My mom died of metastatic liver cancer. We had her at home, with a hospice service coming every couple of days to check on her. We were given a large bottle of morphine to give her sub-cutaneous injections when she showed signs of pain. We were told not to worry about giving her too much.

It didn't come to that, but euthanasia would have been easy under such circumstances.

Mindy

I would also extend this to the case in hand. If you have a loved other who for whatever reason has become gravely ill, is dying and incommunicado, and they haven't given instructions for such a situation (because perhaps the majority of people don't think about this, or their death), but the surviving partner knows that person well, and knows their wishes in the circumstances they are in would have been for euthanasia, then I think that is quite acceptable, and again, is not the initiation of force.

You did have to appeal to empathy here to justify the use of force.

I think empathy is the real basis of your morality.

I also think it would be possible for a libertarian that lacks empathy to deny death in this situation.

Here is what I read in the NZ Herald this morning, from the Crown... 

"...crown prosecutor Ross Douch urged a custodial sentence, saying Crutchley knew what he was doing was illegal and he had acted in a premeditated way. He said Crutchley had also deprived other family members of the chance to farewell their mother and his actions were "in fact, unnecessary...Because of his own subjective views he has completely disregarded one of the most serious laws we have to murder his own mother..."

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

His mother was 'writhing' in pain; absolutely beyond any ability to help herself, or kill herself. I think her consulting the newspaper was out.

But following your logic, how about this Elijah? The government pass a law giving the bureaucrats complete control of your mouth: you have to get permission for everything you say. Why?

Because last second, as the air comes up your throat and over your tongue to be formed into words, you might say something completely moronic, so obviously for your own sake freedom of speech should be abrogated. Society just has your best interests at heart.

Lindsay, as I said to Mark, I think this sort of thing could get out of hand...what if during the last 10 seconds of her life his Mother changed her mind and decided to try some new treatment she read about in the newspaper?

Had she wanted to die she could have topped herself.

I accept the charges against this fellow were silly, but nevertheless he was found guilty and should have been 'punished', not effectively let off.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

The mother was pleading for release from her appalling pain. That is not in dispute. What's the matter with you?

I suggest you do some research. Start by renting and watching The Sea Inside.

Because they may change their mind at the last moment.

WTF?

Because they may change their mind at the last moment.

That is my answer. All rather simple.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

How do you reconcile your (supposed) Libertarianism with this repugnance for euthanasia?

Do you believe an individual should have no control over how they die, and ensuring they can die with dignity?

And you've put up no appropriate argument to be refuted: this thread was never about the sentencing, it is about the fact he was found guilty and had to be sentenced.

So you cannot refute any actual argument I make....you just engage in personal abuse? ...well, no surprises there, then...tut, tut, tut

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

I am a great advocate of suicide, but am not a fan of euthanasia ...because this sort of thing can get rather out of hand.

Sorry, I knew you were no Objectivist, but did think you a Libertarian. Another illusion dispelled.

Mark, Mark, Mark...ha ha..gosh...

This is why we have laws and Judges and Courts...so that working class people, and their naive views of right and wrong and morality, are not running the show ...ha ha...what you say is amusing...but yes, gosh, that is why Judges are there, to ensure that emotion does not come into it, but only facts and the law.

After reading what happened to this poor victim I am shocked at the sentence...the Judge has rather let the side down...and this is not good.

I am a great advocate of suicide, but am not a fan of euthanasia ...because this sort of thing can get rather out of hand.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

His mother was in incredible pain from her terminal medical condition, quote, she was 'writhing' in pain. The fact he did not have the appropriate means to end her misery is in part due to the fact that euthanasia is illegal, thus doctors can't be involved.

And you're only concerned with 'consistency in sentencing'! You're a very cold hearted man Elijah.

Again, how do you reconcile your Libertarianism with this repugnance for euthanasia?

Have you read a transcript of the trial? ...read what the victim underwent in her last seconds? (matters not disputed by the defence)....suggest you do before going off half cocked on this matter.

