|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Nov 11, 2024 22:42:00 GMT
One thing I would say about abortion is that it highlights the one group of peoples' rights that the modern rights fetish doesn't actually care for, the disabled. From abortion to euthanasia, it will be the disabled who are cast aside and who currently, and who will under euthanasia, die. Yet, their rights don't even get a look in. Indeed, even on basic things, like access to transport, where a campaign would really make a substantive difference to peoples' lives, there's crickets. Improving the lot of the disabled is the last true civil rights issue in this country, and that's where woke people here really could be focussing their ire if they really want to improve lives. There is no conflict between the rights of disabled people and euthanasia. On the contrary, making people in a lot of pain (who I guess are disabled at least in one sense of the word) carry on living against their wishes is both barbaric and contrary to basic autonomy. There isn't even a conflict of liberties as in abortion. Who do you want controlling your time of death. You, or the state? I don't accept that it will be those people, because often it isn't. Whether the feelings reflect reality or not, I do think people will feel an obligation to die. They will feel themselves a burden on family, friends and the state. I also don't like the idea of making doctors and nurses state sanctioned killers, as that will fundamentally alter their role and will have devastating mental effects on many in the medical profession. The focus of health care should be making people better, or, if that's not possible, alleviating pain as much as possible; but it should never be on "mercy" killing/euthanasia. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 11, 2024 22:51:01 GMT
There is no conflict between the rights of disabled people and euthanasia. On the contrary, making people in a lot of pain (who I guess are disabled at least in one sense of the word) carry on living against their wishes is both barbaric and contrary to basic autonomy. There isn't even a conflict of liberties as in abortion. Who do you want controlling your time of death. You, or the state? I don't accept that it will be those people, because often it isn't. Whether the feelings reflect reality or not, I do think people will feel an obligation to die. They will feel themselves a burden on family, friends and the state. I also don't like the idea of making doctors and nurses state sanctioned killers, as that will fundamentally alter their role and will have devastating mental effects on many in the medical profession. The focus of health care should be making people better, or, if that's not possible, alleviating pain as much as possible; but it should never be on "mercy" killing/euthanasia. It will be my choice. I don't want to be "better", not palliative care. Then it will be tablets, because I'll have to. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,660 
|
Post by Jack on Nov 11, 2024 22:52:16 GMT
It's interesting how opponents of assisted dying always cite Canada and the Netherlands as reasons why we shouldn't legalise it, but never mention Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Austria, Portugal and eleven US states that don't have the same problems that the Canadian and Dutch versions have.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 11, 2024 22:55:26 GMT
It's interesting how opponents of assisted dying always cite Canada and the Netherlands as reasons why we shouldn't legalise it, but never mention Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Austria, Portugal and eleven US states that don't have the same problems that the Canadian and Dutch versions have. Same as opponents of PR who always cite Australia. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 11, 2024 23:11:27 GMT
There is no conflict between the rights of disabled people and euthanasia. On the contrary, making people in a lot of pain (who I guess are disabled at least in one sense of the word) carry on living against their wishes is both barbaric and contrary to basic autonomy. There isn't even a conflict of liberties as in abortion. Who do you want controlling your time of death. You, or the state? I don't accept that it will be those people, because often it isn't. Whether the feelings reflect reality or not, I do think people will feel an obligation to die. They will feel themselves a burden on family, friends and the state. I also don't like the idea of making doctors and nurses state sanctioned killers, as that will fundamentally alter their role and will have devastating mental effects on many in the medical profession. The focus of health care should be making people better, or, if that's not possible, alleviating pain as much as possible; but it should never be on "mercy" killing/euthanasia. I have sympathy with your arguement. But it is an idea whose time has come. When I become a burden, I shall shuffle off. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Nov 11, 2024 23:20:40 GMT
Of cpurse, abortion would not even be a controversial issue if men were the bearers of the potential life. It's as simple as that really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Nov 11, 2024 23:21:09 GMT
