Euthanasia

[Super Nova]

LABOR and the Greens have shown a lack of integrity by moving on voluntary euthanasia straight after the election rather than before it, Melbourne Anglican Bishop Philip Huggins said yesterday.

Bishop Huggins has asked the national parliament of the Australian Anglican Church, now meeting in Melbourne, to affirm the sanctity of life as God's gift. The motion says: ''Our task is to protect, nurture and sustain life to the best of our ability.''

He told The Age he was shocked at the report yesterday that Prime Minister Julia Gillard was backing a conscience vote to restore the power of the territories to allow euthanasia. The Howard government overturned a Northern Territory decision to allow it in 1997.

Bishop Huggins said: ''This was not a matter of pre-election debate. Would people have voted the same way if they knew a Labor government with the Greens would, as a near-first action, promote a conscience vote on euthanasia?

''There would be more integrity in foreshadowing this proposal before an election rather than immediately after. It should have been made plain during the election campaign. There should be a broad-based public debate.''

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/angli ... 15jqv.html

There is so much in this article to debate. Trying to stay away from my views on the role of religion in politics I will focus on the political point.

"''This was not a matter of pre-election debate."

Just because a topic was not debated during the election should not prevent a government from implementing change in any area. A debate during an election is generally to secure public support for a change, getting the so called "mandate" to bulldose through a change. However there are many aspects of government and even reform that are not discussed during or before an election. many items of detail that in some circumstances the average electorate will not understand and for those that could, they can not be experts in the areas to really make an informed or balanced decision.

Government does not need to have a mandate for all changes. It has a mandate to implement the things it got elected on... for a period of time that reduces opposition to the changes making it easier to implement, at least for a period of time.

We elect the buggers to make some decisions... they should get on with it. If they make the wrong decisions we throw them out next time.

Many radical reforms have occured in areas outside of the average persons line of sight without being discussed pre-election.

"to affirm the sanctity of life as God's gift"

If God didn't want these changes to happen, he/she/it would never have allowed them to be voted in. (in this case they weren't but he allowed them to form a parliment)

[boxy]

He'd have a point if they were going to force it through on party lines, but opening it to a conscience vote is totally different. A conscience vote indicates that the thing being voted on is not party policy. I fail to see why a party would need to campaign on something that they arn't going to make their members vote for.

And there's been plenty of public debate on the issue, for years already

You'd get arrested for making a dog suffer as much the "Christians" insist that humans must.

[Super Nova]

He'd have a point if they were going to force it through on party lines, but opening it to a conscience vote is totally different. A conscience vote indicates that the thing being voted on is not party policy. I fail to see why a party would need to campaign on something that they arn't going to make their members vote for.

And there's been plenty of public debate on the issue, for years already

You'd get arrested for making a dog suffer as much the "Christians" insist that humans must.

Good point. A conscience vote indicates that the thing being voted on is not party policy.

So what point is he trying to make. It did not need to be part of any election manifesto because each member will vote on his/her conscience. His point and attempt to connect the vote to the election is invalid. Completely irrelivent.

A tipical example of seeking influence by religious proporganda. If god did want them to vote on the issue he would not have given us a conscience. It is a pity the church does not have one. Little boys would be so much safer if they did.

[Jovial Monk]

it is stupid Bob Brown thinks that euthenasia be discussed early in this new Parlt, the sort of rank stupidity you expect from the Greens.

SN, you silly cocksucker, euthanasia as such is not being discussed, BB wants the ban on euthanasia in the territories to be overturned, bit of dif there as the territories would have to enact any euthanasia laws.

[Super Nova]

it is stupid Bob Brown thinks that euthenasia be discussed early in this new Parlt, the sort of rank stupidity you expect from the Greens.

SN, you silly cocksucker, euthanasia as such is not being discussed, BB wants the ban on euthanasia in the territories to be overturned, bit of dif there as the territories would have to enact any euthanasia laws.

"Prime Minister Julia Gillard was backing a conscience vote to restore the power of the territories to allow euthanasia. The Howard government overturned a Northern Territory decision to allow it in 1997."

"SN, you silly cocksucker, euthanasia as such is not being discussed,"

I don't know Monk. The fact that I like to suck huge cocks is not relevent however your statement that "euthanasia as such is not being discussed" is not correct as indicated in the article. They are discussing removing the federal overruling of a territory law. Before you come out again with your abuse, check your facts.

[Jovial Monk]

And that is what I said.

[IQSRLOW]

JM is projecting again.

In reality he wants to be euthanased by chocking on massive cocks.
He has been trying for some time but Chihuahuas don't have the necessary equipment he requires