SM,

That's right there was a solution at hand, but the Coalition poo-pooed it because Malaysia weren't signed up to the Geneva Convention, which they would be mad to have done considering their geographic location. Despite the fact the Aus Government, as part of the deal, could play a hand in the treatment of refugees in Malaysia.

Then of course the Coalition have a policy which contravenes the Geneva Convention so why do you accept the blatant hypocrisy?

Back to the topic at hand.

It is never OK to kill; however sometimes it is excusable. It is not OK to kill people because you need their oil (even if you claim they had WMD).

It is excusable to kill someone if they attack you and threaten your life (however it is preferred if you just stop them killing you. Not always avoidable though).

Euthanasia? Passive is definitely OK if it's inevitable although technically you're not killing anyone there. Active? In some cases OK but many cases not OK, although excusable I think.

@ David Corbett

I would love to hear you expand on this point:

<< Malaysia weren't signed up to the Geneva Convention, which they would be mad to have done considering their geographic location>>

Why would it have been *mad* for Malaysia to have signed the Geneva Convention?

As Gillard and her cohort have made it perfectly clear is that the Labor/green/independent alliance won the election and have the right to govern.

The coalition have made it clear that the Malaysian solution which is the most abhorrent concept yet to be floated is not acceptable unless Malaysia signs up to the UNHCR charter.

The coalition has offered a compromise and is not prepared to capitulate further and off shore processing can continue with greatly reduced protection, but not with no protection. Labor can choose to work within what is available to it or do nothing. The do nothing approach they have subsequently chosen has predictable consequences, primarily continued deaths at sea.

With power comes responsibility. The deaths could be prevented, and Labor is responsible.

SM,
Okay, I'll bite. You can't state in one argument that one party's proposed solution would prevent deaths of refugees, while in another thread you argue that no proposal will stop the flood of refugees arriving by boat.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

And again, I stress, no one is arguing the hypocrisy in it being 'acceptable' or even 'inevitable' that people die through government policy (Iraq, Afghanistan, 'people overboard' as well as those you've already mentioned).

Back to the question at hand Peter Mac you ask

When is it OK to kill?

I say if you are a shooter and in a New South Wales national park the answer is; When the target is in your sights.

'Euthanasia' Peter than can be a can of worms indeed. I support euthanasia in extreme cases, like our 'gay marriage' debate another moral question. SM what's Tony's take on euthanasia (for humans)?

Abortion, I am opposed in principle to abortion, a Green opposed to abortion, but then again SM tells me he's pro gay marriage, wonders never cease.

Is war nothing more than legalised murder. As a pacifist I say yes.

Is the death penalty for crime, nothing more than state sanctioned murder, yes. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters others. More a case of economics and religious cleansing, an eye for an eye stuff, and save some cash at the same time.

yusu: Hillel's Golden Rule: "What you hate done to yourself - do not
do unto others".

Hillel's was a bit late. First record of that saying was Confusius 551 - 478 BC, Then Buddha, 563 - 483 BC A few others, I suppose. Then Hillel 110 - 10 BC, then Joshua ben Nazarene (AKA, Jesus) 4 BC - 29 AD.

If I caught anyone molesting my daughter or my granddaughter. ---- They're dead.