To quote Wikipedia (how bad do you have to be when even Wikipedia recognises something is off) :
Child euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that is applied to children who are gravely ill or have significant birth defects. In 2005, the Netherlands became the first country since the end of Nazi Germany to decriminalize euthanasia for infants with hopeless prognosis and intractable pain.
This "real liberalism hasn't been tried" cope is no different than when the commies do it. Liberals are evil degenerate wastes of oxygen. Even the "good" ones.
Nothing was subverted. The current state of the left is inevitable. Going back to when it "worked" would just be a temporary hike up the slippery slope before we start sliding right back here again.
"Classical liberals" are either naive, or controlled opposition. With how self-defeating their views are, I am leaning to the latter.
Quite the argument there. Maybe you could point out a single instance of liberalism not being "subverted" if you are so certain that it is a viable ideology.
You ask the impossible of him, fellow AIDS person.
Trying to put arbitrary bounds on liberalism, as he does, has always failed and will fail. Since he doesn't want to accept that liberalization is an unboundable process, his mind is simply forced to sanitize liberalism by positing that every conclusion that liberalism has reached with which he disagrees is simply the fault of 'subversion' by some other force, the 'Left'. Having persuaded himself of this, he can then live a life free from guilt for what it is doing today.
The 'Left' is simply the wastebasket into which classical liberals and libertarians dump their more modern, updated counterparts.
What they will never understand is that a clear line can be drawn from Locke through Marx to today. Positing that Locke, Paine, etc. belong to a different line altogether from Marx and his acolytes is remarkably disingenuous: Marx was all about expanding the Enlightenment and the ideals of the French and American Revolutions, that is, about expanding liberalism to include more than just landowning men. The last few centuries have simply witnessed its yet further expansion; having expanded now to encompass almost all that fits under the human umbrella, it is now expanding to the animal kingdom and beyond. Hence rivers with human rights, marriages between humans and trees, and so on.
Painting a line from Locke to Rawls, Rothbard, etc. without going through the 'socialists' is simply to paint a false view of history. Dewey and Popper are just two of those in the last century who seriously blur that faint line, the trivial differences, between the fraternal, deeply overlapping ideologies of liberalism and Marxism.
If you start from the same assumptions, you are gonna end up in the same place. Tabula Rasa + NAP = communism, every time.
If you believe that all people are created equal, and then observe that they do not end up equal, you are half way to communism. It must then be some violation of the NAP that has occurred to induce this inequality. Thus your libertarians are just communist.
Compare that to the other alternatives: If the Tabula Rasa is invalid, then who cares if there is inequality? If the NAP is invalid, then who cares if people end up unequal, might makes right.
Could you point to a single instance of a government that has existed in perpetuity without changing from it's ideological foundation, by destruction from outside forces, or by collapse?
There is no political structure that wins all of human history.
Or are you going to point me to a monarchy that never became a tyranny and exists to this day?
I think they have evolved beyond the leftists and socialists. It’s a word wide death cult. We’re entering Logan’s Run territory now (minus the AI overlord but might just be a matter of when and not how.)
They are two versions of illiberals: Those who mistakenly assert that Liberalism has no boundary condition, and thus must be applied to all aspects of reality (rather than as a political framework); or are National Socialists: who see Liberalism as an arch-enemy that rebukes their collectivization.
Those are the two positions. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar who is attempting to obfuscate that they are either a generic illiberal, or a NatSoc illiberal.
In a non-clown world, this is something I would support. Terminal illness is rough and I would respect a patient's desire to go out on their own terms.
that said, seeing how laws like this are applied in Canada, I do not have any faith that this will be used appropriately.
It's more, in this case, about the fact that children, by definition, cannot consent. This is also why "gender affirming care" for minors is inherently immoral.
We, as a society, have determined that those below a certain age cannot (legally) consent to certain life-changing things, and I would argue that death is the most definitive of those.
Besides, even leaving aside the issue of childhood more broadly, an infant generally cannot even verbalise, let alone conceptualise the concept of their own mortality, so this becomes really, really fishy...
Unless we want to redefine euthanasia as eugenics, which this is much closer to, by that definition...
That's the thing, at what point does it go from "voluntary" euthanasia to state-sanctioned murder (e.g Zyklon B in the Nazi extermination camps)? Generally the line for that is drawn at consent, so if we're dealing with children who cannot legally consent (and unlike with say, dementia, cannot have consented earlier in life), then that opens a whole other can of worms...
And in a non-clown world, the parents should both be able to and trusted to consent on their behalf like they do with everything else in the child's life.
If a kid is born with horrific hydrocephalus or the like, it should be that everyone involved can be adult enough to make the decision to ends its misery rather than be forced to let it suffer just because the government says you have to.
But since we live in clown world, we cannot trust neither parents, nor hospitals or the government to even take a step in that direction.
I don’t agree, actually. I can see the argument for withdrawing continuing care to keep a person artificially alive (e.g. the Terri Schiavo case, or the Boy in the Bubble), but I do not agree with the parents or state deciding to euthanize an individual, who is cognizant (and again, that’s an important consideration), against their will…
That’s murder. Or, if you like, “justified homicide”. That’s where I draw the line, personally. YMMV, and that’s fine, but it scares me a bit that we’ve gone from Terri Schiavo to this level of discussion, in twenty years…
I wasn't part of the discussion of Terri Schiavo and that has always been my position. There are levels of suffering in life where it is kindness to let a person go instead of artificially keeping them in abject misery with no escape just so you can say "Look my hands are clean, I never will ever ever ever do anything to dirty them, my purity is more important than your pain." Its cowardice plain and simple and it always has been. Especially if you think "let them slowly starve to death" or whatever comes with withdrawing care is valid, because it keeps your hands clean through a loophole and that seems to be what more people are concerned with instead of the suffering person.
