This entry was posted on Saturday, February 15th, 2014 at 8:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Kim Dotcom has tweeted that he is considering legal action against John Key for “political interference” in supplying Whale Oil with information. I hope he gets better legal advice than his political advice. I have no idea what legal action might be possible.
And David Fisher appears to be taking risks by his association.
Bryce Edwards of APN is bordering on treason with his latest support for the fat German slug. Along with their reborn support for Lecher Len they are a bigger disgrace to print media than Fairfax. May their advertising fall even further.
I wonder what sort of outcry there would be if a man stabbed his sleeping wife through the heart and was found not guilty of murder. The jury appears to have felt sorry for the relations. This is understandable but a wrong verdict is not.
Lucille Scollay trial: Relief over manslaughter verdict
By Kurt Bayer
5:30 AM Friday Feb 14, 2014
A few weeks ago Labour had an absolute shambles of a week. They announced the FaceBook ban, then changed their mind. They announced the Baby Bribe, then it turns out they were lying about it, and then we discovered Cunliffe actually had no idea what the policy was. They announced an antenatal care policy that is exactly what the government already does. Cunliffe didn’t know that Lorde spells her name with an “e”, because he lives in a bubble. And the Baby Bribe tanked in the polls.
I thought this must have been a low point. But the Left has managed to top this in spectacular fashion with a week that might well be the most disastrous in New Zealand history. In fact, all they would have needed to do was to kill a giraffe and this would have been the worst week in political history, anywhere…
Norman has announced that in a coalition of the Left, justice is up for sale. Peters has been caught being his typical evasive self, until it was shown he’d had a series of secret meetings with Dotcom. There are dirty electoral deals, and it looks like Labour, the Greens, and NZ First are supporting a vehicle designed to bust spending laws. There is the stink of secret donations over all three parties of the Banana Coalition, including cash for (a whole lot of) questions. And to top it all off, there was a frenzy of conspiracy theorising alleging Key had the GCSB spying on Peters and Dotcom. The frenzy involved Dotcom, Peters, Norman, The Standard, and the normally sober Grant Robertson. Then we found out the actual sources were Whaleoil and the NZ Herald, making the conspiracy theorists look like tinfoil hat wearing nutbars.
And where was Cunliffe in all this? As far as I can see, this was all too much even for him and he stayed home for the week. Because if he didn’t then he risked being sucked in to the same black hole of failure as Norman, Peters, Mallard, Ardern, Curran, Robertson, Dotcom, and The Standard.
Ah, The Standard. This should be good for a laugh flipper – on the Fairfax poll.
mickysavage: “Its another poll showing a decline in National’s support and its claim about the likely number of seats for National is difficult to fathom. No doubt it will be discussed today.”
0.8 is well within the 3.1% margin of sampling error. 49.4 versus 31.8 indicates micky is well outside the reality zone.
One Anonymous Bloke: “I pick you’ll do your best to ignore cold, hard, reality: the trend is still down, and Fairfax routinely overstates National’s support by 6% or more, so yes, I think they’ll be concerned, and I’m sure you would be too, if you had the cognitive chops.”
I’m not sure that Cunliffe will be celebrating this result.
What is frightening to me though davidp, whatever the good news is for National getting a third term is that even now, about 35 – 45% of the NZ voting public are clearly completely f***ing mental. They actually aren’t happy with the way things are, and think things will actually get better under a Lab/Green etc coalition. It just beggars belief.
Which is why I didn’t buy any of the shares put on the block last year. Too risky.
davidp – and the polling didn’t cover any of the period all that happened.
It’s worth repeating one astute comment at The Standard:
Jeez, it is so frustrating to see such a paucity of intellectual rigour and analysis that many of you are reduced to such delusionist fantasies. Seriously, how many voters in New Zealand in the second decade of the 21st century think like this? I’ll tell you what, not many.
Please, for the love of the great Socialist tradition I know of, stop this personality-based dislike of John Key and articulate a vision of a better and more decent society.
