of big progressive govt to impose a redefinition of traditional marriage upon the population at large.'

Sorry, is progressive govt forcing you to have sex with men?

Anonymous said...

Mark Hubbard - why do we have suicide prevention programmes then (based on your argument)

"It's my goddamned body and my life and death"

And why do those who bring out the 'bigot' label usually most identify with it

Redbaiter said...

I made an error in my previous comment. The sentence that said "There's much more I need to say on this issue." should have said "There's NOT much more I need to say on this issue.

And Mr Hubbard's responses have made that even more obvious. Reason is wasted on someone whose perceptions are so shallow, immature and narrow, they are a couple of galaxies away from reality.

Thanks to LM for providing the open discussion forum and to other commenters who (mostly) in agreeing or disagreeing, had at least something sensible (in the main) to contribute.

I've no doubt this discussion would have been censored to death on the Cameron Slater / Peter Belt group think blog.

Brendan McNeill said...

Excluding the historical argument around the intrinsic value of human life which we first abandoned with abortion on demand, and now seek to dispense with at the end of life, the most compelling and rational concern is based upon scope creep.

In Belgium, a nation that has led the way in euthanasia, the door is now open for children to legally choose their own death. This is inevitable despite the protestations of euthanasia advocates. All it takes is time.

http://theconversation.com/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-euthanasia-in-belgium-58203

To be fair however, I understand and appreciate Mark’s argument. If all human beings are simply random atoms drifting through space and time in a meaningless universe then of course, nothing is lost by any human’s death at any time. You cannot destroy matter, it is simply re-purposed.

Why not argue for that? What right does anyone have to determine when I should choose to die regardless of my age, health or circumstances?

But I don’t think you are arguing for that Mark, or are you?

If you are not arguing for that, why not? Surely this is the logical libertarian position?

Mark Hubbard said...

Again. Suicide, particularly youth suicide, is totally, completely unrelated to the wish of a terminal illness sufferer to end their pain, and pass with their loved ones around them.

You evil, rotten, simpleton.

Don W said...

Redbaiter, you like to come across as anti left , anti Marxist, yet you seem to me as a control freak lefty who wants to dictate to others how they should conduct their lives according to your ideals. And yes Red, I do own my own life. Not you, nor anyone else has a skerrick of ownership in mine. I will never be the property of other humans. "I will not pushed , filed, stamped, indexed, briefed debriefed.My life is my own". Patrick Mcgoohan , Prisoner.

Don W said...

Brendon. Belgium by allowing children to choose to die without them being terminally ill, because they don't want to be here, is legalizing and condoning kids to commit suicide. This is not euthanasia. That is not about terminally sick people ending their lives with dignity.

Mark Hubbard said...

Brendan, your red herring argument is contemptible. As are you Christians. Dishonesty and scare-mongering rules with you awful lot. This bill helps someone with a terminal illness. Any wider scope is another whole debate in Parliament.

Brendan McNeill said...

The difference between euthanasia and suicide is only one of semantics. Both involve the decision to take one’s own life, and then to follow through with that decision. It is illogical to argue for euthanasia and against suicide, as both result in death and both are initiated by personal choice and the exercise of free will.

It is overly simplistic to frame the conversation in terms of one side being compassionate, and the other callous and heartless. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people on both sides of this question are committed to the alleviation of human suffering and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The heart of the issue is what value as a society we choose to place on human life. Does human life have intrinsic value, which is the position we inherited from our Judeo Christian culture, and is presently reflected in our legislation, or do we believe that life has utility value only.

To say life only has utility value, that is the value that I or someone else ascribes to it, is to significantly depreciate what it means to be human, yet this is the philosophical base of those who argue for euthanasia. My life has no intrinsic value if I say it doesn’t.

Once again, this is a door that once opened is difficult if not impossible to close. Today the individual decides the utility value of their life, tomorrow it may be the State. This is an easy shift to make when we move the debate away from the sanctity of life to the quality of life.

There are lots of people in State care whose quality of life (in my opinion) is not great. To say their lives only have utility value is to eventually place their lives in the hands of death panels in the name of compassion. I’m talking here about the chronically disabled, the mentally disturbed. Who is to say they would not be better off freed from their disabilities through the power of euthanasia? Sure, they cannot decide this for themselves, but a compassionate State could and perhaps should make that call?

This is the box of demons many of you appear keen to open, even if just a crack.

Redbaiter said...

"And yes Red, I do own my own life."

Prove it.

Mark Hubbard said...

Brendan: get a dictionary (put aside that fantasy called the bible) and look up this word:

Context.

Admittedly understanding this requires a little bit of sophistication, impossible with your God-Goggles on.

With that, I've had enough of the freedom-hating devout old bullies on this thread. I'm out.

Mark Hubbard said...

Sorry, no. One more point on irony.

The two chief bullies on this thread, Red and Brendan, both farcically run blogs almost solely concerned with attacking the evil of Islam, as they see it, and how it would force itself on 'their' culture and 'their' belief.

But their only concern on this thread is to force their beliefs on those of us, and we're in the majority, who live rational and compassionate lives, and simply want the choice to determine how we die, and being able to do so with our loved ones. And I, for example, want this choice because I love life so much (Red and Brendan will never understand that, because they live in the service of a fantastical construct).

Red and Brendan are, at best, droning hypocrites, at worst, because this concerns the manner of our deaths, they are every bit the monsters that those jihadis are. They're a mirror image.

We won't have a free, civilised society until, metaphorically, the last jihardi is hanging from the entrails of the last crusading monk. They all belong to a barbaric past. But in the meantime you two need to get your meddling, busy-body noses out of my life. Completely. You've no right to be there.

Mark Hubbard said...

And I can't allow Red's last shot-in-his-own-foot. He says to Don to prove he owns his life.

Telling retort.

Obviously owning our own lives is not a metaphysical given when there be monsters who demand to own our lives because they arrogantly think they know better. You appropriately put yourself on the side of tyranny in this equation, Monster Red.

Stop writing your blog now. You're a fraud.

Redbaiter said...

"Admittedly understanding this requires a little bit of sophistication, impossible with your God-Goggles on.

With that, I've had enough of the freedom-hating devout old bullies on this thread. I'm out."

Such an example of rank arrogance and blind hypocrisy it has to be remarked upon.

