"Let's face it, you only need to con nine people in the ACT Assembly to get a majority and 22 million Australians are at risk..."

Well, the proponents of voluntary euthanasia have also 'conned' a majority -- what is it, 76%? -- of all Australians, so we must be pretty dumb. Thank goodness right-thinking people like Jim Wallace are here to put us straight. And I am QUITE sure that Jim's affiliation with the Australian Christian Lobby does not constitute a bias he should have revealed in his article, and that his wildly irrational belief in a Sky Fairy has no effect on his ability to logically evaluate the terrible consequences of letting people actually do what they want.

Why does Jim Wallace think he has the right to poke his nose into other peoples' lives and tell them what to do?

If he doesn't want the option of euthanasia then that's his right but he has no right to proscribe what options should be available to other people should they have an agonizing, terminal disease. Jim, whose mind is deranged by religion, may even enjoy vomiting up feces should he get bowel cancer, who would know.

His ignorance, and that of others like him, should not be allowed to stifle the debate about allowing people to die in dignity at a time of their choosing!

I want to have the choice of euthanasia, Jim. How about you mind your own bloody business!

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

Both of you, David G in particular, have missed the point of this article, which is that, while euthanasia advocates only campaign publicly about the rights of the terminally ill, they also clearly have an agenda of euthanasing anyone, terminally ill or not, who, however temporarily, just wants to top themselves.

This is a very dangerous idea for a society to embrace.

Also, having worked in the area of aged care, I have absolutely no doubt that there are many people who will callously quite selfishly put pressure on their elderly relatives - who're such a burden, after all - to get rid of themselves.

Whilst I, in principle, support the right of terminally ill patients to a painless death, I am greatly troubled by the prospect of introducing euthanasia legislation.

Oh, and I'm neither a Christian nor any sort of religious believer.

i can only agree...thou shalt not murder
[we have each EARNED..our life sentance]

this drugging people into death..[goes.on all the time]
its a huge problem in the after-life
they dont realise their dead

that gets complicated by those not believing in life..here-after
who sleep away..centuries/decads/weeks...till they realise they are only sleeping...

[worse is those decieved by religion..
into awaiting a mythical daty of reserection]
or some judgmenmt-day..that never comes

[jesus came specificly to prove..we ALL shall be born-again]
ie him..[born of woman]...returned

thus no judgment-day
no end time 2 de comming
he allready..been here..done/that

after assuring..a thief..on a cross beside him
today he TOO..would be in heaven..this day

even worse is what we do with the 'mortal shell'
sicides/murder/and other sudden death events
can retain their link to spirit..often till their bnatural 'death-time'[reportedly]..then there is the adding of preservatives..

to preserve the dead corpse
[that in not decaying can also ty the dead into the still living]

this i a huge issue
we all are ignorant of what we are doing
to the departed spirit
let alone their soul

its really time we put some serious study into our acts
and im not talking about a new tax

those ignorant of con-sequences
should see the light

see the other treasons they are doing
upon those they regard the least
in serving the adgendas of those allready got the most

realise the vile they are doing..to the least
they are doing to god..[the most]

its truelly the blind/leading the more blinded
the trouble being the blinding is done deleratly
how they shall love the hells

JonJ,

What are the ISSUES ? I don't give a toss what Wallace's politics and religious affiliations are, they're well known to this atheist - but what is out of place with what he says ? You can indulge yourself in mountain-top politics all you like, it's the easy way, the lazy way, but what are the issues that Wallace is grappling with - that's the point. And ultimately here, the issue is: do we choose life or death ?

I'm puzzled why the Greens are so fixated on death-politics - surely, from an atheist's point of view, life is all there is ? There's no 'after', so surely we should value what a precious gift we each are given (by Nature, and by our parents, not by any Sky Fairy). Most of us feel very down at times, we wonder if it is all worth it, we get burnt-out, frustrated and/or disillusioned and it would be very tempting for many people to stop the angst with a happy pill.

Not much point regretting it afterwards :(

Because, folks, there is NO afterwards.

Joe

I do wish people who oppose legal, voluntary suicide and want to impose their views on others who don't share them would at least get their English grammar right when they post on this topic.

If you are committing suicide, you are not "being euthanased". This is passive tense, and implies that someone other than the person who dies is actually killing them, when in fact they are leaving the suicide act to someone who is legally entitled to do it.

When the passive tense is used so often in this way, I'm inclined to the view that this may be a deliberate attempt to mislead.

This is not particularly ethical and not a very Christian way to behave, either.