I enjoyed that.
It is a clear example of why the deluded vote for or support labour, the red melons and the Poo party.
I notice that Craig got a burp, probably due to Key. But a long way from home is Mr Craig.
Down with the venal (or is it venile?) Peters, the enemy of unfettered people flows (and the wealth they deliver to landlords/construction sector). I should mention – embarrassment to the Greens and Laba.
– 63.7% think the country is on the right track, 35.6% think it is on the wrong track
– 48.4 per cent supported the $60 a week payment (baby bonus) while 48.1 per cent were opposed.
– 67.2 per cent opposed and only 27.2 per cent in favour of raising taxes to fund new initiatives.
That first result is National’s friend and Labour’s enemy. That may be why the left seems disillusioned, lashing out seems to be all that they’ve got.
FFS, Labour have even unleashed Mallard again but even his heart (if you can call it that) doesn’t seem to be in it.
If the Conservatives are polling 2 to 3% a month out from the election and Key makes and accommodation in ECB they would get a lot more because people who were worried about wasting their vote will vote Conservative.
The latest poll shows that people are much more concerned about money in their pockets and the economy NOT KimDotCom whose party has ZERO support. One final comment on this did I read somewhere that Don Brash paid KDC a visit as well? If this is true he really is a political moron.
Not a great week for the opposition parties with the only MP who can make claims they’ve had a good week is Shane Jones. Peters and Norman have foolishly walked into problems of their own making.
Absolutely outstanding column from Fran O’Sullivan in the Herald this morning, which undermines igm’s argument about APN. She writes:
But personally I find it rather incongruous that he still lives a lavish lifestyle, including riding around in black helicopters and funding fireworks displays, to engender public goodwill towards himself.
Yet there is not so much left to splash on staff.
So, when Dotcom went down to the luxurious Huka Lodge and tweeted, “The view from my bedroom right now. Listening to the river & birds while thinking about the future.”
I asked: “Paying the bill?”
It’s a reasonable question. And a question that is critical to the court action US authorities have taken.
To my mind Dotcom is …
Brilliant. Colourful. Great copy. A two-fisted seeker of truth out to bash up big governments. You get the drift.
Along the way I have tweaked him over the allegation that he is a victim of Hollywood.
I don’t buy that.
Fundamentally – as a content producer myself – I line up with those who want to get paid for their efforts.
And copyright protection is integral to that.
I would prefer that business people (well, actually in this case a man who is also a convicted commercial criminal) do ensure the bill is paid for the work that content providers produce. That is journalists like myself, or musicians, or actors.
You see, our jobs are dependent on being paid.
Far too many of us have woken up too late to discover the “freedom” of the internet has resulted in a swathe of our jobs being slashed. Why should people pay for something they can get free? And we don’t.
So, it is critical to our livelihoods that mechanisms such as paywalls are erected to stop us being reduced to unpaid serfs while people like Dotcom become multimillionaires. And that copyright infringers and their enablers are policed.
So, I am annoyed that he does not want to play ball with authorities who want to ensure the content providers (aka Hollywood investors and others) do get paid for their work.
It’s today’s must-read, and I hope that DPF covers it later.
Chuck the polls all underestimate the Conservatives level of support due to the “don’t vote” factor.
At the last election Fairfax had the Conservatives at 1% and they got 2.7%.
Now they have them at 2.0%
If you believe Pete over at Whaleoil, the whole Dotcom thing will come crashing down in a heap of flames in the next several months carrying various MP’s and journos (such as Bryce) with it. They will all look as stupid as the suckers taken in by Nigerian 419 scams.
bringbackdemocracy, I think the 2.7% who voted for the Conservatives believed the Horizon poll and the other polling company whose Director was a candidate for the party. They will not want to waste their vote again.
I will not vote for any party whose leader supposed the redefinition of marriage. That leaves the Conservatives and NZF. So I will decide on the day which party stands the best chance.