Attacking people personally, with false allegations of being bullies, Christians, evil rotten simpletons, callous ignorant slime, authoritarian, thick-as-shit right wing God-squad medieval monsters, barbarians, superstitionists, insane, inhuman monsters, compassionless, busy-body God-Squads, is plainly a tactic you employ because you can't tolerate opposing views and do not have the intellectual resources to argue against them. As I have already said, a tactic so typical of the leftist/ progressive mindset.

Such cowardly, irrational and apparently compulsive name calling, combined with the tired old dogma/ mantras of Libertarianism, is not an argument. Not one of all of those appellations above is an argument.

IMHO you've done nothing for the pro suicide movement, and more likely, by exposing the weakness of your case so starkly, hardened the resolve of those who are opposed.

Mark Wahlberg said...

"God-Goggles on." PSML!!!

The first comment on this topic which has created a genuine smile and chuckle for me as I wade through a wasteland of bigotry. Thankyou Mark.

I've witnessed to many ugly deaths. Being allowed to die with dignity would make me smile as well.

Redbaiter said...

"I own my own life" makes as much sense as "I skipped the light fantastic".

If it meant anything at all you could prove that you "owned" your life.

You can't of course, it just meaningless feel good dogma, a mantra so called Libertarians repeat endlessly in lieu of any real and rational argument.

What a shame Ayn Rand couldn't have woven an earth orbiting spaceship into her writings, it would have added so much to her appeal, especially to Mr. Hubbard.

Mark Wahlberg said...

"I skipped the light fantastic' is a colloquial term used to define a psychedelic experience after taking LSD OR any substance containing Psilocybin A.K.A Magic Mushrooms.

The real deal LSD I liked the most was known as California Sunshine, which were small chemical dots impregnating blotting paper.Just place one on the tongue and enjoy. These were hard to come by and could be a tad expensive. Lateral thinking from some clever botanists opened up new worlds (Wellington botanical Gardens) for many and is a relatively harmless way to enjoy walking around a city full of neon lights.
i have always been fascinated by colours neon produces. They are a bit kitsch with Sci-Fi overtones. I had an interesting conversation with a neon tube once, but as they say, "Thats another story"

I have many pleasant mind expanding memories of my relationship with these banned substances.

Red, There is life outside of the dome. Trust me, take a step...

Mark Hubbard said...

Yep. At the very least we need to get Red on cannabis for the night. It must be so hard for him to even walk straight with this goose step he's developed and the NZ flag he has stuck up his arse.

Got a 78 year old friend, Red, with chronic back pain. Spent over $100k on his back, but 5.00pm every night has to lay on the floor because the pain is so bad. Had him up last week, just a couple of puffs of weak male-plant leaf and he could sit on couch all night. Another puff, he could sleep all night.

Cannabis, way better than God (who doesn't exist, anyway). Imagine a world we we can own our own bodies.

Christ I've grown to hate these Nazis (sorry, Christian conservatives).

Mark Hubbard said...

By the way Red, you still haven't explained why you get to dictate the terms of my death, when I have no desire, on principle, to dictate yours. Answer in a single paragragh.

Because otherwise you are eveything I've called you. When the jackboot fits ...

Mark Hubbard said...

Goodness me. The God-Squad's top Catholic fantasist in Australia, who advises the Popey bloke in the frock, up on child sex charges.

And Christians think they should be able to force their barbaric beliefs on me because of the little voice they hear in their head.

It's laughable.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

They are only charges currently. Part of me hopes they are based on fact. Because if there is something I detest more than child abuse itself, it's false accusations that wreck lives.

Mark Hubbard said...

Absolutely, Lindsay. But the Church has a long record of abuse of children and the vulnerable: and that's the wellspring of values Red and Brendan tout to take away ownership of our lives.

I'll never give them quarter while they continue to hold out they own me when I do no harm (and they practice hypocrisy in their blogs day on day).

Brendan McNeill said...

There are many benefits we have inherited from western civilization, not the least being the rule of law and the presumption of innocence when charged with any crime. Thank you, Lindsay, for your timely reminder in respect to Cardinal Pell.

There have been numerous cases of sexual abuse against children by Catholic priests proven in court, and evidence of attempts to cover up this abuse by Church leadership. This is both appalling and indefensible.

There have also been previous public accusations of abuse and cover up against Cardinal Pell. However, these claims were deemed ‘highly improbable’ by the council assisting the Australian Royal Commission into child sexual abuse.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/andrew-bolt-cardinal-george-pell-charges-a-tragedy-and-hope-for-catholic-church-finance-minister/news-story/6a8f642b66ba5e81ba07930d14fa0632

Personally, I’m hopeful these recent claims of sexual abuse and cover up prove to be false. Not because I think Pell incapable of such crimes - the human condition is such that anyone is capable of depravity. My deeper concern is the increasing distrust such convictions bring in relation to those institutions upon which our civil society is built, the church being but one of them, the political process another, the judiciary and even the media are others.

These institutions are not perfect, obviously, and all criminal offending must be prosecuted. However, if all confidence in every institution of civil society is lost, what remains? What will replace them? What will provide the social glue that binds us together for mutual benefit?

To that end, we will all be imperceptibly better off if Pell is proved innocent following due process, if only to shore up our failing trust in those civil institutions and the people who lead them.

Redbaiter said...

"Trust me, take a step.."

Promotion of drug use is a vile narcissistic habit that would most likely be cured if those promoting it were compelled to work even a few days in the Emergency ward of any public hospital.

Its patently obvious that those who indulge in drugs are frequently vain self absorbed individuals, populating internet forums with self focused contributions replete with an obsessive use of the pronoun "I" and a tendency to talk endlessly about themselves and past experiences. When such experiences have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The West's freedoms are underpinned by its parliaments, its democracies and or republics, its legal apparatus, its respect for freedom of expression, and all of these tangibles are arisen from shared spiritual values focusing on life, individualism and self belief.

Narcissism undermines these values. It's cousin, drug use, is not any part of that foundation either. In fact its like the issue of LM's post (legally approved suicide), a means to decay and destroy those values, the bedrock underpinnings of the free states our British ancestors established across the Western world.

Ignorant narcissistic saps who think drug use is cool, and seek to entice others to share their world and be part of that coolness, are merely displaying the shallowness of their thought patterns and their sad apparently compulsive affinity for self absorption.

They are just another sub-set of the white-anting statists and socialists and progressives who have wormed their way to destructive ascendancy in the West.

Termites who utter insipid platitudes about liberty while they chew away at the foundations supporting it.

Anonymous said...

MH - what a cultural Marxist you really are. So, it's okay for progressives to force their anti-God beliefs on society is it? How barbaric they are, you hate Christians but I bet you embrace Muslims. You seem to stand for anything but decency and you champion perverse practices and beliefs, as long as they arn't Christian. You name call and you bully, but you do not gently debate.
New Zealand is the new Venezuela and you must just love it. We are being betrayed by Western elites, treason is at hand. No doubt, you think they are doing a wonderful job of destroying the West, and you agree with them. Enjoying our new hellhole are you?

William Wilburforce was a true hero, of the old school, the type seldom ever seen or heard of today, LIndsay.

Mark Hubbard said...

To the anonymous moron: as I have a whole blog against progressivism, please tell me how I'm a progressive (once you get your knuckles off the ground and onto a keyboard). Tell me!

I'm a humanist, individualist, free marketer. A free man compared to the devout authoritarian tyrants on this thread who, like you, would forcibly bind me their/your beliefs.

It's like posting into the Dark Ages on this thread.

Mark Hubbard said...

Nah. I'm out.

Sickening, freedom hating, life hating arseholes.

Mark Wahlberg said...

All these big words, its hard for a country boy to keep up.

Red, have you ever done anything naughty? Or has your life been modeled on boring with a capital B?

Have you ever taken 3 Panadol when the packet says only 2 every 4 hours Or taken a chance on beating the orange light at the intersection?

Your hobby appears to be to pontificate your venomous self righteous indignation which you spew at people who dare to poke a stick at the rules of polite society.

Your holier than thou attitude is truly breathtaking and "I" suggest you could be a reason why people would want to top themselves.

"I" on the other hand am a godless man who has have lived dangerously, put my life on the line a couple of times, done heaps of dumb stuff I regret,taken heaps of illegal substances, been rewarded by the universe for having a go, been married 3 times to some lovely ladies, "I" drive fast cars and exceed the speed limit when appropriate.
The world "I" live in is full of colour, creativity and motivation to be better every day.

In my workshop today and as an artist "I" created something which "I" knew was good. A friend came to visit and when they saw what "I" had built, they smiled. There is no greater compliment to ones effort than a smile in appreciation. of course "I" accept the money they pay me as a given.

Red, "I" doubt there are many here smiling at what you offer.

Don W said...

Redbaiter . I do own my own life as I have the faculty to think and reason, to be able to make choices, and to have control over how I live my one and only life, and I practice that every day. No One dictates to me what to do unless I agree to do such. That is mutual cooperation.You seem to want the state to implement liberty on it's terms like North Korea where the state decides on what liberty, if any, you get.

Redbaiter said...

Don.

I didn't ask for more of the same worthless opinion. I asked you for proof.

I can prove I own my house by showing you the title.

Now please cease the gibbering nonsense, and prove you "own your life".

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"I" can attest that what Mark W produces truly does put a smile on "I"'s face.

I think you might appreciate his whimsical sculpture too Red.

Not sure I am allowed to post photos of them at my blog though.

Mark W, I had a painting accepted into a local exhibition with the opening this evening but I am too reno-tired to attend the usually cheek-by-jowl, MPs-in-attendance, hob-nobbing opening. And it's bloody freezing here too. I type with a coat on that goes down to my knees even with the gas fire throwing out degrees of warmth. Hope you are keeping well...or as well as can be.

Don W said...

Brendan. You say that the difference between suicide and euthanasia is semantics. That is absolute bollocks. If you have read Linsay's previous post, you will have read the comments I made about my daughter who attempted suicide . I am a man of the land and I have had to put down many of my four legged mates when they are crook when there is no hope , and it isn't an easy thing to do but I know it is the right thing. There is a difference that the animals don't get a choice, where people do, but that shouldn't prevent people being able to choose to end their lives in dignity when there is no hope. As for suicide , I am a long time depression sufferer, I know what it like to be in a dark place. Nah, suicide and euthanasia are not close to being the same thing.

Redbaiter said...

"please tell me how I'm a progressive"

Anonymous- You see how hopeless it is talking to brainwashed cultists? They don't hear (read) what you say (write) to them.

This question has been answered more than once above. (see my own comment 12:36AM)

MH's confused state of mind re progressivism was confirmed when he said above this has nothing to do with Lizzie Marvelly. It has everything to do with Lizzie.

She and millions of brainwashed Marxists like her grew up in the cities we built. Went to the schools and universities we built. Are protected by the laws and government we built. However she knows nothing of how we struggled to build all of this, or how we fought to keep it.

She doesn't even care that she doesn't know.

All she has learnt is how to pull it down, and MH, knowingly or unknowingly, is helping her in her mission.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Red, When I was maybe four or five years old I used to attempt to play Monopoly with my big brother. He laughed one day when I pronounced the words on the back of a property Title Deed "Tittle Dee". These were the closest known words to the letters I was looking at - maybe originating from a Beatrix potter story.

I don't need a Tittle Dee over my own life because I have legs and a functioning brain. I can do with it what I will (with loving deference to family and friends).

(Note to Mark W. Leg will do just as well as legs)

DonW said...

Redbaiter. Ownership of anything is about having control over that entity. I have control over my own life , I direct my life as I see fit . Is that not to hard to understand. I own my animals but I don't have title over them that says so, but I still own them .

Redbaiter said...

Lindsay-

I'm always impressed by the wonderful paintings you sometimes display here. You have a special talent and you should indeed be proud of the truly beautiful art you have the ability to produce. That said, could anyone who unashamedly and writes such gauche infantile prose as this-

"I" on the other hand am a godless man who has have lived dangerously, put my life on the line a couple of times, done heaps of dumb stuff I regret,taken heaps of illegal substances, been rewarded by the universe for having a go, been married 3 times to some lovely ladies, "I" drive fast cars and exceed the speed limit when appropriate. The world "I" live in is full of colour, creativity and motivation to be better every day.

be capable of expanding anyone's understanding through their art?

I know you can paint and draw superbly. I'm sorry, but I can't ever imagine that the proudly superficial MW could ever produce anything even remotely close in the field of sculpture.

Like MH, I'm done here too. Thanks again for the forum.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Red, I hope you aren't gone yet.

