What happened to last week’s warnings about nazism? Ban lifted on voluntary assisted dying.
After two hours of debate, the Senate voted to end the 25 year ban on Thursday night, allowing the two territories to pass their own laws.
In 1997, the commonwealth imposed a veto on the NT and the ACT, specifically barring them from legalising voluntary assisted dying.The chamber and public gallery broke out into applause as senators agreed to repeal the ban, without a formal count.
Every other state in Australia had already legalised voluntary euthanasia, with NSW being the latest state to pass legislation for assisted dying in May.
Greens Senator for NSW David Shoebridge took to Twitter to share his excitement over the announcement.
“And it just passed! Territory Rights restored and now the ACT and NT can work with their communities and finally deliver voluntary assisted dying laws.”
I doubt there is a more despicable rationalisation of voting intention than Senator Pat Dodson’s.
To be a custodian of something means one needs to stand for something. Dodson clearly only stands for spite.
Pat Dodson, another one who thinks ”there’s no such thing as the slippery slope”, clearly has no idea about human nature.
“I’ve been distressed by these scornful, hateful diatribes from so-called Christians, who are prepared to recruit First Nations peoples to support a campaign against euthanasia yet won’t allow them a seat at the table,” Senator Dodson said.
Does not a Senator have “a seat at the table”? If not, what are they paid for doing?
“Euthanasia” and infanticide were intrinsic “necessary” parts of many tribal “First Nations” (lol) until christians came along and told them to knock it off.
Unbelievable cowardice, but no different to the LNP’s position which is generally to hide behind procedural or constitutional issues, rather than oppose the substance of controversy which is not ‘territorial rights’ but the enormity of euthanasia.
Re ‘no slippery slope’, this is really a difficult sell given the trajectory of euthanasia in Canada and elsewhere, with respect to who it became available to and for what conditions/ reasons. You either have to be ignorant or lying to claim that the ‘safeguards’ mentioned at the outset have safeguarded anything at all.
A question that needs to be asked re euthanasia among other things, beyond the principles involved, is cui bono? I’d like to know the people and institutions behind this movement. I’d also like to know the opposite.
Warning of the “slippery slope” is problematic here too, though, because it amounts to saying, ‘this much is permissible (or less bad) but I think it will lead to this…’
Killing people is not the jump point of a slippery slope. It’s the end point.
This gets back to foundational premises again. Unless legislators defend life absolutely, they become prone to pragmatic cons like “but safeguards.”
Not sure, but Dodson could be suggesting that euthanasia is a fitting path for only the white fella.
As for cui bono, maybe the ‘planet’ (and the worthies that inhabit it): I think covid was a sufficient reason for euthanasia, somewhere. Another global psychodemic could popularise euthanasia of the involuntary sort.
‘Taxation’ is the ultimate grift to justify anything.
Sinclair:
https://twitter.com/SincDavidson/status/1598513762340065280
True, but anyone making a slippery slope argument typically already opposes the first step. What they are trying to do is persuade their interlocutor, that the further steps down the slope, which they may oppose, are already present in the first step.