I doubt that Bryce Edwards is at risk over Dotcom, he’s a remote and independent commentator who has expressed some opinions on Dotcom.
I was also surprised at Gordon Campbell, Scoop was on very shaky ground as it was with their previous editor’s close involvement with Dotcom, and now Campbell has continued in a similar strongly pro-Dotcom anti-Key vein.
Campbell has not repaired Scoop credibility, he’s made it worse.
There has been a bit of talk lately about the usurpation of democracy. After an intra party knock out session the Keith Locke Zombies take over the Greens, they then combine with NGO’s and UNHCR and say ” the world’s gonna get ya, if you don’t do [eg denounce whites] etc
I see UK population rising on high migrant birth rates.
Keith Locke played down Green Party population policy : says it is adjustable and “anathema to him personally” and the party” to express any interest in how many children a woman has.
Unbelievable – micksavage is leading yet another conspiracy laden pro-Dotcom post at The Standard.
You have to wonder about this sustained attack on Dotcom. Perhaps Key and National realise that the day when evidence that Key had met Dotcom prior to the police raids is produced is fast approaching and that Dotcom’s reputation needs to be smeared as much as possible so that the claim can be discredited.
And for a lawyer he is making some risky unwise allegations:
As pointed out by Karol and Zetetic by far the most important revelation this week is the John Key Cameron Slater relationship. Key has pretty well said that Slater was the source of the information about Peters and Slater has not denied it. Key also confirmed regular contact with Slater. Jason Ede’s role in Key’s office is becoming clearer. It is now obvious that Key’s office feeds Slater information which Slater then converts into bile, spews over it and throws it around indiscriminately.
I am with Chuck Bird on this. I would normally vote for John Key. He is a nice chap who has managed the economy reasonably well in difficult circumstances. He led in exemplary fashion following the disastrous earthquake in Christchurch. He also visits sick children in hospital and seeks no publicity for doing so.
But I have this against him. He has done nothing to repeal the attack on the family that is the antismacking legislation. Right now many good parents are being prosecuted for the entirely unremarkable act of smacking their own children on the legs or buttocks. This legislation brought in by disaffected Marxist radical Sue Bradford is an attack on the family and parental authority. It should be repealed by any government that claims to represent the people of this country.
And he has colluded with the neo Marxist gay rights/feminist radicals who have foisted the abomination of gay marriage on the people of this country who never voted for it and if they were given the opportunity would still overturn it in a binding referendum.
For this reason I too will vote other than National. And I call all right thinking New Zealanders of sound morals to do the same.
Poor Trevor got caught up in some bureaucracy at Akl Aiport.
I actually feel sorry for the poor chap. I mean a busy man such as he is, how does he find the time to personally deal with the separate administration and payment for air freighting his bicycle when traveling on Parliamentary business?
Surely any media is entitled to have its own stench? There is nothing sacred and about pure about print media and why should there be?
Any honour bestowed on them, or not, is by the beholders. False high expectations and unrequited agendas see media pilloried while the affects of tradition see it praised. Lunatics, enlightened and the limited abound. All of our media presents the evidence.
1. While Bryce may have some distance from Dotcom, he seems to be rather close to the parties now looking stupid over the Dotcom affair.
2. re ‘mikysavage’ – some years back a gullible lawyer was sucked into a Nigerian 419 scam. It now seems another lawyer is being sucked into a similar sort of scam together with various MP’s, their parties and blogs such as ‘Standard’.
“Right now many good parents are being prosecuted for the entirely unremarkable act of smacking their own children on the legs or buttocks. This legislation brought in by disaffected Marxist radical Sue Bradford is an attack on the family and parental authority. It should be repealed by any government that claims to represent the people of this country.”
It’s always been a crime to smack a child in New Zealand.
The law change in 2007 simply removes the right of those facing charges to offer a defense of “reasonable force”.
In other words, you have to be charged before the law change affects you. And quite frankly – if the police charge you with assaulting a child then you’ve already failed as a parent.