Under New Zealand law there is a requirement for 'consistency in sentencing' and this blows that out the window.

Watching this chap on television as I write this...and most unimpressed...the new catchphrase seems to be "a compassionate response"..how pathetic.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Then you are a compassionless cad Elijah.

How do you reconcile your Libertarianism with your repugance of euthanasia?

No, Mark, I do not have it wrong....the Jury went through the childish motions of asking for mercy, but the Judge is still able to ignore all that nonsense.

He caused the death of another person.

His sentence is light..(to put it mildly)..and that is a disgrace compared with sentences handed out for more, ummmmm, minor matters.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

No Elijah, you really must read whole threads because you've got it all wrong, again.

A man who relieved the suffering of his mother, now has a criminal record for the rest of his life, and is being punished for acting out of compassion and love for another.

That is what was despicable.

Keep up.

I am gobsmacked at the sentence!

I am sorry to say..(sorry for getting caught, that is) .. I have some experience of the Justice and Court system..*blushes*..and over the years I have received rather stiff sentences (in my opinion) for matters as minor as gold smuggling, resisting arrest, assisting escape from lawful custody, contempt of court, money laundering, criminal nuisance, assaulting a Police Officer and conspiring to defeat justice.

It is therefore astounding you get community service for causing another person's death!

This is a disgrace! ..what about the female who expired?

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Coincidentally Mr Crutchley's sentence was issued today. And despicable it is. Quoted from NewstalkZB's homepage.

9/07/2008 14:32:11

A Taumarunui man has been sentenced to community detention for administering his dying mother an overdose of morphine.

Ian Crutchley was found guilty of attempted murder in May, for giving his mother the drugs as she lay dying of stomach cancer.

When the jury returned its verdict a request for leniency in sentencing was made.

Crutchley has been given the maximum sentence for community detention of six months. That means he has an electronic anklet to monitor his whereabouts during curfew periods. He also has to complete 150 hours of community work.

The way they have interpreted those scriptures, if they were consistent, they would not seek treatment, nor provide treatment, for something like a broken leg. And if this type of suffering is what those scriptures are about then pain relief would deprive the dying of that suffering. I think the author was aware of this implication of his interpretation which is why he preceded his reasoning with "that cannot be relieved by modern medical means". The author just can't accept death as a means to relieve the suffering of someone who is dying.

Not too sure of what you're getting at here Reed, other than I agree with your assessment. The Bible probably could be interpreted to mean no suffering should be alleviated by man; some Christians certainly give a nod in that direction, albeit may not always follow it. For example, Jehovah's Witness not accepting blood transfusions; at least two court cases in NZ I can think of over last couple of years where Christian parents have not sought medical attention for sick children who have subsequently died.

Are you sure euthanasia wouldn't be prevented in cases like this by Cruel Libertarian Fascists observing the NIOF principle?

By euthanasia it is meant, or I certainly mean it, a voluntary ending of one's life, assisted by knowing others if the individual is not able to do it for themselves. Thus the initiation of force is not an issue.

I would also extend this to the case in hand. If you have a loved other who for whatever reason has become gravely ill, is dying and incommunicado, and they haven't given instructions for such a situation (because perhaps the majority of people don't think about this, or their death), but the surviving partner knows that person well, and knows their wishes in the circumstances they are in would have been for euthanasia, then I think that is quite acceptable, and again, is not the initiation of force.

Sorry Reed, I'll get back to this thread over the week.

Mark -

Mark: Again, these scriptures clearly forbid the possibility of euthanasia for the Christian

Richard: I agree.

The way they have interpreted those scriptures, if they were consistent, they would not seek treatment, nor provide treatment, for something like a broken leg. And if this type of suffering is what those scriptures are about then pain relief would deprive the dying of that suffering. I think the author was aware of this implication of his interpretation which is why he preceded his reasoning with "that cannot be relieved by modern medical means". The author just can't accept death as a means to relieve the suffering of someone who is dying.