I have made lots of mistakes (in hindsight) by following my 'heart' instead of my 'head'. I incurred a drink-driving charge in my twenties. I was an infidel (pre-marriage) when it came to romance. I smoked dope once or twice but didn't like it as much as alcohol which I enjoy daily but not to the degree Churchill did. I have lived and learned. I wasn't born wise but what I think to be true today is the product of experience. I work hard every day. I put my family first and foremost. But I probably don't fit your prescription for 'good-living' and am using "I" far too much.

But I have always read every comment you put here and agreed and identified with quite a bit of their content.

You believe in individualism. So you must appreciate that each of us has our strengths and failings (self-prescribed or other-prescribed). Truly, I do not think there is a great movement or a great conspiracy. The world is chaotic and random. Yes, patterns of thought and behaviour can be categorized and labelled retrospectively but most humble individuals have no idea they are bit-players in your personal history (and projection) of the western world.

Nevertheless, I cleave to the same idea that you have about govt policies shaping and influencing. The thing is, you see them all going in a negative way whereas I see them going in divergent ways. Some good, some bad.

Life goes on. It is ever-changing. There is no utopia.

Mark Hubbard said...

Lindsay. This debate shows the last thing Red believes in is individualism. He's a mirror image of an SJW. Total fraud. An individualist understands rights, and individual ownership. Red is an authoritarian monster. And the complete bigot.

DonW said...

Hi Lindsay, Life is about making mistakes how else do we learn and we learn all our lives.If we can follow our dreams so be it but that doesn't mean we get everything we want. Life is about good and bad, like the weather. The most important thing is to be free to live the short time we have on earth as we so choose within reason, we are a long time dead. People need to look to them selves for their inspiration rather than expecting the gov't to provide all the answers. The state isn't there for our benefit, they don't have the answers, they are too busy looking after their own nests. If we don't value our liberty it will soon be gone.

Brendan McNeill said...

Don, I hadn’t read Lindsay’s previous post and was unaware of your daughter’s circumstances and your own battles with depression, so thank you for sharing and for providing that context.

I accept that the motivations that prompt suicide and euthanasia may be different, and that may well be the point you are making. However, for the individual concerned, the outcome is the same in both circumstances. That’s why many people call euthanasia ‘assisted suicide’.

I was raised on a farm and I hunted. I put down wounded and distressed animals rather than let them suffer. However, there is a world of difference between shooting a dog and taking the life of your mother, or sister or aunt, even at their request.

I don’t really expect to change anyone’s mind on this question, but I believe it is reasonable that you and others appreciate there that is a legitimate alternative viewpoint that is thoughtfully and sincerely held, and not simply the product of religious bigotry which has been asserted by some.

Euthanasia is obviously a ‘religious’ question because it has to do with the most basic matters of life and death. Sadly, over recent decades we Kiwis have become less able to have a rational conversation about God, Christianity and existential questions in general. Naturally those of us who believe we are the product of a loving creator are going to have a different view about the value of human life than those who are convinced our genesis is primeval slime.

One of the narratives we have lost with our apparent rejection of Christianity is our ability to accept that sometimes suffering is an unavoidable part of living. Yes, it is humane to seek to alleviate suffering, but killing the victim, even if they are approaching the end of their life, and with their consent, is a dramatic change to how we have understood compassion and the practice of patient care for more than 1,000 years.

You can argue that euthanasia provides gains for some individuals, but I contend we will lose something very significant about who we understand ourselves to be if we go down that path, and eventually we will not like who we have become.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"Euthanasia is obviously a ‘religious’ question because it has to do with the most basic matters of life and death."

Hi Brendan, 'Voluntary' (often missing adjective) euthanasia is not an obviously religious question to those of us who without religious faith.

DonW said...

Brendon. Euthanasia has nothing to do with Christianity, It has nothing to do with taking the life of a loved one. It is not about individuals wanting to die. It is about individuals making their own choices where practicable to end their life when there is no hope.

Mark Wahlberg said...

Red, are you sure your underpants aren't to tight?

Mark Hubbard said...

DonW: Brendan doesn't understand the entire gesalt of an individual. He's a slave to the comic book Christ boy and his unhealthy relationship to Dad (who made him die horribly to prove his love for Dad). The most abusive relationship I can think of.

Mark W: I suspect Red goes commando.

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Lindsay,

'Voluntary' (often missing adjective) euthanasia is not an obviously religious question to those of us who without religious faith.’ - Lindsay

Perhaps if you take a narrow interpretation of the word religion. Each of us carries some belief about the origin of human life, the meaning and purpose of life, how we should live together in society, and the intrinsic value of human life. Can you be ‘religious’ without adhering to a formal religion? I think so; it may not be Christianity but it is a religious world view.

Perhaps to illustrate the point, I have observed some atheist commentators on this post assert their viewpoint with all the religious zeal of the wildest street preacher! Passion and dogmatic belief are clearly not the sole domain of those who adhere to historical religions.

But to the point, it is a fallacy to believe we can change something as fundamental as how we value human life, and not expect that decision to have wider consequences for the whole of society. In one sense we have already devalued human life, which is why the murder rate in NZ has gone from one or two a year when I was a young man, to between 50 and 60 per annum today.

The western world is conducting an experiment to see if we can maintain a functional civil society on the basis of ‘human rights’ alone (however we understand them), having systematically removed Christianity from the public square. Some of your readers will celebrate this as an enlightened step forward. I’m less inclined to believe it is sustainable. It is more likely to lead to a form of totalitarianism or violent anarchy Chicago style, or both.

Don, I understand the importance of hope to the human condition. The truth is we are all going to die. One of the reasons Christians are perhaps more able to accept their mortality, and may be willing to endure suffering at the end of life is that they do have a sincere hope that extends beyond the grave. To that extent, the desire for euthanasia is more a symptom of our apostasy than an expression of personal choice, although it is that of course.

I appreciate the respectful conversation.

Good night one and all!

Brendan McNeill said...

Don, I have been reflecting further on your personal circumstances and wanted to share with you the story of a 24 year old Belgian woman known as ‘Laura’ to protect her real identity.

It was reported in the Daily Mail that Laura does not suffer from any terminal disease or physical illness, but doctors have agreed to her request to be euthanized because she suffers from suicidal thoughts, and has done so for many years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141564/Belgian-doctors-healthy-woman-green-light-die-euthanasia-suicidal-thoughts.html

You will appreciate of course that the wishes of her parents and family count for nothing, they have no right of appeal and cannot override the decision of their daughter, or her state sponsored executioners.

