One very obvious and odious form of State sanctioned killing you have overlooked Bill is that of the innocent in Australia....a real elephant in the room. The 100,000 innocent unborn children killed by abortion every year. In 2008 the State of Victoria sanctioned the most liberal abortion legislation in the world..abortion up to birth. Politicians exercising their consciences, denied doctors and nurses the right to exercise their consciences and opt out of the killing Imagine the outrage if an opponent of capital punishment was forced onto the rifle range to shoot the two tragic reformed drug smugglers in Indonesia recently. Thomas Jefferson believed the first responsibility of government was to protect human life. How many of them even knew this..one ignorant MP raised the spectre of "single girls having babies "...note not "single boys fathering babies" ..and how society could possibly deal with this. Surely it is up to Government to give a hand up to the more vulnerable in our society...what about public housing? Is the best an MP can do is to point a young woman in the direction of an abortion clinic instead of ensuring everyone had a right to roof over their head? What is parliament about if it is not about people?

I am not sure exactly what this author is saying, but I know it is nothing to do with abortion Denny. Maybe you could start your own sermon, sorry -thread- about that subject?

I agree that if our Government are so keen on saving the lives of convicted Australian criminals on death row in other countries, then surely they should not report our citizens going to other countries to fight with extremist groups?
Isn't that in effect signing their death warrant too?

Maybe they should just let these rogue travelers return to Australia and then try them in our courts here?

If you can't see the connection between the range of forms of State sanctioned killing addressed in this article and State sanctioned abortion..and lament the loss of 100,000 innocent human lives on top of the two young reformed Australian drug smugglers in Indonesia recently.....I can only suggest the problem lies within yourself Suseonline. All I am saying is, Don't forget the babies Bill, 100,000 of them a year!

Dear Denny,

Don't forget the impregnated women who for one reason or another would not want to go to term. They have rights also. As far as I am concerned the right of an adult pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy should prevail over any right of the fetus.

david f

yes as usual deflect the 99% of babies murdered for convenience sake by blurring the tiny percentage killed because of rape or health reasons. Might make you feel better but does not change the truth. Thanks Denny for pointing out the obvious.

Dear runner,

Truth is apparently defined as what you agree with. Please cite any statistics to substantiate your statement that 99% of abortions are for convenience. It sounds like another statement which has no basis in fact. I don't think you care about pregnant women at all. Your sympathy seems to be reserved for fetuses regardless of the damage it might do to a woman to go to term.

'Your sympathy seems to be reserved for fetuses regardless of the damage it might do to a woman to go to term.'

and you David f appear very ignorant of the long term affects emotionally and otherwise that choose this barbaric practice.

btw by redefining Jews as not being people did not change their humanity. It only justified murderers in their own mind. Call them fetuses but does not change the fact they are human.

I call them fetuses because that's what they are. As long as they are in a woman's body she should have the right to say whether she wants to go to term. You are not going bring up the child if it is born. You are not going to have to care of a handicapped child. You just quote phony statistics and want to decide what somebody else should do.

When I was in Holland I knew a man who was against abortion. However, he took responsibility. For every woman his group persuaded not to have an abortion the group took responsibility for providing the funds to care for the child. I respected him. His group not only was against abortion but also took responsibility if the woman didn't have an abortion. You just talk, spout phony statistics and take no responsibility.

If a woman wants to have an abortion for any reason she thinks is valid that should be her right. She is the responsible person not you.

'If a woman wants to have an abortion for any reason she thinks is valid that should be her right. She is the responsible person not you.'

not surprising David f with no moral base to draw from but surely you are not hypocritical enough to oppose the death penalty for criminals while sanctioning the murder of the innocent.

Murder is a crime defined by the state. Abortion is not murder under Australian law. As a person who serves in the justice system you should know that. I go by Australian law not your mumbojumbo.

ok David f so you are fine with the executions in Indonesia for they were legal. It is also not legal for homosexuals to call their unions marriage here in Australia. So obviously you are fine with that.

After reading Bill Calcutt's "logic" it seems to go like this.

"If killing criminals using capitol punishment is wrong, then killing terrorists is also wrong."

What is it like dancing with the fairies down the bottom of the garden, Bill?

Three of Bill's premises need examination. His claim that Australian governments "implacably" oppose capitol punishment is true. But since that same government will not give a referendum on that important issue, then that statement is meaningless. Instead, we get stupid referendums like the present proposal to make all non aboriginals second class citizens in their own country. Nobody with any grey matter in their heads will vote for anyway.