Are you sure euthanasia wouldn't be prevented in cases like this by Cruel Libertarian Fascists observing the NIOF principle?

Thus God repaid the wickedness that Abimelech had done to his father by murdering his seventy brothers.
Judges 9:56

A question for Christians... WTF?

euthanasia is the usurpation of God's dominion.
Judges 9:53-56 indicates that euthanasia does not usurp God's dominion.

I hope this bypasses the divergent points you raised.

Questions for objectivists...

In the Ian Crutchley case there is no indication that his mother expressed a desire to be killed. If you believe in "non initiation of force" then how can you justify a euthanasia killing where the desire for death is not expressed?

Can you justify it without resorting to empathy (i.e. to love others as yourself)?

Again, these scriptures clearly forbid the possibility of euthansia for the Christian 

I agree.

I beg to disagree. I have given chapter and verse for my argument, which you have ignored.

I've read every piece of scripture you've posted, but I don't see anything in it that would mandate jail for voluntary euthanasia. A religious mentality steeped in that stuff would most probably desire to make it illegal, and no doubt punishable, but where's the Christian mandate for doing so?

Sure, according to Christianity God is the ulitmate authority, and you'll be judged on judgement day. But that doesn't negate freewill. According to Christianity, God gave us freewill to be exercised in this world and to be judged on in the next. A big part of Christianity is allowing the exercise of that freewill, because it is God who answers personal immoral actions, not the living. I submit that to thwart voluntary euthanasia is actually unchristian.

Yes, but of course there is the rub. A Christian has freewill, but the exercise of it can only usually get them into trouble. Such as when they break 'Thou Shalt not Kill', without a written note from God: that would be an example of how freewill more often than not is simply a short cut straight to the fiery pit.

I would also point out that via euthanasia, or suicide, the Christian further sinfully denies the divinely decreed meaning in suffering. Read the Christian viewpoint.

I especially love this bit, (backed up note, with scripture):

God's dominion includes all of life, which means that suffering is a part of God's providence. Therefore, suffering that cannot be relieved by modern medical means is to be accepted as from the hand of a loving God who knows what He is doing, even when we do not understand. "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons" (Hebrews 12:7). The purpose of suffering for the Christian is sanctification or "to be conformed to the likeness of His Son" (Romans 8:29) and "it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace" for those trained by it (Hebrews 12:10). "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all" (2 Corinthians 4:17). In other words, although we are all made in God's image, we are each to a greater or lesser degree like Him, and God is carrying to completion this great work that He has begun in all believers (Phil. 1:6).

Again, these scriptures clearly forbid the possibility of euthansia for the Christian, as who is to question God on how much suffering should be endured? Or are we saying the Bible is just an historical construct, and can be largely dismissed Reed? (Watch out, there's barbs in this one).

Repeat, a Christian is bound to the moral edicts of a mystical Other. And therein lies the evil.

I think Reeds position is more plausible than yours.

I beg to disagree. I have given chapter and verse for my argument, which you have ignored. Reed has given a very shaky single biblical reference which I have argued against, and in the weight of all the evidence I am giving against his interpretation.

By Reed's freewill he is risking damnation on this point.

Reed, I charge you with heresy, can you please go to the back of the room where Rowan Atkinson is waiting with a suitable punishment, which will be to inanely argue this point with Richard for all eternity.

There are most certainly many Christians, and many whole 'sects' of Christianity that are pacifist (Amish),

Sure, but as the saying goes, don't judge Christianity by the Christians you meet, and don't judge the Christians you meet by Christianity. 