I mention this because I too have a son who suffered from deep clinical depression in his early 20s. It lasted for a long time. I’m pleased to report that he is happily married now with two beautiful children, and those days of depression are behind him.

However, Laura could have been my son, or perhaps your daughter and the outcome very different.

Now before everyone seeks to remind me that ‘it could never happen here’ and ‘the proposed legislation is very narrow in its scope’ and ‘you are just scare mongering’ and so forth, I ask this question.

Don’t you think those who first introduced euthanasia legislation into Belgium sincerely believed its scope would be limited to the very elderly and terminally ill, and defended their position with the same arguments?

We and our children need to be defended from the compassionate state rather than enacting legislation that will further empower it.

Mark Hubbard said...

Brendan, you are a dishonest wretch of the highest order.

Look at your emotive use of words: suicide, executioners. Everything to do with euthanasia is voluntary.

and Daily Mirror? ... go away.

Laura - and I'm not going to discuss the rights or wrongs of her *choice*, or even if this story is accurate - would have no recorse, none, nil, zilch, under the bill being debated in NZ. That is only for terminal illness sufferers in the last 12 months of life. Nothing more. Your continued scare-mongering is monstrous. For this bill, if made law, to be widened is another whole debate in Parliament, not this present one.

You only encourage disrespect for your religion, which I've also found, throughout this debate, to be sensationalist and, like your comments here, again, deeply dishonest. You are a meddling bully.

Mark Hubbard said...

Brendan also says, quote: 'Don’t you think those who first introduced euthanasia legislation into Belgium sincerely believed its scope would be limited to the very elderly and terminally ill, and defended their position with the same arguments?'

Thing is, Brendan, you don't know what 'those who first introduced euthanasia is Belgium' thought.

Also, obviously euthanasia legislation in Belgium is working as the majority of individuals want it. Otherwise they would not have legal euthanasia. You don't like it, Brendan, and would stop it, but you have no care for individual volition and people doing as they wish.

You would 'defend' us from ourselves, just like the nanny state you otherwise rail against. It is arrogance. And it is tyranny that you would force on us.

My choice of euthanasia doesn't affect you or your children. You have no business in that choice.

Redbaiter said...

"Red, I hope you aren't gone yet."

Read it this morning. Will reply later. Something new from this morning's news.

Watching Tucker Carlson. He had a guy on who was claiming that insurance companies in Kalifornia (where of course assisted suicide is legal) were refusing to pay out on not only palliative care but (get this) curative care and instead recommending to clients that they look into or consider assisted suicide.

Mark Hubbard your continued abuse of and personal attacks on Brendan (and others) make you just an ignorant bigoted cowardly thug. He's so far in front of you on this issue, he's orbiting the sun while you're still sitting at Auckland airport waiting for the fog to lift.

Mark Hubbard said...

Quote: 'He had a guy on who was claiming that insurance companies in Kalifornia (where of course assisted suicide is legal) were refusing to pay out on not only palliative care but (get this) curative care and instead recommending to clients that they look into or consider assisted suicide.'

I simply don't believe a word you men say. Provide links.

Caveat Emptor: like any insurance policy, know what you're paying your premium for. Sue the insurance company if in breach of your contract. Everyone whose been through the Chch EQC's knows this.

Nothing to do with my choice of euthanasia.

I will carry on calling you and Brendan the names that fit, because I want no control over your lives; I want free lives: you both, however, are brutes who demand to force your archaic beliefs on me. And for all the reasons I've given, you are hypocrites in your blogs.

Brendan McNeill said...

Lindsay

It is useful to see how euthanasia legislation has evolved overseas because as we have seen with other social legislation in NZ, the first ‘win’ for those advocating substantial social change is seldom the end goal.

Advocates for ‘euthanasia on demand’ (which I accept may not be true of the posters on this blog) know very well that they could never get their desired legislation passed initially, so they start with a request for the smallest and most reasonable concession. Voluntary euthanasia of those suffering unbearably.

International experience shows that the initial legislation is just the first in a progressive push to widen the door to virtually anyone, and for any reason... From the National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434446/euthanasia-belgium-netherlands-slippery-slope

“Belgium legalized euthanasia for adults the year after Holland did, in 2002. As in Holland, the courts ruled that doctors might kill a patient if that person was competent and conscious, had repeatedly asked for euthanasia, and was suffering unbearably as a result of an incurable disorder. Only twelve years later, in 2014, the Belgian parliament passed a bill that allows the euthanizing of children, no matter how young, so long as they are terminally ill. In Holland, the lower age limit for euthanasia is currently twelve, with parental consent, though euthanasia advocates are pushing to eliminate any age limit.

In 2013, a single Dutch clinic helped kill nine psychiatric patients who were all able-bodied. Not the least curious of the problems this raises is that the patient must prove he is of sound mind while wanting to die. 

The third great question is over people who are neither terminally ill nor mentally ill but who are simply “tired of life.” This distinctly Dutch formulation describes something that is at once commonplace and, to the extent one sees it as a legitimate reason to stop living, hard to identify.

(Note: being ‘tired of life’ is a valid reason to request voluntary euthanasia in Holland)

Teenagers who suffer from conditions such as anorexia might easily be deemed tired of life. Indeed, teenagers as a whole might be considered eligible for euthanasia. Everyone at some stage in his life will feel hopeless, helpless, and perhaps even suicidal. It is the duty of family, friends, and those in authority to say that these feelings are a normal part of life and will subside — not that they are a justification for self-murder. And that, in the end, is the problem that Holland and Belgium have created. However well-meaning, the society that begins legally euthanizing the dementia victim soon struggles over whether to euthanize children, the mentally ill, and those who do not love the direction in which their life, or the world around them, is heading.”

More relevant articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/netherlands-sees-sharp-increase-in-people-choosing-euthanasia-du/

http://www.bioethics.net/2016/05/euthanasia-for-reasons-of-mental-health/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/harvey-max-chochinov/assisted-suicide-mental-illness_b_9541656.html

There are very few problems in life to which death is the answer, but it doesn’t always look like that to a young person growing up. We already have the highest teen suicide rate in the western world, what would happen if we were to eventually follow the Belgium and Dutch examples?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/85305366/the-highest-rate-of-teen-suicide-in-the-developed-world

We cannot simply ignore this possibility and say it will never happen here. It is happening right now in western liberal democracies just like New Zealand.

Mark Hubbard said...

The National Review is a crony conservative - God squad - rag. All your references are to sensationalising misinformation.

In general the poulations of Belgium and Holland are happy with their euthanasia laws. End of. Their courts are strangely uncluttered with cases of wrongful death.

It is about choice. The safeguards work.

You are disingenuous and duplicitious with this argument because your chief reason against, Brendan, is God.

Mark Hubbard said...

I've now looked at Brendan's Telegraph article entitled 'Netherlands sees sharp increase in people choosing euthanasia due to 'mental health problems' '

Firstly, shock, horror: the Dutch wanted euthanasia legislation and when it was legislated they now use it.

Then, included within 'mental health problems', by far the largest subset is dementia: excellent; that is a big reason I would want the choice of euthanasia (the pity is under Seymour's bill, we still won't have this).

Outside of that, despite the scaremongering Brendan is trying to promote, mental health, altogether, is a very small percentage of all euthanasias ... look at the graph in that piece. The biggest category by a huge margin making up about 70% of all euthanasias is cancer (no surprises there), then nervous system disorders, motor neuron disease, etc (no surprises there, I would want the option in that case also), then heart disease, lung disease, etc.

As stated mental health is a minute subset. And even that, outside dementia, fine. I am not so arrogant as to judge someone else's happiness or unhappiness. Neither should any of us be. It is individual choice.

The law as it is operating in Holland, even from reading this sensationalist piece is what I would hope our law could be. So move along, nothing here ...

Anonymous said...

I am a painter too, of contemporary colourful landscapes, I paint with linseed oil
and Indian ink. As a Christian I am forcing no one to do anything, it's up to you, but I do get annoyed at the bashing Christianity gets nowadays whilst all over religions get a free run. That's the rub. The left want to break down Western society as it was and is based on Christian values, and the left mostly hate that. So, the world is now taking God out of the picture, and look at the result. Violence, mess, mayhem, confusion, etc. Not that God can ever be taken out, it's just mankind being arrogant.
The last days may well be here Mark, do you ever think on that?? Why would one want to kill themselves early? Life is a gift and taking life has to be wrong.

Mark Hubbard said...

5.22 I despise all religions equally, but you're welcome to practice: just don't force your beliefs on me as Brendan does.

Perhaps despise is a strong word. Laughable is better. You say 'The last days may well be here Mark, do you ever think on that?'

Snort. I might as well believe in the Hobbit, it would make the same amount of sense. But that's the idiot belief system that demands I don't have the rational choice of euthanasia.

Last days ...LOL

Redbaiter said...

Truly, I do not think there is a great movement or a great conspiracy. The world is chaotic and random. Yes, patterns of thought and behaviour can be categorized and labelled retrospectively but most humble individuals have no idea they are bit-players in your personal history (and projection) of the western world.

Nevertheless, I cleave to the same idea that you have about govt policies shaping and influencing. The thing is, you see them all going in a negative way whereas I see them going in divergent ways. Some good, some bad.

Life goes on. It is ever-changing. There is no utopia.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lindsay- Remember when we all inspired by Perigo and his "Beat the bastards back"? How long ago was that? Thirty years? Longer?

Well, we've failed miserably. We had a limp National govt under Bolger & Shipley, both traitors to the party founders. Then we had years of Clark, followed by even worse, the abject surrender party led by Key whose Textor policy style has reduced elections to where they are basically a popularity contest between far left progressive party leaders. NZ is done. The bastards have won.

There is indeed a "great movement" and as I keep saying over and over and over, its no conspiracy. Its out in the open. The left, although they prefer us not to talk about Cultural Marxism and Critical theory, make no secret that it is their pathway to power.

Turn your eyes from NZ politics and you can see the same political pattern being followed all over the West. Especially in respect of issues that jolt our traditional culture. Why? How? For the same thing to be happening in exactly the same way there in so many diverse countries, there has to be a central force driving it.

(BTW, I don't want Utopia. I just want govt wound back to the size it was pre WWII. That would do me fine.)

We didn't beat the bastards back because we were never really sure who they were. Now we know. "They" are the Cultural Marxists who originally emanated from the Frankfurt School and have now seeped their ideas into most Western universities and from there into the media and popular culture.

The task is to take Western culture back. That means never giving the bastards one more inch of ground.

Redbaiter said...

Here's one of the most brilliant comments I have ever read anywhere on the issue of Cultural Marxism. I saved it from a forum somewhere and know nothing of the author other than his name. (Dan O'Connor) It encapsulates our circumstances so accurately and succinctly the guy who wrote it (IMHO) deserves a Pulitzer.

(He won't get one though, because the Cultural Marxists own the Pulitzer committee today, just like they own all of our cultural institutions.)

If you occupied what was considered the ideological/ moral centre ground In 1965, and went to sleep for 50 years and woke up In 2015, you'd find yourself occupying the ideological/ moral "far right". You didn't have to budge one inch ideologically to find yourself there. That whizzing sound you heard was the ideological /cultural centre ground zooming over to the Cultural Marxist hard left.

Everything that was considered mainstream obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965, is now considered by our political, academic and media elite to be bigoted, ignorant, hateful, xenophobic, racist, extremist, and some form of mental abnormality.

In other words, within the space of 50 years, morality, right, wrong, evil, good, normal, obvious, extreme, sanity, truth, beneficial, dangerous and the instinct for group self­ preservation, has been inverted and stood upside down on its head.

Never before in the entire course of human history, has an entire culture, race and civilization decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and identities to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies it and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy. European man is in a civilizational death dance.


What is Cultural Marxism and what is Critical Theory?

Mark Wahlberg said...

I have just read in the paper of another in-patient walking off the ward at Palmerston North Hospital, disappearing, and being discovered dead two days later. Nobody asking for permission there.

I have a couple of associates who were senior mental health workers. Both have mental health issues and self medicated when employed. Go figure!!

A few years ago I was travelling around Iceland and having trouble dealing with the sunlight at 3oclock in the morning. I asked how do people deal with the long dark winter days and what do they do with all that darkness? I was told in a matter of fact manner that many commit suicide. It was said in a way which suggested it was the norm.. Dont know what that means but it flows with the comments.

