Dear Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

Sorry, I was trying to be a smart-@rse - you did write: ' ... an informed 80% of the population', although in my defense, I plea that your characterisation of the superior 80 % as 'informed' relative to the presumably 'uninformed' 20 % does seem to be a bit too nuanced. My point about 92 % of Egyptians supporting the stoning of women for adultery was an attempt to put majority votes into perspective. You haven't dealt with that yet.

Hazza,

Thank you for that legal position. But why do you then go into a rant against anybody who raises reservations ? In a perfect world - where no evil could ever be - you might have a point but do you seriously assert (and Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., as well, which I suppose I should join - but I don't think they would have me now, I'd be counted as a heretic), that nobody ever thinks of knocking off their too-aged but asset-rich relations ?

It is, after all, the stuff of film and fiction. Zola's 'Therese Raquin' comes to mind. 'Earth' too, I vaguely remember. How often do people inherit and/or do elderly relatives conveniently pass away in Dickens and Trollope and (maybe?) Hardy ? Marieke as well as Thomas ? I'm not suggesting that throwing momma off the train is a daily occurrence, but it resonates enough with most of us to be a plausible and amusing notion.

As an atheist, I've always (well, say fifteen years) been puzzled by the logic of euthanasia supporters: if atheists like me believe that we each have one and only one life, then surely treasure it ? And if I were a believer in an afterlife, a heavenly, timeless and angelic afterlife (even if it sounds mind-numbingly boring to an atheist: I think I would be trying to organise an Egyptian-style revolt against God, just to relief the unrelenting niceness of it all), what would this one life on earth matter if one had an eternal, and better, life afterwards ?

[TBC]

(Continued from last post)

Am I a bit touchy on this subject? Too dam right I am as voluntary euthanasia organisations and people like me have been fighting for many decades to have it legally recognised. It has been financially costly to me as I have to travel hundreds of kilometres to join protests, keep up to date with as much information as possible, spend an inordinate amount of time on blogs like this and put up with argument that come from either religion or non informed whim. Generally speaking, the latter has done no real study on the matter. Some in the latter category feel they are correct in opposition intuitively. Intuition can be a poor judge, the best example being that the Sun appears to be moving east to west across the sky. This convinced people for hundreds of thousands of years. But studying the physics showed it was wrong.

If more people would actually do some investigation on voluntary euthanasia, let their parliamentarians know the results of that and demand LVE be legalised, it would be. The muddying-of-the-waters with this nonsense slippery slope argument caries with it a lot of blame for political tardiness on this matter.

Using analogous argument, such as if the speed limit suddenly zoomed up to 300 kilometres per hour and the death and injury toll became astronomical, the law would be changed. The same would happen with LVE. Humanity is not as evil as religion states. A future tyrannical government is a non-argument. It would make its own laws.

80% of people accept the ‘purported’ risks with LVE, there is no credible evidence there are abuses where it is operational already, it is voluntary and it is a sign of mature societal compassion to have it.

(Continued next post)

(Continued from last post)

I despair that religious leaders (Not many of the flock) and a few of those who are not religious are opposed to such a commonsense law. The same sentiment we use for our companion animals when cure is hopeless and death is the kindest and only option, is overridden in the case of the human animal by irrational argument.

A system of legal voluntary euthanasia is not only the correct path to take. It is a test of our ability to face death squarely; instead of placing it in the too hard basket in the hope that it will all go away. Get used to it, we all die eventually.

Any of us could end up in the position where an imaginary god or medical science will not help. No one is ‘special’ and the thought of ‘it won’t happen to me’ shows the stupid side of a head-in-the-sand humanity.

David

Loudmouth,

How could I possibly know world stats on those wanting to have access to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia? No one would know that. Don’t be daft, you know I was addressing the Australian situation.

I am not arguing ad populum. I am arguing it is ethical for LVE to be available and 80% of the population agree. Egypt has a strong religious culture where women are second class citizens. This is irrelevant.

I expected you to start making sense and not digging your hole of obscurantism deeper.

I was wrong.

Of course, you realise, trying to influence people to your way of thinking without a credible argument, helps those who would impose restriction on legal voluntary euthanasia for everyone else.

I personally wouldn’t be too proud of that.

David

Dear Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

Wow, that's some appeal to authority. How could any genuine atheist stand outside, or argue with, THAT ?

Why do you ask 'How could I possibly know world stats on those wanting to have access to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia? No one would know that. Don’t be daft, you know I was addressing the Australian situation.'

I didn't ask you to. Straw man, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. :)

I'm not opposed to LVE if it is defined and monitored properly: I even support it enthusiastically in the case of some atheists ;)

It seems that this may be why even suicide is not legalised yet: if another person is present and someone 'suicides', how do you know it wasn't murder ? A note would help, but the absence of one coinciding with the presence of another person would raise all sorts of suspicions, which may be completely unjustified, of course. Presumably there would still have to be an inquest before a doctor would sign out on the cause of death ?

So the killing of another person must, as Hazza has detailed, be accompanied by all manner of safeguards: it's the person's only life, after all, kaput, there's no 'after'.

On your perfect world, Atrheist Foundation of Australia Inc., of course there would be no need for such laws. Perhaps there would be no need for any laws at all, once we have brought about heaven on earth, perhaps through Utopian socialism (that might do it). But even now, even in the most democratic of countries, I believe they still have legal systems, court systems, correctional systems, penal systems.

And the taking of a life is not as trivial as shoplifting a packet of chewing gum or flitting off from a petrol pump without paying. I'm told such dreadful crimes occasionally occur, but I would have to see it to believe it, society is so pure and clean nowadays: the thought of killing someone probably never enters people's minds.

[TBC]

Joe

Sorry to detain you further, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

[continued]

I'm puzzled: why do you want to take people's lives so earnestly ? What is the attraction of campaigning for LVE for many years ? Why don't you talk even a little about palliative care, or relevant therapies ?

Choose life, not death, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., when you have to make a choice. We are all entitled to our one small flash of eternity. My darling wife was taken too young, in the full bloom of her creativity. If there was a god, do you think I wouldn't kiss whatever passes for his @rse for just one more day ? One more hour ? Have you ever lost anybody or this all just a gigantic game for you ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

You have no idea what an appeal to ‘authority’ is do you. You meant an appeal to numbers. Even so, you say you are not opposed to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia in a strange kind of manner. So that is all good.

We are not discussing personal suicide here. In part, we are talking about controlled suicide, which is totally different.

The safeguards in legislation of the countries where LVE and physician assisted suicide exist. Have you read about them? Have you read about the safeguards in Australian legislation? Obviously not.

Utopia is not achievable possibly and I am not promoting it. That is a dumb thing to say.

You forgot my example of the speed limit. Deary me, how remiss of you. More people die through car accident that LVE will ever equal. At a 300 kilometre speed limit that number would treble. What do you find difficult with this argument?

Palliative care can only go so far even if it were to be improved dramatically. You would know that if you had bothered to read up on it. Of course, you would rather just make quasi-smart comment than doing anything constructive.

What a stupid thing to say. “Choose life, not death, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc”. This rubbish has nothing to do with the topic. It is said out of desperation because you are making a fool of yourself. Possibly, no, really, its time for you to stop. It is becoming noticeable.

I am not the one playing a game, don’t look now but it is you. A very, very ignorant and non helpful game. You cannot recover any dignity in this, it is time for you to depart and think.

Have you ever done that before?

David