 My point is, per my scripture quotations below, that as a Christian you do not own your life,

Sure, according to Christianity God is the ulitmate authority, and you'll be judged on judgement day. But that doesn't negate freewill. According to Christianity, God gave us freewill to be exercised in this world and to be judged on in the next. A big part of Christianity is allowing the exercise of that freewill, because it is God who answers personal immoral actions, not the living. I submit that to thwart voluntary euthanasia is actually unchristian. 

and it is not your choice whether or not you kill: that is God's choice, not the individual, thus euthanasia is the usurpation of God's dominion.

No it's not, because, as pointed out above, God gave everyone freewill. I think Reeds position is more plausible than yours.

There's a subtle distinction (well, not subtle, but anyway), that I'm not getting across here.

But does that exclude killing in self-defence? I didn't think that Christianity was a pacifist religion?

There are most certainly many Christians, and many whole 'sects' of Christianity that are pacifist (Amish), but that is not my point at all. My point is, per my scripture quotations below, that as a Christian you do not own your life, and it is not your choice whether or not you kill: that is God's choice, not the individual, thus euthanasia is the usurpation of God's dominion.

That doesn't mean it is necessarily a pacifist religion, God was no pacifist, and he could order Christians to kill. Indeed, the Bible does sanction governments employing capital punishment - but at God's behest. The significant point is, 'Thou shalt not kill' - this is God's decision, not that of the individual.

Reed quotes Matthew 22
(36) “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” (37) Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (40) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

'You shall love your neighbour', in light of the verses I have quoted below, in no way allows for the individual choice of euthanasing the neighbour. 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind', because he owns all of these faculties (let's pretend for this that a soul exists), but via this love, you shall obey him, and he says 'Thou (the individual) shalt not kill', unless given the green light by Big Daddy.

Something about all this I have never been able to understand is why "voluntary suicide" is not more common.

I once had a serious illness which took three years (!) 2000 - 2003 to get over, I refer to it as my "Lost Weekend" ..and my view is "never again".

Were I to have terminal cancer, or something equally as bad..(having previously endured months and months of treatment, months and months of rehabilitation, months and months of pain and other problems)....I would shrug my shoulders, accept reality, dismiss 'wishful thinking', and then.."put the cue back in the rack and let someone else have a turn" (so to speak).

But does that exclude killing in self-defence? I didn't think that Christianity was a pacifist religion?

That sounds reasonable to me, Reed. I had thought of "Thou shalt not kill", as the basis (along with life is sacred, wherever that comes from), but really, without considering that within the wider context of Christianity,one can't conclude that it disallows voluntary euthanasia.

Don't agree. The orientation is completely different.

The Libertarian non-initiation of force does not preclude me killing in self-defense.

Whereas the Christian 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' derives from the fact God owns your life, and the life of every human, thus 'to kill' is solely his prerogative, not the individual, for whom to take a life is to ursurp God's will.

Or, to fill in the blanks.

God owns the spirits of all flesh.

Numbers 16:22, “And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?”

Numbers 27:16, “Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,”

Hebrews 12:23, “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,”

God has appointed a time for all to die

Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?”

Death is when the spirit leaves the body. This is an act of God.

Ecclesiastes 8:8, “There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.”

James 2:26, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

The Lord even sees when a sparrow falls (Matthew 10:29). Although animals do not have a soul they do have spirits (Ecclesiastes 3:21).

Euthanasia is the taking of a life before God’s time.

 “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,” Matthew 19:18.

"Thou shalt not kill."???

A poor choice of example maybe?

Objectivism/libertarianism doesn't say 'please don't' kill either.

Problem is, the Christians have interpreted "thou shalt not kill" VERY literally.

"Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13)

Not 'please don't', thou 'shalt not' murder, abort, infanticide or participate in euthanasia.

'Shalt not'. And you can't argue the point, you don't own your life.

Interesting.

Work commitments this week are making it virtually impossible for me to spend time here, so I'll get back to this either next weekend or week.

Mark -
Matthew 22
(36) “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” (37) Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (40) On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Depending on the circumstances, euthanasing may be to "love your neighbor as yourself". Note that love is the basis for the whole law, so any Christian proposal to deny euthanasia would have to be based on love.

Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox - all these major branches of Christianity specifically prohibit euthanasia.
Does it matter how many Christians have this belief if it isn't consistent with Jesus' teachings?

Also, a Christian that considers killing in self defense, killing in war or the death penalty to be just can not rightly claim that euthanasia is unjust based on "God's ownership" or "the sanctity of life".

Richard -
if it's not rooted in Christianity, Reed, then where?
My theory is that people make the following logical error...
Murder is wrong. Murder is killing. Therefore killing (including euthanasia) is wrong.
If the person making the error has religious morality then they may justify their conclusion in a religious manner.
I suspect most people would just accept the idea from some authority and wouldn't even get as far as making the logical error.

Please forget the 'fascism': I'm regretting ever bringing it up. Apparently it has just unnecessarily muddied the waters, because I really have no idea what it is I'm supposed to be debating with you, although vis a vis 'fascism' I thought my dictionary definition post below stated my position well, (and thus I see no gain in developing this aspect any further).

It's just a detour to irrelevancy.

Just bumping my former post to get back to the interesting content.

What reason do you have for specifying "Cruel Christian Fascists"?

It heartens me that you are not against euthanasia, Reed, however, that would not be the Christian 'line', which is that one's life is a gift from God, and cannot be thrown away at will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2003) sums the general view up probably best:

2280: Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

The thought that as a Christian you are not the owner of your life (which is why an Objectivist forum is such a strange place for you to be), is not just specifically Catholic, but 'Christian'.

Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox - all these major branches of Christianity specifically prohibit euthanasia.

So a question back to you: if you support euthanasia, then how are you not ursurping the will of God, and how can you square this away with 'your' Christianity?

You are of course aware of the contradiction, also, in your post, namely:

I support euthanasia.

And then, " Which is why I think euthanasia should remain illegal for now."

I understand your second statement, as you give the reasoning for it (I don't agree, but at least your reasoning is there). Thus, as contradictions always worry me (including in myself, that's why I would hope forum members would always point them out), I think, in conjunction with my question above, you need to explicate fully on what grounds you support euthanasia?

For me that question is easy, I reckon for you impossible, which partly explains the contradiction

And that's tea time for me. 

I had no intention of bringing up Islam in this thread ever. It didn't even enter my head. You were the one who mentioned Islam, so I commented on that. That's all. My intention was solely to explore the Christian Fascism part. If it is Christian Fascism that has lead to Mr Crutchley's predicament, then it better be Christian Fascism that is explored. To fix his problem it needs to be pulled out at the root. So why you have a problem with discussing the roots, I do not know. Why you think that to discuss them is to lack compassion for Mr Crutchley, again, I do not know. I think it's disgusting that he faces a prison sentence, and those who support that are cruel and disgusting for doing so.

P.S. I apologise for talking to you that way, but you make an awful lot of assumptions some times. You piss me off.

and you are so way off beam as to my intentions

Oh, well in that case I stand corrected. Please state clearly your intentions. 

Commander Wiig, you are so consumed by hate that you have no human compassion in you.

 You don't have one fucking clue about what I feel, and you are so way off beam as to my intentions that I have to question how much of your brain you actually use.

Commander Wiig, you are so consumed by hate that you have no human compassion in you.

Decent human beings would have realised from the outset my original post was only about one thing: an individual called Mr Crutchley, and his current plight before the law.

Reed's posts interest me, because they are fair, direct questionings relating to this topic, one which he has a vested interest in. You're just trying to get this thread to 'Islam is worse than Christianity', which is applicable to nothing interesting, or relevant. As Linz said, topic at hand.

“A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?”
Albert Einstein

Bullshit it's about that alone. You've headed it "Cruel Christian Fascist". Not Cruel Fascists, but Christians Fascists. If you don't want to deal with the Christian aspect of it, then don't head it like that.