“It’s always been a crime to smack a child in New Zealand.
The law change in 2007 simply removes the right of those facing charges to offer a defense of “reasonable force”.
A crime can only be created by statute. If a statute contains a general proposition (ie defining a crime) followed by a specific exception(defence) then nothing covered by the exception is a crime. It’s a bit like saying “you have committed a crime but because you have done wrong we will not prosecute”. Daft.
100% of the groups that the IRS in America targetted for audit were conservative.
On Tuesday, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.) said his committee’s continuing investigation has found that the IRS also singled out established conservative tax-exempt groups for audits.
“We now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s,” Mr. Camp said in a statement. “At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.”
The previous version of the Crimes Act only allowed for the “reasonable force” defense to be presented during criminal proceedings.
The decision to prosecute is a matter of discretion for the Police, Crown Solicitors and prosecuting agencies. The NZ legal system doesn’t require mandatory formal prosecution for all reported offenses. This discretion was not affected by the change in the law.
Apologies if you already know this – but I get the impression that some of the people who post here don’t understand how our legal system functions.
Yes it appears to be the wrong verdict, unless it was shown that she was nuts, which I’ve heard no suggestion of, I would have thought that stabbing someone through the heart is clear intention to kill them. Black and white to me.
Parents who cannot keep their newborns safe are increasingly being dobbed in by their family and the public.
After the murder of 3-year-old Rotorua girl Nia Glassie in 2007, there has been a sharp rise in the number of newborn babies removed from their parents, with scores ending up in foster care every year.
Nia’s case, and the deaths of twins Chris and Cru Kahui in 2006, sparked public outrage after family members kept silent and authorities failed to connect the dots.
Figures released under the Official Information Act show that, in 2008, after Child, Youth and Family was criticised for its handling of a string of child abuse deaths, the number of babies removed from their mothers more than doubled in just one year.
More than 140 babies under a month old are now being removed from their mothers every year.
It has NOT always been a crime to smack a child in New Zealand.
The Criminal Code Act 1893 ,”gave statutory recognition to the long established English common law principle that parents and school teachers could use reasonable chastisemnt to correct the behaviour of children under their authority”
The 1908 Crimes Act confirmed this parental right.
The only alarm bells to ring re opinion poll is the 2..00% jump with the Conservative party.Admiddley and hopefully a glitch but one that needs monitoring .I think this is in light of many of their fruit loop ideas which we are only become , as the days pass, more familiar with.
Fletch cease posting far right dirty tricks propoganda re “I can do whatever I want “. The video is a series of heavily truncated and censored clips that completely removes the context and background of Pres Obama speeches and announcements .
He’s no different to any other President who is still bound and restricted by both a number of Constitutional ,legal , political restraints and conventions.
Shame on for posting this kind of cheap Propoganda .
Look who is the real hypocrite.!
“It has NOT always been a crime to smack a child in New Zealand.
The Criminal Code Act 1893 ,”gave statutory recognition to the long established English common law principle that parents and school teachers could use reasonable chastisemnt to correct the behaviour of children under their authority”
You are wrong. The law has always criminalised assault against a child.
Which is why the Acts of 1893, 1908, and 1961 all contain provisions to allow charges to be brought against parents and caregivers for beating children – with juries being responsible for determining if the beatings were “reasonable”.
To prove how much the Green parties like democracy, here is their spokes person in the UK demanding the sacking of all government servants who don’t believe in climate change: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711
I wonder if we should sack all those who don’t believe the science of vaccinations, fluoridation and the safety of GMOs? Would be many green supporters left would there.
Cunners announcing that he “had the measure of John Key and he knows it” hasn’t worked admittedly. But this poll must have been taken after announcing that he “could drink Key under the table”; an assertion he no doubt expected to have wide voter appeal.