The second, is his claim that "many" societies also prohibit the death penalty. Once again, none of those societies ever got to vote directly on that issue. It was imposed upon the electorate by elites with all the arrogance of absolute monarchs, who think that democracy is a real inconvenience to the implementation of their humanitarian policies.

The third, is that Bill draws all the wrong conclusions about ANZAC Day. Almost all of the people who attend dawn Service are white Australians who are celebrating their own history and culture now that Australia Day has been hijacked by the multiculturalists. That is why so many trendy lefties have made derogatory comments about ANZAC Day. Patriotism, white Australian identity, pride in our history and culture, are all anathema and heresy to the internationalist left wing academics.

If we wanted to celebrate "mateship and self sacrifice", a better campaign would be the Kokoda Track battle, which was much nearer to home, the stakes were higher, it was almost as bloody, it was hampered by the same military leadership stupidity as Gallipoli, but at least we won it.

As Victoria has reportedly allowed abortion up to term does that mean that the knitting needle method of painless extermination is legal?

If it is, then the further question of procedure where the baby is in the breech position occurs, and will extra long needles be supplied?

Are the issues here really so complicated?
If a person deliberately kills another person surely that person forfeits the right to life.
At that point the State has to right to terminate or not terminate the killer's life. That discretion should be delegated to a jury panel, not a single Judge. The burden of the decision making is too much for one person.
Why should the State feed and shelter for years and then release a man such as Mons ( Lindt Café), those rapists who held the Cobby girl's head underwater until she drowned.-- or the bastard who raped and killed that Irish girl in Melbourne while on bail or parole for another rape? I would volunteer to pull the lever that drops that lot through scaffold floor.

And surely the question of abortion is a matter of timing. Would the right to lifers say that the day after conception was too late to abort? Would the "pro- choicers" say it is OK as long as the umbilical cord has not been cut?-or 5 minutes before or 12 hours before or 2 days before or when?

Surely it is not a matter of absolute choice by one person, as at some stage there is another person, even if only partly formed to consider, as well as the putative father.

At some point in the gestation period there must be an end to the sole choice of the mother.
Then it should be a for a panel to weigh the wishes of the mother, the father, the damage to the mother's life, the chances of the child for a good life etc.
It becomes too complicated at some point of time for to be considered as a matter of "rights" either of the mother or the unborn child.

There may be many cases where the best outcome, weighing the interests of al persons or part- persons, concerned for adoption-- that great no- no of today's thinkers.

Bill overseas sanctioned killings which one questions these days, if we go to WW2 the Japanese were sanctioned to be killed, now our best friends, Iran "axis of evil" twelve months or so ago, we now have Bishop making friends, our enemies last week our friends this week, who are the friends and who are the enemies, completely lost, who knows Isis could be our friends before long,the wind changes direction all the time.
Think of all the enemies in the past who are now our friends, what a waste of sanctioned killings.

Runner wrote: ok David f so you are fine with the executions in Indonesia for they were legal. It is also not legal for homosexuals to call their unions marriage here in Australia. So obviously you are fine with that.

Dear runner,

Whether or not I approve of the execution of Chan and Sumarakan or the executions were called state-sanctioned murder their executions were legal under Indonesian law. I am not an Indonesian and have no say in Indonesian law. Abbott should not have recalled the ambassador. Australia has a double standard toward Indonesia. Whitlam made Australia the first country to recognise the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and covered up the Indonesian army’s murder of four Australian journalists in Balibo. Hawke sold Steyr rifles to the Indonesians against the advice of his own military. At Canungra Australia trained the Indonesian Kopassus Division which commits atrocities. The present government doesn’t seem to care about the murderous Indonesian occupation of west Papua but gets its knickers in a twist because Indonesia executed two Australian thugs.

At present two people of the same sex cannot contract a legal marriage in Australia. If the law is changed they will be able to do so. It will not affect my marriage either way.

I think it was a tremendous positive step that a pregnant woman can get an abortion under good medical conditions. It was a victory for women. You and those who agree with you would like to turn the clock backward. I hope you will not succeed, and abortion will remain a legal right.

Neither Denny nor you seem to give a damn about the wishes and circumstances of a pregnant woman. It’s all about the fetus.

Some pregnant women will get abortions. If it continues to be legal they will get them by medically approved procedures. If it is again made illegal backyard butcher and coat hanger abortions will return, and some desperate women will commit suicide. You would bring those bad old days back.