Mark Hubbard said...

Red. I am as against cultural Marxism as you are. It has NOTHING to do with my choice of euthanasia. Your argument against euthanasia , however, belongs to the collectivised living of cultural Marxism, not to post-Enlightened free individual lives where we have wrestled volition back from authoritarian tyrants, be they monarchs or popes.

You have no right to deny me choice, as that choice doesn't affect you.

Even if, apparently, we are in the last days, with the dark clouds descending from Mordor.

KG said...

Anonymouse said: "It's simply another name for suicide, and suicide is wrong."
Spoken like one who has never been faced with the choice, or loved somebody who has been faced with it.
There are worse things than death, and suicide can be a perfectly rational and honourable response to them.
Nobody has the right to deny a person who is still capable of rational thought the right to end his or her life at the time they choose.
Conflating this with killing granny is simply dishonest.
I've known Christians who have maintained that suffering "brings us closer to God" and that attitude, to me at least, is naked, arrogant barbarism.

Brendan McNeill said...

From the Federalist:

"Politicians in the Netherlands are discussing the possibility of legalizing euthanasia for healthy people. The proposed “Completed Life Bill” would allow any person age 75 or over who decides their life is “complete” to receive euthanasia. It doesn’t matter if they are otherwise perfectly healthy."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/30/netherlands-considers-euthanasia-healthy/

Mark Hubbard said...

Let's see, quote 'The Federalist is an English-language online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion.'

Current articles up:

The Vatican’s Statement On UK Baby Condemned To Die Is Frightening.
How Vacation Bible School Drove Millennials Away From Church.
After Barring Geologist From Grand Canyon Because He’s A Christian, Park Service Relents...

...Ooookay Brendan. No bias there then.

I would first question the accuracy of this piece.

If I play devils advocate and accept it at face value, then this still has nothing to do with the debate in NZ which is only about sufferers of terminal illness within twelve months of death. END.OF.STORY.

You'll note that this *possibility* is only being *discussed* - this is not law. Even if brought in as law it would apply only to people over 75 who decide their life in complete. I have absolutely no problem with that as we cannot know (or deem) another individual's happiness or unhappiness. This is an issue of individual volition.

More dishonest scare-mongering from Brendan.

There are many many more jurisdictions outside of Holland that allow euthanasia, in all that I can glean - including Holland - it is working towards the peoples wishes with no abuse. Point us to wrongful death court cases, Brendan.

The problem is when you view everything through God-goggles you end up like 5.22 above who actually believes we may be in the Last Days because God has ... what? Decided to call shop for some reason after billions of years. Random, childish insanity. I want the rational choice of euthanasia, that choice for me doesn't affect those infected with the Christian psychopathy, so the religious argument against euthanasia is irrelevant.

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Mark

Rest easy. This news item was widely reported by other agencies including the NYTimes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/13/netherlands-may-allow-assisted-dying-for-those-who-feel-life-is-complete

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/dutch-may-allow-assisted-suicide-for-those-who-feel-they-have-co/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/netherlands-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-life-complete-extended-dying-laws-edith-schippers-a7359226.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/world/europe/dutch-law-would-allow-euthanasia-for-healthy-elderly-people.html?_r=0

When euthanasia legislation is enacted, overseas experience demonstrates that there is pressure to extend the catchment of people who may qualify, be it children as was the case in both Belgium and the Netherlands or in this case it is the healthy elderly. Some of it is led by activists, but this time it appears to be the politicians in the Netherlands who are leading the charge.

These are the facts. Free from emotion, faith or no faith and containing less calories than your average diet coke. Ok, so I made up the bit about the coke. It's a serious subject but I felt the need to lighten up the discourse a little.

Mark Hubbard said...

When euthanasia legislation is enacted, overseas experience demonstrates that there is pressure to give individuals the choices that they want. I would be more than happy to have our own euthanasia law as a copy of Holland's, but alas ours will be extremely limited, despite your shameless scare-mongering. Let's stick to Seymour's bill.

Mark Wahlberg said...

Well its obvious all sides to this debate are firmly entrenched in their own beliefs and no one appears to be getting ready to surrender even a modicum of ground to the opposition anytime soon. I suppose thats as it should be. Consensus for the sake of harmony is dream time stuff.

I suspect conservative politicians will have eyes for their majority if it comes to a vote and individual voters can make their own choice come election day.

So if my cancer gets the better of me, I hope I can deal with it in a mature fashion and wont be needing anyone permission to make my choice what ever it may be. What is important for me is, I dont want to leave a mess behind for others to clean up. I built my own coffin years ago, its down the back of the shed. Pink and purple colour scheme. But that wasn't because I had a premonition. My daily driver was an old hearse and I needed something in the back to hold my groceries when I went shopping. It was obvious to me.................


Mark Hubbard said...

Mark W: all the best for your travels. You're a wise man.

And your point about the mess is really important. Without this law many in desperation have and will always resort to their own solution, but those solutions are often awful (Rosie Mott), and yes, messy. You have to go alone and the mess is what your loved ones have to deal with. It's barbaric. We need this civilised law and I so hope you get it in time (if needed).

Mark Wahlberg said...

Thank you Lindsay and thank you Mark. With the world awash with murder and mayhem, people dying because of acts of God( I use that term loosely) , human error or simply classed as collateral damage in someones else's war. its front page news today, page 3 tomorrow and from there into oblivion And they have the gall to call us not of sound mind when we choose to exercise free will.

Irony. I have the right to engage in dangerous sport which could end in death because that's about making value judgement's and thats ok, but god forbid i should take my life into my own hands in extenuating circumstance such as has been discussed here!!!

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Mark Wahlberg

One of the reasons we talk past each other, is the desire by many to view euthanasia simply as a matter of ‘individual choice’ whereas others like myself have grave concerns about delegating to the state the right to take my life (or your life) for any reason.

The 20th century is replete with leaders who thought nothing of taking the lives of their citizens for any reason. For those of you particularly concerned about the influence of Christianity on our culture, consider this; Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al were all godless atheists who between them engineered the death of 30 Million national citizens.

Given that historical context I’d have thought a celebration of Christianity’s focus on the preservation of human life, including yours, might have been in order.

Yes, Mark, the world is awash with murder and mayhem, primarily in the name of Islam. It’s a common mistake for those who are of no faith, to presume all religions are the same. They are not. It’s also a common mistake to presume that those who are people of faith have abandoned reason. We have not.