Unfortunately the massive upswing Cunners would have been expecting from that might be undone by Curran being spotted sneaking up to Dot Crim’s to deliver Cunners’ proxy blowjob.
gump – the interesting thin is that standards and enforcement have changed over the years. 50 years ago it would have been effectively impossible for a child to lay a complaint about a beating unless there was significant harm or damage, or against a teacher without parental support. The desk sergeant, magistrate or judge who most probably received beatings when at school would have had no sympathy. Following abolition of corporal punishment in schools, judges lowered the standards of unacceptability – a NI judge threatened jail for a caning, but a SI jury considered a caning acceptable (the Crown Prosecutor should have gone for common assault rather than assault of a child thus bypassing a jury).
Theoretically, retrospective complaints could be made. A Sydney retired headmaster was recently charged with assault for caning two boys who years ago dared to complain about suffering sexual assault from one of the teachers. But such cases would be rare.
Stuff headline is telling us that thousands turned out for beach protests in the South Island against off-shore drilling, with the main crowds at Christchurch, Dunedin and Kaikoura.
Interestingly, the photos on Stuff from Christchurch suggest a crowd around 200, and the photos on the ODT website suggest around 100 in Dunedin.
Kaikoura must have been mobbed
I hope Invercargill gets all the on-shore support activity.
Maybe I’ve missed something but I haven’t noticed any posts about the Belgian parliament’s decision to give children the right to euthanasia. I would have thought that all the social liberals who haunt this site would have been hurrahing and hooraying what they would probably see as further enlightened pro-death social policy.
If New Zealand goes down the same adult euthanasia path as proposed, but tactically placed on hold, by Maryann Street how long will it be before we too decide that terminating the lives of children is an acceptable practice?
I would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of NZers are horrified by the decision made by the Belgians.
….” how long will it be before we too decide that terminating the lives of children is an acceptable practice? “….
What a load of mawkish, “won’t someone think of the children” crap. Those who want legislation enabling adult euthanasia are adults who don’t want to see out their lives as mental or physical vegetables just so believers in Sky Fairies can get warm fuzzy feelings in their tummies.
Just in case you haven’t noticed, in NZ children as minors legally cannot give consent. That alone should cover any misgivings.
Does anyone know much about Rachel Glucina? Here is one view:
She’s a right-wing John Key lickle-spittling b–ch. Rarely go near her third-rate ravings, but once or twice she has commented on Labour/David Cunliffe with venom and vitriol pouring from her metaphorical pen. Another silly, shallow Kerre Woodham – maybe worse.
Nicholas Stern has cited recent bushfires in Australia along with current flooding in the United Kingdom to argue climate change is already causing devastating destruction.
The British economist, who authored the influential 2006 study on global warming, says record rainfall and storm surges causing flooding across the UK “are a clear sign we are already experiencing the impacts of climate change”.
Confusion of girl, seven, who calls lesbian stepmother ‘mum and dad’ after she became a transgender male and grew a beard:
“….. The opening of this story reads like a B-grade science fiction novel: “A primary school girl in Australia calls her step-parent both ‘Mum’ and ‘Dad’ after the woman became a transgender male, had her breasts removed and grew a beard.
“The seven-year-old girl is confused about her step-parent who was once her biological mother’s lesbian lover. In a closed hearing of the Family Court in Queensland, the transgender man referred to as ‘Mr Brown’ was applying for regular contact with his step-daughter following his separation from the girl’s mother.
“The Court heard Mr Brown had lived in a lesbian relationship with the mother, the young girl and another, older sibling for almost three years. He now lives in a relationship with another transgender male, the Courier Mail reported. Mr Brown and the child’s mother had an on-off relationship, during which the mother travelled overseas and was impregnated by a man, before the couple reunited.
“The couple was together at the time of the girl’s birth and despite another, brief separation, the pair lived with the two children for some time. However, a month after holding a ‘commitment ceremony’, Mr Brown began identifying as transgender and began hormone treatment to prepare for sexual reassignment surgery to become a man……”
The poor child.
Males and females who suffer from sexually disordered thinking should stay away from boys and girls.
