🚀 go-pugleaf

Iain Jameson <Iain.Jameson@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:

>David Moss wrote:
>> Australia is a signatory to the UN universal declaration of human
>> rights, so I can confidently quote:
>> "Article 3:
>> Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

>Definition of liberty :

>The power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself.
>The right or privilege of access to a particular place; freedom.
>Look like voluntary euthanasia falls under this.

Lets look at the significant and executive part of your definition:
"acting for oneself."

Whoops, looks like it leaves euthanasia out.
It does mean that suicide should be legal, 
and what do you know, it is!

>Definition of freedom :

>Personal liberty, as from slavery, bondage, serfdom, etc.
>The quality or state of being free, esp. to enjoy political
>and civil liberties.
>The power or liberty to order one's own actions.


Lets look at the significant  part of your definition:
"one's own actions"
Whoops, looks like it leaves euthanasia out.
It does mean that suicide should be legal, 
and what do you know, it is!


>Definition of free :

>Able to act at will; not under compulsion or constraint.
>Having personal rights or liberty.

Lets look at the significant  part of your definition:
"personal rights"
Whoops, looks like it leaves euthanasia out.
It does mean that suicide should be legal, 
and what do you know, it is!

>Well there you have it folks, Article 3 allows voluntary euthanasia and
>the federal government will be denying Australians their basic
>human rights if the Andrews bill is passed.

Well there you have it folks, Iain just demonstrated to us that
suicude should be legal in Australia, but euthanasia should not.
Thanks Iain.

>If the bill is passed, the lawyers are going to have a field day.
>Shame really.

On the contrary, if the Andrews Bill passes, patient killing will once
again be consistantly illegal throughout Australia. If it fails, the
legal profession will have a field day arguing a whole range of ways
in which killing could be a mere administrative anomaly under the RTI
act rather than a criminal breach of the Crimes Act.

>The above definitions are taken from the Collins English dictionary.

Great definitions Iain !

>> 
>> As I said, I reckon you are one of the more intelligent posters to
>> this group. Thats about as much respect as anyone can expect here, and
>> even that only lasts as long as your next post...
>> 
>Coming from David, this is genuinely funny.

Ah, you are becoming more discerning Iain.
You correctly percieved the subtle dig at myself.
Next thing you know you will be accepting arguments on their  evidence
and bigotry will be a thing of the past !


David Moss,
personal opinion only.
try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics