Re: " ... what's the difference (apart from size) between a government and a criminal gang?"

Answer: No difference.

If one leaves out the question as to what defines a criminal as these entities may be generated as required given that laws may be enacteded that make a criminal of any body not following said laws then it is only a matter as to who is " running the raquet".

It is illegal to distill alcohol because the government demands its cut via excise so it is illegal to distill alcoholl. But during the alcohol prohibition era in the US it was illegal to manufacture and distribute alcohol because the criminal gangs ran the raquet. Now the government runs the raquet so getting "smashed" on alcohol is just fine. This aggument also applies to gambling. It is only a matter as to who is running the raquet!!

Another Christ-stain attacking our rights.

Who do you think you are, Ted Watt?
What gives you the right to decide for women you have never even met, what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
What gives you the right to decide for me -and everyone else in the country, if not the whole world- that I must die a slow, agonising death? (if that be my lot.)
If we as individuals cannot claim ownership of our own bodies -to do with as we will- what can we own?
Apparently Mr Watt thinks governments should own people, body and soul. Governments should be allowed to force people to a life of misery, or a miserable death.
Apparently, Mr Watt thinks people -even a majority of people- should not be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies; but that HE should be allowed to make decisions for other people's bodies.
Apparently, Mr Watt doesn't consider himself to be 'people', but rather a morally superior person who should be recognised as such and given the right to dictate policies to us lesser beings, even when such policies can only result in agony.
Mr Watt, I very much doubt if any even moderately intelligent person will ever have as high an opinion of you as you do.

The only thing that could have made government any different to common criminal gangs is the voluntary agreement of all citizens to abide by its laws.

As it stands, we were never asked whether we consent to have anything to do with the state, its government and its laws, thus there is no difference whatsoever between government and any other criminal gang.

There is nothing wrong when a group of people voluntarily organises themselves in a common self-defence pact. However, even if that were the case (which as above, it isn't), the people's intent in so doing would be to get organised against threats from others - it is most unlikely that people would voluntarily agree to create a body that would frustrate their own fundamental wishes and desires.

As for Helen Bullock's argument, she was correct in claiming that the state has no right to kill others (except in the context of self-defence), and if I may add, there are so many other things that the state has no right to do, including some that it routinely does. However, that argument was irrelevant because nobody ever suggested that the government should go about killing people: the discussion was only about what government should do (or not) in case certain others kill certain others in certain circumstances. Non-action is not murder and even if the state were legitimate, it has no moral imperative to prosecute anyone, let alone against the wishes of its citizens.

Senator Bullock – please don’t call politicians honourable – like most politicians doesn’t seem to realise that she is working for us, and her opposition to the bill is merely based on her opinion, not what the Australian electorate – her employers – thinks.

Voluntary euthanasia is not about nitwits like her sanctioning the “killing of other human beings”; it is about arrogant and dictatorial politicians denying people their democratic rights.

This Senator (how easily they get in to the Senate, merely being good girls and boys for their party’s nomination and foregone ‘right’ to election – the Labor Party even allows a “captain’s pick”) is just one of the daily exhibitors of why we should not have in parliament most of the people we do.

Democracy in Australia is fast becoming a delusion.

Dear Ted.

This is supposed to be a democracy. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We the people have every right to expect our elected representatives to pass any law subject to our constitution that we please. And we have the right to change our constitution through majority vote.

The authority of our government comes directly from the will of the people. How dare Ms. Bullock claim that we the people through our elected representatives have no right to do what we want in our own country.

The problem arises when anti democratic forces represented by you and Ms. Bullock have the effrontery to dictate to the people as to what our concepts of right and wrong must be, and who frustrate the elected majority in order to place their minority religious and social agendas above that of the electorate.

We the people, by majority consensus deem that abortion is a woman's right. And if you claim that this is not so then put it to a referendum and we will prove that you are wrong. Your values and attitudes which have been inculcated into you by your religious leaders are matter of profound indifference to us. If you do not believe in abortion, then don't have one. But do not dare to preach to the majority that abortion is wrong, and then try frustrate our majority will so that our behaviour is subject to the proclamations of your non existent God.

If we wish to execute our most dangerous and psychotic criminals who pose an unacceptable risk to the public, then that is our privilege. If we wish to allow elderly people to die with dignity, then that is our privilege also.

I find it funny that you talk about how Ms. Bullock came from an authoritarian country where the morality is imposed by the privileged elite, when you and your friends want to over ride the will of the people and do the same thing yourself.

The abortion legislation is an effort to ensure that women who make a decision concerning their own right to decide a personal issue gets proper medical care.

Backyard abortions have been a fact of life for centuries and too many women lost their lives, and too many older children lost a caring parent because, in past eras women, decided that a particular pregnancy was not in her interest or in the interests of an already existing family.

I am near the statistical life expectancy for an Australian man. I want the right to to say enough is enough or to have someone, that I have authorised to say so, to say, " Enough is enough, end it!"

As a contented atheist who had a cameo interview role in the new Richard Dawkins/ Lawrence Krauss film, I do not want religious moralists to have any sway over my life or the lives of my friends and family.

I rate my own ethical behaviour well ahead of any member of any church. For example, I would never indoctrinate a child.
In colloquial terms, this author can "Go to hell!"

Dear LEGO and Foyle,

While I completely agree with you about the arrogance and inappropriateness of this article, I protest the fact that you attribute the folly of this article to religion.

Mind you, the author himself did not mention a word about God or religion or any similar term in his article.

The so-called "sanctity of life", at least in Australia, has become a secular idea, held by many atheists, agnostics and humanists. It has been exaggerated over the top by both major parties and even by the Greens, so there is nothing specifically religious about it.
(it was likely developed as a secular endeavour in support the financial/power interests of the AMA Mafia, but this goes beyond the scope of this topic)

Religion puts more emphasis on one's spirit or soul, rather than insisting on the persistence of one's physical/biological body. God has not ordained such crazy ideas in the first place and over history, churches too did not emphasise this "sanctity of life" or acted accordingly either - it rather is a modern fashion.

So please give credit to the deserving and no discredit to the innocent.
Thank you.

Ms Bullock
'The Voluntary Euthanasia Bill raises the question of whether our election to parliament gives us the right to sanction the killing of other human beings in circumstances other than self-defence or the defence of the nation. This is not a difficult question. The answer is simple. No. We do not have such a right. We do not have the right to sanction the killing of our fellow human beings. For that reason alone I oppose the bill'.

Ms Bullock,
your election to parliament doesn't give you the
right to stand in front of the cupboard with the humane, end-of
life-drugs in it, for people dying in agony, who in self-defence wish
to end their suffering. I and my fellow humans are quite capable
of administering those drugs or injections to ourselves, if we so
decide when our time comes, you don't have any right to stand in
our way as though you had some divine right to the medicine cabinet.

Who do you think you are? really! Are you more worried about
making sure you get to heaven than you are about the suffering
of dying people. I suggest it is all about you.

How many times have I said this. If those who are against abortion put up your hand to support women who can't handle any more children. Sit outside abortion clinics & offer to take on the responsibility for every foetus in line for abortion. I'm sure the anti abortion crowd would dwindle in a blink.