Disappointing to concede a first innings deficit of over 200 runs but the worst overall outcome from the series is 1-1 regardless of how this test pans out, This is still a reasonable achievement from the black caps given the respective rankings of the two sides, and beating them 4-0 in the one dayers was an awesome effort.
re. Maryann Street’s bill.
One of my brothers and his wife are recently retired geriatric nurses. A lot of their time was spent dealing with the families of frail elderly patients.
They both vehemently oppose voluntary euthanasia because know that many old people will be pressured by their rapacious families into opting for it. “Voluntary euthanasia” would very soon become legalised geronticide on a large scale.
Nuke – so you’re one of those keep em alive no matter what state they’re in types ?
With that kind of reasoning – I think you’re just trying to stop euthanasia because you might qualify as a vegetable and someone might snuff you out by accident.
hehehe – just kidding mate. The religious folks don’t care about the actual issue whatever it might be. They just care about their unchangeable set of fixed beliefs and sticking to them no matter what.
I’d just like to say a thank you to my own personal Lord and Saviour nasska, who has this day blessed me with his presence and wisdom. Long may his glory shine upon my most humble unworthy being. (Or at least all of 2014 minimum).
“Voluntary euthanasia” would very soon become legalised geronticide on a large scale.
In hospitals now and forever doctors and families have been putting terminally ill goner long-suffering patients in great pain out of their misery. What’s the drug they use ? Morphine overdose is popular I think. So it’s nothing new.
We need a bloody good dose of Wellington weather over the next three days. A howling southerly with arctic temperatures at the very least, if at all possible a good rain cloud or two would not go amiss either.
There’s nothing wrong with doctors administering whatever dose is required to relieve incurable and insufferable pain, even if it means that life is shortened.
But I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about well, but frail, old people being leaned on by their families who are concerned about not getting their inheritance until they themselves are fairly old, or who are concerned that their inheritance is being eroded by rest home fees.
It will happen. But maybe you believe that people are too high-minded to do that sort of thing.
“……..hehehe – just kidding mate. The religious folks don’t care about the actual issue whatever it might be. They just care about their unchangeable set of fixed beliefs and sticking to them no matter what……so you’re one of those keep em alive no matter what state they’re in types?………..”
“……….I do not want to contemplate assisted dying,” a disabled man told the BBC last week, but he gets asked about it every day. “Michael,” who called the BBC Radio’s Breakfast programme, said he has motor neuron disease, a wasting disorder that was made famous by cosmologist Stephen Hawking, and does not want to commit suicide.
“Many people ask me, several times a week,” Michael continued, “and I guarantee today I will get asked, if I ever contemplate it. And it makes one feel like I should be contemplating it, for the sake of the health service, or my family watching what I’m going through.”
He added, “I’m afraid that it will extend into the social conscience that people almost expect assisted dying.” He warned that a law to allow assisted suicide “is going to pressurize other people………”
He echoed Michael’s comment that there is increasing pressure on disabled people “in the context of the home, in hospitals, discussions in the workplace where assisted suicide and euthanasia is frequently put forward and even imposed into discussions as a sensible option.”
“……The threat of the growing social expectation of “mercy killing” for disabled people is already playing out in women’s medicine, he said, “where pregnant women are routinely offered abortion in hospital when a possible disability is diagnosed in the child.”
In such cases, he added, “contraception and sterilization are normally offered after childbirth with the expectation that it will be accepted. And when refused, that person is told she is being unreasonable and selfish.”
“If you don’t regard it as a possible option,” he said, “you are thought to either belong to some strange minority, stuck in outdated religious notions or you are failing to take the reasonable expectations of society that certain types of people must not create a burden on the health service and others around them……..”
Some see the only valid pressure that can be applied as being on the pregnant woman to continue to take the conception to term, even at risk to her own life, and yet would strongly oppose any pressure on anyone else to euthanasia.