We are all animated by what we understand to be good, true and just – at least I hope we are. Part of everyone’s challenge, particularly over the euthanasia debate is to recognize that this issue, at least in part, is greater than my individual right to choose to die. I understand the argument and it’s a logical extension of our culture’s celebration of individualism and personal choice. I like to exercise choice as well.

However, if demanding my right (to death) may eventually put other lives at risk, (as I have previously outlined concerning those with depression) am I still morally free to peruse those rights?

Yes, I know this bill doesn’t do that, but no one posting to this blog can guarantee we won’t end up like the Netherlands or Belgium because of its passing.

Anonymous said...

Can't have it both ways Red. NZ's social policy has been "applied Christianity" since the 30s; the codger dole dates to the 1890s.

Pro welfare, anti abortion & anti euthanasia is a rational "Christian" position. It's the official position of the Catholics, who tend to think things through.

Anti welfare, pro abortion & pro euthanasia is a rational "libertarian" position. Personal responsibility.

Pro welfare, pro abortion & pro euthanasia is a rational "secular left" position. The state will help people stay alive or die as they wish.

Anti welfare, anti abortion & anti euthanasia is nothing but applied cruelty. Slavery. Condemning people to die slowly and painfully, by starvation or disease - whether uneducated with no dole at 20, terminal cancer at 50, or savings run out at 80.



Mark Wahlberg said...

Oh my gosh Lindsay, 100. Do you expect a telegram from the Palace?

Mark Hubbard said...

And now Brendan is onto Nazis. (I guess at least they existed; the fella governing the rest of his thoughts on this doesn't).

Let me rephrase you, again, Brendan. You say: 'One of the reasons we talk past each other, is the desire by many to view euthanasia simply as a matter of ‘individual choice’ STOP.

That's all need be said. I have no fear at all of a Nazi state wanting to kill me off in my senility. Or if it got to that stage, I reckon euthanasia would be the least of our problems and certainly no argument for denying ourselves inalienable rights in the present. Brendan's argument is now the equivalent of we must ban guns because the Nazis used them to kill people.

Brendan McNeill said...

Hi Mark

You state that voluntary euthanasia is an ‘inalienable right’. On the basis that rights are conferred, who or what is the source of that inalienable right of which you speak?

The truth is there is no ‘inalienable right’ to take one’s own life. At best you are the source of such ‘rights’, and are therefore self-referencing when you make such a claim.

That’s not unusual in our present culture, but how then shall we live together if we are all gods, free to act as we please?

Mark Hubbard said...

We shall live together as free men, peacefully transacting with one another voluntarily. As opposed to the trillions of humans who've been throughout history, and continue to be, slaughtered by psychopaths for Christ, Allah, etc.

There can only be peace when we adopt a morality of man qua man.

For Christ's sake, Brendan, grow up.

Mark Wahlberg said...

Evening Brendan
I take your point about the Marxist, Maoist, Islamic dictators sacrificing millions of innocent people pursuing their ideology or maniacal ambitions.

But lets not forget down through the centuries so called western nations have been fighting just wars and in doing so, doing Gods work. As a lay person i have always interpreted this to mean killing people in a just war has the Christian Gods blessing. Dont buy into that myself.

From memory it was 1968 and the Vietnam war was starting to escalate and i got involved with the protest movement and took part in several protests. To be honest it was more about meeting young ladies than stopping any war, but it was an early attempt to multi task on my part.

Around this time it was announced Compulsory Military Service was to cease and the last ballot was held,believing the Gods had to be on my side, I thought no more about it. That is until I received a notice from the then Labour Department informing me my birthdate was the very last marble to be drawn in the ballot and would I please present myself for pre-induction screening.

Because I had other things to do, I decided to report to the Labour Department to let them know "Thanks, but no thank". Well that went down like the proverbial balloon and I received a lecture from a gentleman who had been cursed with a speech defect and probably been getting shit for it most of his life. Here I was, young and according to this guy. under his authority. Got all the crap about defending Gods own from the Godless hordes of Communists who were at that very moment gearing up to sweep down to NZ and rape my mother and sisters and i would be sent to work in Siberian salt mines. I was accused of being in the pay of the Devil. It was my Duty to serve King and Country and protect our christian faith from attack. And or words to that effect. He gave me a sheet of printed paper, told me to read it and follow the instructions. told him I couldn't do that because I couldn't read. I got called a "disgrace" and was told he was ashamed "good men had died defending cowards like me"

by this time I was on the verge of creating a riot when the office filled up with other staff who joined in the chorus of jeers directed at the commie coward.

I left swearing revenge.

I got sympathetic friends to fill in the official forms which allowed me challenge the governments order and waited for my day in court.

I cant remember, it must have been a year later when i appeared before the jury of my peers and pleaded my case. I had no formal education, but spoke from the heart about my life in an alien world. I believe my case was assisted by the fact it was heard straight after the lunch break and I didnt need to be a rocket scientist to know those sitting in judgement of me had had a liquid lunch and were in a mellow frame of mind when they granted my request and I was excused from Military service with no penalty.
In hindsight that was my revenge.

the entire experience helped further cement my prejudice against authority figures for the rest of my life. I have railed against everything and everybody who has ever attempted to rule my life.

When i was younger i did it with my fists. The I learnt to do it with words. my stance has created many difficulties for me over the years. I dont join groups and dont fight on others crusades. But strangely enough, I have many fond memories of those times.

Sorry about the rave, just bought back some ugly memories.

getting back to your comments Brendan and meaning no disrespect to you. I have no time what so ever for this Christian God whom I'm told loves me.

KG said...

"The truth is there is no ‘inalienable right’ to take one’s own life. At best you are the source of such ‘rights’..."
Ownership of ourselves is the starting and end-point in discussions about choosing to end our own lives.
My life, my right to dispose of it should I see fit.
I can see how assisting somebody to do that might be a moral/ethical minefield but the choice of an individual acting alone should be no part of the argument, surely?

Mark Hubbard said...

This piece is a perfect summary on how badly we have been represented on euthanasia law by our parliament (and the tactics of the against campaign to distort representation - especially by the priest MP Simon O'Connor who sabotaged the euthanasia committee he chaired in total bad faith):

http://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/mps-opposed-to-euthanasia-will-be-uncomfortable-this-year/