Sex education including the use of contraceptives and freely available contraceptives will result in fewer abortions

Well said David F.
Thank goodness we do have safe, legal abortions in a country that is not held to ransom by religious hocus-pocus, but rather looks to the rights of women too.

No one likes abortion, but it will keep happening, whether it is legal or not, so it might as well be safe for the women.

Personally, I think there has been too much made of the executions of the 2 drug dealers.
The mad 'Hillsong' tribe even made Chan a 'Pastor' while he was in jail for drug dealing!
They will look for any media attention that will further their cause...

Dear Suseonline,

I had a lovely cousin. During World War 2 she said goodbye to her boyfriend who went off to war. Two months later she got word that he was killed in action. She found herself pregnant and apparently felt she had no options. I don't think she felt she could tell her mother or father. She was seventeen years old and committed suicide.

If she had access to abortion at that time she probably would have decided on that, but she didn't have that option. I loved her and mourn her. It is fair to assume that her story is not the only one like that.

She could have lived her life, possibly gone to university and later married and had children if she could have had an abortion.

I am thankful that someone in similar circumstances in the present has the option.

Of course if she had used a contraceptive she wouldn't have been pregnant. Possibly she didn't have that knowledge, and they weren't available. Whatever happened happened.

I am glad we have the pill and think all girls should be instructed in its use.

It is time we had safe humane voluntary euthanasia for all that require it, just like abortion for all those who require it.

Dear David F, what a sad story, but one repeated quite often in the past I fear.

I often wonder whether anti-choice proponents really care about life at all, or whether it is all about wanting to control women, or whether it is about their religion.
Abortion should be a last resort and contraceptives should be free, and maybe our increasingly secular world will see that happen one day.

Personally, I doubt I could go through with an abortion, but at least I have that choice...

State sanctioned killing?

Well surely there are some despicable heinous crimes; gang rape/murder rape/mass murder, committed by those with no redeeming features whatsoever, and who will like (born again Osborne) indubitably repeat their unspeakable crimes when released!?

And after costing the taxpayer millions for a veritable smorgasbord of delaying (completely clogged) costly court actions; and, keeping them in comparative comfort, in high cost high security prisons!

Where incarcerated association with them, turns young (salvageable) victims into contaminated criminals/uncaring thugs/recidivist criminals, when released!

If they are proven guilty without a single shadow of doubt, then surely the death penalty, ought to at least be on the table/open for discussion. And where we have the means of removing any trace of those shadows!

We have DNA testing, which could be done in duplication by no less than three independent expert analysts, to remove any possible doubt; and we have noninvasive space age lie detection; that simply and completely validates other indisputable findings; even in people who can beat a current polygraph test!? No ifs, buts or maybes!

That being so, then surely a single .22 silenced bullet fired fail safe into the back of the brain, would be both instant and therefore, completely painless and entirely humane!

And with the heart stopped in that instant, there is little if any bleeding or unseemly mess!

And no, that should never ever be seen as revenge killings, just deserved justice, and a positive guarantee, they will never ever re-offend!

I mean and in the final analysis, it could be your son or daughter, wife, husband, mother, father or partner or lover, who is stabbed in the back; or gang raped/bashed into a permanent life long comma/vegetative state, without cause, concern or warning, the very next, next time; unless, it really can't happen to you or yours!?

Besides, a single bullet costs just cents; whereas, lifetime incarceration may cost many millions! Which could instead be diverted into genuine rehabilitation for those we can still turn around.

Everyone deserves a second chance, except those who's PROVEN unspeakable crimes and recidivism, simply rule that out!
Rhrosty

Rhosty, to me it seems hypocritical to say to a criminal and the rest of society that murder is a terrible crime, so we are going to murder you!

If they are the really terrible criminals that murders or rapes indiscriminately, with no remorse, then I see a lifetime of incarceration with hard labour as a just punishment.
These sorts of criminals should have no comforts at all in their cells, and perhaps spend their endless days cleaning the toilet blocks.

But we shouldn't shorten their punishment by murdering them...

To Susieonline.

Gary ridgeway, the Green river Killer, admitted to murdering 48 young women, but it is believed that he killed twice that many. Life in prison is a manifestly unjust sentence for such a crime. Even a quick death is manifestly inadequate. I think the bastard should have been burned at the stake.

And no, I don't see any problem with killing murderers like Ridgeway, Milat, Bundy, or Oba Chandler. All societies have soldiers who will kill the enemies of their people on command, so what is the difference?