And of course most of the Americans who are pro life of the unborn child also support death sentence law execution judgments by their courts. And irony of ironies, those more likely to oppose death sentence law are more accepting of abortion on demand.
Risk of euthanasia being abused can be minimised by setting conditions as to when it can apply.
1. Medical constraints on when child euthanasia can occur AND available provision of support to parents caring for the child
2. Medical constraints also when adults are involved AND the availability of care for the infirm or aged adult.
The underlying issue is the willingness of the society to provide support for the care of all members of society.
a – a worthy woman who should be a martyr (risking her own life) for her new child’s life or
b – an unworthy woman guilty of immorality who should face the consequences of her sexual activity and be judged with the pain of an unwanted pregnancy being taken to term and her child taken from them and raised by another more worthy than herself.
SPC:”Some see the only valid pressure that can be applied as being on the pregnant woman to continue to take the conception to term, even at risk to her own life, and yet would strongly oppose any pressure on anyone else to euthanasia”
but you are talking about two different things. In the case of the pregnant woman, death is not the intended outcome, and it might not even happen. In the case of geronticide, death is the intended outcome.
mandk, for those who oppose abortion in all cases, then they accept any threat to the mothers health that may occur, even when death is forecast as likely by medical professionals.
Geronticide occurs all the time now within medical constraints – whenever a patient’s end time period is being managed by professionals via palliative care. Higher doses of morphine shorten the lifespan. Are you simply saying that this decision should not include the relatives?
If you had read my post at 9.25, you will have seen that my concern is not with cases where the patient is terminally ill, in pain and close to death anyway. My concern is about people who just happen to be old and who are regarded as burdensome by their families. They are very different circumstances.
Society by its choice to limit health spending has already had an impact on the duration of the lives of those who are denied access to life preserving treatment. This is done at arms length and so is not euthanasia. Yet it is.
Euthanasia, because of lack of support for the care of the infirm places burdens on the carer. Carers who worry about the lack of quality to their child’s life and their own are called selfish.
And euthanasia because of the cost of care for the old – first the state runs down the in care persons savings (ultimately possibly the entire estate) and hope the person and or family cuts and runs (geronticide or suicide illegal) before zero sum is reached and all cost falls on the state. If there is no euthanasia allowed to the families when will the state impose its own form, as it does with health funding of medicines/equipment and access to operations now?
“And of course most of the Americans who are pro life of the unborn child also support death sentence law execution judgments by their courts. And irony of ironies, those more likely to oppose death sentence law are more accepting of abortion on demand.’
Being pro-life and pro death penalty is not inconsistent. The death penalty for murder is a sign of the value that is placed on the life of the innocent victims, as is the desire to protect the unborn.
That said, I’m opposed to the death penalty, not because it is inconsistent with being pro-life, but because there is too much room for error. As we have seen in New Zealand, the very real possibility that someone innocent may be convicted of murder makes the death penalty too much of a risk.
To even claim it is consistent requires a differentiation of life between innocent to be protected and guilty to be killed/deserving and undeserving.
When the actual distinction is that a pro life position would involve only sanctioning the taking of a life to protect others. As death sentence law is not protection of life (as incarceration protects other life) that distinction is not validly a pro life one.
Those who argue that some life is innocent and some life is guilty and can be killed are of a tradition.
It is no secret what underpins American belief, it is the most religious of the Christian nations.
The bible refers to God mass murdering humanity worldwide and citywide (the unborn children with their mothers new born infants with their families etc) apparently the foundation to the concept of death sentence law as a righteous thing, with Canaan and the world to be reserved for those spared from killing authorised from on high (leading to the end time bowls of judgment).
Paul summed this up as the concept of those who know the law, know that others are deserving of death (espoused in Romans Chapter 1 and referring to sexually active homosexuals in general. As an aside the old testament law did not mention female same sexuality at all, nor proscribe it).
