🚀 go-pugleaf

bpl@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn) wrote:

>In article <5dcbgf$c3o$3@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) says:
>>
>>bpl@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <0sRm2D4w165w@orchide.dialix.oz.au>, jan@orchide.dialix.oz.au (jan) says:
>>
>>>All that waffle, Jan. Why can't you just admit you have religious reasons for 
>>>being opposed to V.E., and tell us what they are - possibly best on 'Pagan'
>>>or 'Christian' newsgroups.
>>
>>I think you are barking up the wrong tree here Brian.
>>Although the Christians, Buddhists,

>Buddhists?
Yes.
"The first precept of Buddhist Pancasila (Five Precepts) is to
restraint from killing a being"

Euthanasia is, by definition, the [gentle] killing of a being, hence
is abhorred by buddhists.

> Hindus and Islam all consider
>>euthanasia wrong, you do not have to be religious to oppose it.
>No, but it helps.

_Any_ form of education regarding humanity, values and morality helps.

>>There are also historical, moral, legal and socialogical reasons for
>>opposing euthanasia.

>Indeed. But the so called 'moral' reasons for opposing *voluntary*
>euthanasia don't stand up to scrutiny - nor do any of the others
>you mention.

Like Buddhism above I suppose. 

>>
>>Also, do not assume that a person familiar with religious texts is
>>religious. They may somply be well educated.

>And don't assume that a person who asks for the chance to have
>help to die with dignity is *not* religious. 

I don't. In fact at least one high profile pro-euthanasia activist has
shown this newsgroup his motivations are spawned by a rejection of a
certain religious belief rather than humanitarianism.

>I hold pagan religious
>beliefs, and among them that a person with a very strong character
>can probably chose his/her moment of death anyway, without help.

As has been proven on a number of historic occasions, notably the
crucified Christ. This is irrelevant to the discussion however.

>But we weaker vessels may desire that just as much as the strong ones.
>Why shouldn't we be given some assistance in having that desire
>fulfilled, when it doesn't mean we're hurting or restricting
>anyone else. 

Enacting a law which legalises deliberate homicide under certain
conditions is a fundemental change to the fabric of society. It is a
huge step to take. Further changes are much simpler, merely a widening
of the conditions under which killing can take place. The removal of
the vital first bastion (all deliberate killing is illegal) affects
_everyone_. 

>If you met a soldier crawling out of a bombed fort,
>with gutz hanging out, obviously in mortal agony and soon but
>slowly to die, and he pleaded with you to take up his gun and
>shoot - what would you do? Turn away and leave him to it and
>think what a good Christian or whatever you are?

Non PC, truthful answer:
Depends on whether he was on my side, or the opposition.

People in the situation you describe have their guts pushed back in,
filled full of morphine and dusted off to hospital. Some of them are
grandfathers now. Good thing someone didn't "assist" them on the spot,
wasn't it ?



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