Please don't say that soldiers only kill each other. My uncle Charlie was on the RAF bomber mission over Hamburg when they "murdered" 51,000 Germans, mostly women and children, who died horribly from blasts, suffocation, or burning to death

Lego 51,000 Germans killed, of course that is legal Government killing, life means nothing to any Government where war is concerned, 51,000 voluntary euthanasia requested killings, oh dear no, not legal killing and we can't have that can we, let them suffer in pain and loss of dignity, we do not care says the Government
All those who are not with VE should not be with Government sanctioned killings, there is no difference, get it.

LEGO, as much as I might want to see these disgusting people killed, I still don't think it sends the right message to society....that killing someone is ok.

I don't like war either, especially the death of civilians, but I know that sometimes war is a necessary evil.
I doubt there was a worse wartime atrocity than the Yanks bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki though, with mainly women, children and the elderly in residence while most of the adult males were away at war.

Revenge served hot or cold is not a pleasant dish. Murderers who are locked up and not allowed out cannot offend again although precautions have to be taken so that they cannot murder while in prison. However, there is no need to treat them brutally or even unkindly. We do not have to act to others as they would act unto us.

Revenge does not bring the victims back to life. Resurrection is merely a religious myth. Dead is dead.

Suseoniline wrote: If they are the really terrible criminals that murders or rapes indiscriminately, with no remorse, then I see a lifetime of incarceration with hard labour as a just punishment.
These sorts of criminals should have no comforts at all in their cells, and perhaps spend their endless days cleaning the toilet blocks.

Dear Suseonline: That would not undo what they have done. Punishment is only just when its application might keep someone from reoffending. Otherwise it is pointless cruelty.

David F, "..: That would not undo what they have done. Punishment is only just when its application might keep someone from reoffending. Otherwise it is pointless cruelty."

That may well be true David, but it made me feel better saying it!

There are a few unspeakably evil people in this world that even anti-capital punishment people like myself would draw the line at providing anything more than food, water and shelter during their confinement.
I believe these very dangerous criminals are usually kept apart from the other inmates anyway.
I am not talking about cruelty, but I would certainly not want them too comfortable...

To Susie.

Try telling a soldier that killing people is not OK. Not only do soldiers live under the code of "Thou Shalt Kill". They also live under the code of "Great Woe Shall Betide Thee If Thou Dost Not Kill."

Genetically eradicating the most dangerous and unsocialised members of any society is a survival imperative. It presents a clear moral boundary which an offender must consider before crossing it and engaging in selfish behaviour which endangers the entire community.

Some people are just too dangerous and unfit to live. One Victorian man has been convicted and jailed three separate times for murder and has killed again every time he has been released.

Naturally, you did not address my premise that a man like Gary Ridgeway who has killed at least 48 young women, life in prison is a manifestly inadequate sentence.

Simply sprouting moral values without justification is meaningless. Moral values become valid only after a general agreement among an entire people that they are the correct way of doing things. Moral values can not be imposed by minority opinion, they can only be accepted when the majority accepts them after due consideration.

David f dead is dead, the religious do not get it, agree
Suseonline which category do you put Bush, Blair, Howard and Downer in? They were all war mongering idiots, just like the present group of politicians, they are murderers to the first degree, so why are they not facing the firing squad, protected just for being on the so called right side of the fence, surely their pea brains must tell them that they caused indirectly misery, deaths and carnage that they inflicted on people, are they really any different to Milat etc, murder is murder whether it be war or not.
Suse I was taught as an eighteen year old how to kill, didn't matter how excruciating it was to the other person, the more pain the better, I could have
joined the ranks of a murderer and possibly got a medal for it.

To Onjab.

No, I don't "get it."

Your premise seems to be, that state sanctioned killing is wrong. Then you seem to support euthanasia, which is state sanctioned killing.

Cuckoo, cuckoo.

Police forces everywhere carry sidearms to protect innocent life through state sanctioned killings. Almost every society allows state sanctioned killings where innocents are defending their lives against attackers bent on their homicides. Finally, every state in the world has armed forces who's job it is to kill enemy people in situations where open warfare is ongoing. All of that is state sanctioned killing.

Execution is just another aspect of state sanctioned killings which already exist. Even in those societies where the death penalty has been abolished by elites with no consultation or mandate with the people.

Get it?

Lego state sanctioned killing is the killing of ordinary people, with those people having no say in the matter of their death.
Voluntary euthanasia is for those people, including myself, to have end of life choices, not for those people who do not want VE regarding their death when pain and loss of dignity occur, this is requested by only those people who want VE about their ending. A bomb on your head gives you no choice, that is the difference.