I don't accept that it will be those people, because often it isn't. Whether the feelings reflect reality or not, I do think people will feel an obligation to die. They will feel themselves a burden on family, friends and the state. I also don't like the idea of making doctors and nurses state sanctioned killers, as that will fundamentally alter their role and will have devastating mental effects on many in the medical profession. The focus of health care should be making people better, or, if that's not possible, alleviating pain as much as possible; but it should never be on "mercy" killing/euthanasia. Oh? They mainly seem to have very few moral qualms about birth pills and termination of pregnancy that results in a large quantity of deaths and a crashing of our natural birth rate and effectively the rapid decline of the entire ethnic population. The substantive difference is they are of a distance removed when it comes to abortion, especially if it's early and in pill form. If they inject someone and watch as the pain killers they gave someone kills them, and often death isn't pretty, that's very different. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 11, 2024 23:28:46 GMT
Of cpurse, abortion would not even be a controversial issue if men were the bearers of the potential life. It's as simple as that really. Well yes. Giving birth and raising kids is a lot of work. As long as women were socially expected to do it all, it was very fashionable. What has changed is that women are no longer socially expected to carry all the burdens but what has not changed is that nobody else, men or society, has accepted that burden But this insight does take us any further forward |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,722
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 11, 2024 23:37:58 GMT
Of cpurse, abortion would not even be a controversial issue if men were the bearers of the potential life. It's as simple as that really. But then they'd be called women, and have their lives controlled by the seeders of the potential life, who would be called men. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 11, 2024 23:44:59 GMT
I do so love pedantry
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Nov 12, 2024 1:34:03 GMT
Marco Rubio tipped to be Secretary of State, the least bad option.
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Nov 12, 2024 4:47:51 GMT
Several House special elections looking likely.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,601
|
Post by mboy on Nov 12, 2024 8:34:23 GMT
It's interesting how opponents of assisted dying always cite Canada and the Netherlands as reasons why we shouldn't legalise it, but never mention Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Austria, Portugal and eleven US states that don't have the same problems that the Canadian and Dutch versions have. It's hardly a surprise that opponents cite failures. More to the point, the UK is more like Canada in its culture and systems than any of the other countries in your list. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,785
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 12, 2024 9:44:05 GMT
If the exit poll is correct there has been a swing among women towards Trump. I have seen it explained thus: women are reacting against the nonsense directed towards their husbands, sons, friends etc. I have seen this shift among my wife's extended family in Spain. There is a cultural shift across many western countries Just by sex ("gender") they claim indeed men +5% and woMen +7%. But breaking it down into sex and race ( and formal education) these numbers do not really hold up. While Trump was campaigning especially on young men, who do usually not turn out, in France, Germany, Austria (and perhaps also other countries) the pollsters detected in the EP-elections this year a shift of more woMen than men to RN/AfD/FPÖ. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 12, 2024 11:47:47 GMT
The list of pardons that Trump and Biden issue is going to be box office. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Nov 12, 2024 12:39:47 GMT
Trump will mostly pardon himself, IMO
|
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by cathyc on Nov 12, 2024 13:11:13 GMT
Trump will mostly pardon himself, IMO I've heard it argued that constitutionally nobody can pardon themselves and that even if they could it does automatically mean an acceptance of guilt. Others disagreed and that was even before the recent SCOTUS pronouncements which may have chanhed things. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,601
|
Post by mboy on Nov 12, 2024 13:14:21 GMT
Sam Harris has dropped an absolute corker of an article:
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Nov 12, 2024 13:31:36 GMT
Apparently "undocumented immigrants and families" represent 4.5% of the total US workforce, so miilions of people currently in productive employment, no longer being productively employed.
The cost to government of the mass deportations threatened by Trump (which I doubt will actually happen anyway, but MAGA expects] is calculated at around $88bn p.a.
Add on top of that the Tariffs debacle.
What state do you think the US economy will be in in 4 years time?
|
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Nov 12, 2024 14:16:02 GMT
Apparently "undocumented immigrants and families" represent 4.5% of the total US workforce, so miilions of people currently in productive employment, no longer being productively employed. The cost to government of the mass deportations threatened by Trump (which I doubt will actually happen anyway, but MAGA expects] is calculated at around $88bn p.a. Add on top of that the Tariffs debacle. What state do you think the US economy will be in in 4 years time? I don’t think that anyone expects the Admin to deport all of the 20 million illegals, but expecting them to deport ones who came during the Trump and Biden administrations is reasonable. (Especially as they generally not considered to be as hard working as the Mexicans who came before and are not young male heavy) |
|