... I'm with you. Just a word to our Jihad-watchers - there's no need to bring Islam into every thread. That gets tedious, even for an Islamophobe like me! This thread is about an obscene court verdict attributable to the vicious influence of Christianity. Let's keep it on topic.

And another reminder - if there's something you want to get off your chest, there's always the outlet of a press release. Don't leave it to Lance and me every time.

Oh for Christ's sake, my fault though, I said the word Islam, and now I'm already up to my neck in Hadiths and Quran, sorry, Qu'rans.

It's a thread about euthanasia. I am not trying to show that fascism is linked to Christianity. I'm not even interested in 'doctrinal' matters thereto.

It's a thread about euthanasia.

No, more than that. It's a thread about how an innocent man, Mr Crutchley, has now been given a criminal record, and a yet to be determined sentence, for nothing more than showing the ultimate human compassion for his mother. And this treatment at the hands of the State, following Christian law in this respect.

It is about that, and that alone. There are to be no Islamics in this thread. In this autocratic fit, I forbid it.

I'm saying that this law making we have, criminalising and thus dictating my actions and consequences if I should choose to help a loved one die with dignity, autocratically according to the morality of an Other, is fascist.

I have no quarrel with that. It is definitely fascist.

I bring to your attention the Merriam_Webster dictionary definition of fascism being, 'a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control'

I know what fascism is.

In the way that we have Islamofascism, there has most certainly always been Christofascism,

Sure. But not in the same way. The foundation for the fascism is? 

and unlike Sharia law, much of that Christofascism forms the bedrock of the laws of our Western democracies are bound on.

Sharia law is clearly and unequivocally founded on the Qur'an and Hadith. Fascism in the western world is not so clearly linked to Christianity though, at least not as far as I am aware. The sentiment against voluntary euthanasia clearly is, but to fascistly impose it? Please show me the doctrinal base for that?

I'm saying that this law making we have, criminalising and thus dictating my actions and consequences if I should choose to help a loved one die with dignity, autocratically according to the morality of an Other, is fascist.

I bring to your attention the Merriam_Webster dictionary definition of fascism being, 'a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control'

In the way that we have Islamofascism, there has most certainly always been Christofascism, and unlike Sharia law, much of that Christofascism forms the bedrock of the laws of our Western democracies are bound on.

I don't dispute that Christianity is at the base of resistance to voluntary euthanasia (if it's not rooted in Christianity, Reed, then where?), but where does the fascism part come in, Mark? Where in Christianity does it say that thou must politically impose it upon others? Or are you just saying that those christians are acting like Fascists?

What reason do you have for specifying "Cruel Christian Fascists"?

It heartens me that you are not against euthanasia, Reed, however, that would not be the Christian 'line', which is that one's life is a gift from God, and cannot be thrown away at will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2003) sums the general view up probably best:

2280: Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

The thought that as a Christian you are not the owner of your life (which is why an Objectivist forum is such a strange place for you to be), is not just specifically Catholic, but 'Christian'.

Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox - all these major branches of Christianity specifically prohibit euthanasia.

So a question back to you: if you support euthanasia, then how are you not ursurping the will of God, and how can you square this away with 'your' Christianity?

You are of course aware of the contradiction, also, in your post, namely:

I support euthanasia.

And then, " Which is why I think euthanasia should remain illegal for now."

I understand your second statement, as you give the reasoning for it (I don't agree, but at least your reasoning is there). Thus, as contradictions always worry me (including in myself, that's why I would hope forum members would always point them out), I think, in conjunction with my question above, you need to explicate fully on what grounds you support euthanasia?

For me that question is easy, I reckon for you impossible, which partly explains the contradiction.

Sounds disappointing.

Just the reverse Reed It is my childhood experience that has allowed me to now be the master of my life, according to the facts of reality, rather than a slave to a mystical Other. Because of this I can believe and practice the non initiation of force, on which human freedom must be founded, whereas, because you are not in control of your life, you cannot, hence explaining an awful lot of mans brutality to man over the last 2000 years.

I have always believed but never attended Sunday school, didn't do grace, didn't attend church and didn't expect personal experiences of Jesus or God.

Oh dear. Are you sure it's God talking to you

Thought I'd get your attention Reed
Yes, you got my attention. You claim that it's Christians that oppose euthanasia. I think you will find Christians that support euthanasia, Christians that oppose euthanasia, Atheists that support euthanasia and Atheists that oppose euthanasia.

I support euthanasia. I haven't discussed euthanasia with many other Christians but of the ones that I have, most of them support euthanasia. I even know a Christian who has assisted with euthanasia (don't tell anyone).

What reason do you have for specifying "Cruel Christian Fascists"?

... don't you think they would always vote for the direction that gives them control over the lives of others...
The path to the most power would be to allow euthanasia but have it administered by the government. An awful prospect. Which is why I think euthanasia should remain illegal for now.

Even as a child, sitting through Sunday school every weekend, church, grace over every meal, everything, there has never been, ever, a personal experience of Jesus or God for myself...

Sounds disappointing. Our backgrounds are quite different, I have always believed but never attended Sunday school, didn't do grace, didn't attend church and didn't expect personal experiences of Jesus or God.

Mr Crutchley's sisters are on Sainsbury in thirty minutes ...

Thought I'd get your attention Reed

Those four politicians you mention are most probably atheists, but don't you think they would always vote for the direction that gives them control over the lives of others by their big state, so of course they would be against you being able to make this final most important decision by, and for, yourself. The major surprise is that any of the current crop of politicians would vote for this Bill.

And this is beside the point. Societys shunning of dying with dignity on your own terms is, at its origin, Christian based. Because that religion is founded on an Other making all your choices for you, and setting your morality.

When you were a Christian did you oppose euthanasia and if so how did you justify that view?

You have no doubt read on my other postings how my family background is initially Exclusive Brethren, and then a Christian upbringing after my direct family was (very fortunately) given the boot from the cultists, however, nowhere will you read I have ever said I was a Christian. Even as a child, sitting through Sunday school every weekend, church, grace over every meal, everything, there has never been, ever, a personal experience of Jesus or God for myself - 'it' never made sense to me on a personal/emotional level, and then later when I could process logical thought without all the baggage, on an intellectual level.

Thus I can say with honesty I would always have been an advocate of euthanasia, before I'd heard of the word, or of Objectivism, etc.

A list of those submitting to the will of Christian Fascists can be found here.

Among them are Michael Cullen, Trevor Mallard, Annette King and Margaret Wilson. Four votes would have made euthanasia legal.

Mark, I suggest that they have other motives than the one you are offering.

When you were a Christian did you oppose euthanasia and if so how did you justify that view?

Gwaze, 56, was found not guilty on a charge of murder and two counts of sexual violation of his 10-year-old, HIV-positive niece and adopted daughter, Charlene Makaza, who died last year.

Gwaze was charged after Charlene died in Christchurch Hospital on January 7 last year, doctors suspecting sexual abuse.

The Crown alleged she suffered anal and genital injuries that a series of medical witnesses said were probably caused by force, and had died of suffocation.

Examination of Charlene's underwear found in a washing machine showed Gwaze's DNA in sperm in the crotch area. A scientist gave evidence it was unlikely to have been deposited during laundering and was consistent with sexual activity.

++++

From what is written in the news item, I can understand a verdict of not guilty of murder. But as for no charges on sexual violation, the evidence appears to be overwhelming.

who are the Christian Fascists?

I simply mean the Western taboo around euthanasia is rooted in Christian (im)morality.

Yes, a rather bad business.

Numerous gang members, whose names and addresses are known to the Constabulary, are able to undertake their criminal activities without penalty, whilst some wet, sad chap gets taken to Court on trumped up charges of attempted murder.

Just absurd.

(Mark, who are the Christian Fascists?  are you meaning the Jury members?)