Of course the faith taught that those washed in some sacrificial blood are innocent and those not will die in their guilt and then go to hell. Thus the origins of the idea that one can be pro life and support the death of the guilty, support crusades, the inquisition and teach that the unsaved are deserving of their death and their place forever in hell. In the hands of some Islamists that takes on a whole new meaning.
“To even claim it is consistent requires a differentiation of life between innocent to be protected and guilty to be killed/deserving and undeserving.”
Which is a perfectly reasonable differentiation. otherwise why arm police and why have a military?
“It is no secret what underpins American belief, it is the most religious of the Christian nations.”
Actually, no it’s not. While Christianity still plays a larger role than in most other Western nations, there are countries that have far more Christian influence directly in politics.
“When the actual distinction is that a pro life position would involve only sanctioning the taking of a life to protect others. As death sentence law is not protection of life ”
It is protection of the value of innocent life.
Also, it is a differentiation that has been around for thousands of years. I know that Christian bashing is popular with some on this blog, but do try to get your history right. Most here who indulge in this seem to have a major problem with historical truth.
“The bible refers to God mass murdering humanity worldwide and citywide”
God is the creator, not the creature. The rights of a creator over his creation are not the same as the creature. God has knowledge and wisdom that is infinite, thus what may be right for God is not automatically right for limited and fallen creatures prone to evil.
” an aside the old testament law did not mention female same sexuality at all, nor proscribe it”
It didn’t need to, as lesbianism was so rare in Hebrew culture it was just not an issue.
“Of course the faith taught that those washed in some sacrificial blood are innocent and those not will die in their guilt and then go to hell.”
Washed in the blood of Jesus, yes. That’s because we were made to be in relationship with God, and literally cannot live without Him. A battery will die if not connected at some point to a power source. That is how batteries are made. The same is true of us in relation to God.
” In the hands of some Islamists that takes on a whole new meaning.”
By that standard we should stop caring for the poor because in the hands of Communists millions were murdered.
A good idea that is misused does not make the idea itself bad.
By the way, while I was happy to answer your points above, as a general rule I don’t engage in religious debates on blogs. They are usually pointless, and I have found that most anti-Christians on blogs have a staggeringly poor grasp of what Christianity actually is or teaches, and I have to spend far too much time trying to wade through the misconceptions and ignorance before anything like a rational and reasonable discussion can be had, so if that is what your after, your wasting your time trying to draw me in.
I have also met plenty of non-religious people who are pro-life and anti-euthanasia. Lets stick to the issue of euthanasia.
“I have one arm in a sling post surgery. Typing is not easy.”
I don’t envy you at all Shawn. However, how would you like it if I was in a position to deny you that surgery because of my religious beliefs?
Indeed, there I an argument to be made that you god is the one who should be able to cure you of what ever ails you, your god can fix all this with prayer. After all Shawn, his son supposedly had the ability to cure blindness and leprosy.
Oh, and while I am on a roll……
“and I have found that most anti-Christians on blogs have a staggeringly poor grasp of what Christianity actually is or teaches”
Christianity teaches our kids (which is simply brain washing them) lies. It is deeply worrying that so many people indoctrinate their kids so early in life. Why not leave religion out of their education and let them decided for themselves that they want to be sky fairy followers.
As for not debating atheists, I suspect the real reason is because you know that your arguments in support of your god are laughable, hell, he cant even cure your arm.
mandk – There’s one way to beat the rest home fees – don’t stick them in rest homes – save the dollars and take them on at home. I don’t really get rest homes to be honest to a point.
Even the name rest home – that’s weird. Rest home. My home is mostly a rest home.
You’ll always get a few evil folks who want to off the olds in the name of getting their hands on the cash. I reckon that you couldn’t just off someone even with euthanasia possible.
You could argue that it happens now. Emotional abuse of elderly parents – stress and emotional pain can kill just as well as drugs.
I’d love to know the stats for rest home residents. What’s the average length of stay ? Age of entry ? Physical and mental condition upon entry ? They’re just about cooked when they go in anyway, aren’t they ?