You can call it what you want to make it sound worse, but the end result is a person is free to go to heaven out of a body that cannot be healed and causes them to not be able to even live.
Now, that is a far cry from being willing to make that the norm or legal, because I don't trust neither government nor most of society to be able to make such decisions and I'd rather they not even be able to think of doing it because of how little I trust them. I thought that well prior to Canada proving the slippery slope of it and I do even more now.
Also if they are cognizant, then their wishes should always be taken into the greatest account. If they wish to fight then no one should be able to revoke that or even question it, and any who does is purely evil.
Interestingly, there’s a “Judge John Deed” episode that covers this quite nicely (not sure of the title) where a boy needs to have an organ replacement from an animal, and refuses it on the grounds of being a vegan, but his parents want to force him to take the transplant against his will. Won’t spoil it except to say that it gets ethically… Messy.
But the fact that we’ve gone from that to actively discussing whether parents should be able to consent to actually killing their child (because that’s what it comes down to, in the end) is quite frightening, imho…
If you make an exception for [word], leftists will inevitably change the definition of [word] to include whatever despicable fucking thing they want to do.
The Canadian in me is torn between disgust at the purely monstrous nature of this and relief at finally not being the worst country in the world for it.
Depending on how you look at it, the worst is probably their fellow Low Country, Belgium (in spite of the whole Catholicism thing)...
They've been doing it for longer, and their "scope" for euthanizing the mentally ill is considerably more broad. Plus I think they are higher on raw numbers, for that category...
However I believe the Dutch are the first to allow this for children, i.e. those who cannot consent to other things, but apparently can consent to state-sanctioned murder..?
Where you guys in Canuckistan differ seems to be in the breadth of where this is being applied, e.g. for "financial distress", etc.
It does strike me as fairly terrifying that we have gone from "in the case of terminal illness, in a few jurisdictions, in limited cases" (the Northern Territory in Australia, Jack Kevorkian, the Terri Schiavo case), to this becoming so widespread that it is a media trope, now, and there are whole TV series and movies based around it, and that you have bipartisan support for such extreme laws, everywhere from Canada to the Pays-Bas. It's insane.
Makes you wonder - if we're at this point now, where are we going to be on this issue (and abortion, and "gay rights") in another 20 years? Are we unironically headed for Futurama-style suicide booths? Because hell, at the rate we're trending, that doesn't feel all that far off, sadly...
It's also interesting as someone with a disease that would make me eligible for this (way into the future, but not as far into the future as for most people), that my voice is... Ignored as an "inconvenience"? Generally people with terminal/chronic/neurodegenerative diseases only seem to be listened to when we support euthanasia (or when we are "special", like Steven Hawking or Neil Daniher), never when we are against it.
As Stella Young said like a decade ago, before she died, that seems a little bit backwards and fucked up.
It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
It is not stretch compared to what we already allow in regards to mutilation, and it serve multiple schemes to enforce it, all from the bean counters attempt to balance a sheet to a rulers system of ensuring that discontent is handled. In that regards the voices allowed to speak does not matter they are merely a tool to allow the process of change with minimal fuzz.
it does strike me as fairly terrifying that we have gone from "in the case of terminal illness, in a few jurisdictions, in limited cases" (the Northern Territory in Australia, Jack Kevorkian, the Terri Schiavo case), to this becoming so widespread that it is a media trope, now, and there are whole TV series and movies based around it, and that you have bipartisan support for such extreme laws, everywhere from Canada to the Pays-Bas. It's insane.
Wait, did not the aboriginal already allow this for children, haha
Wait, did not the aboriginal already allow this for children, haha
I mean, to be facetious, we know they're not above diddling their kiddies, and I do believe honour killings were a thing in Abo communities, historically, but...
More seriously, it largely comes down to it being a unicameral territory, with a relatively small population (and therefore a small parliament), where it is relatively easier to get controversial legislation across (the US equivalent is DC. The British equivalent is maybe Wales). The only trouble was/is that the Federal government had the power to overrule said legislation, which is what they did:
The Abos, in this case, had very little to do with it, apart from I suppose being the historical reason why the NT is still a territory rather than a state.
Darwin, though (where the political power is) is extremely different to say, Alice Springs, or even Arnhem Land, which is where we generally hear about the kiddy-diddling and such. I'm not even sure Abos are a plurality in Darwin...
Depending on how you look at it, the worst is probably their fellow Low Country, Belgium (in spite of the whole Catholicism thing)...
Belgium is about as Catholic as the pope.
However I believe the Dutch are the first to allow this for children, i.e. those who cannot consent to other things, but apparently can consent to state-sanctioned murder..?
Why not? They can consent to having their bodies butchered by "doctors". Why not this as well?
Makes you wonder - if we're at this point now, where are we going to be on this issue (and abortion, and "gay rights") in another 20 years?
In all honesty, I was a fanatical supporter of abortion and "gay rights" a few years ago. I'm still pro-choice but unwilling to paint opponents as "they hate women", which I now realize that it's quite a ridiculous non-argument only accepted because it suits people. As for the other thing, as you say, if things have gotten this bad in this short a time, I cannot even imagine how bad they can get in a few decades.
It's also interesting as someone with a disease that would make me eligible for this (way into the future, but not as far into the future as for most people), that my voice is... Ignored as an "inconvenience"?
The voices of black people, or people with X, they matter, we need to listen to them... as long as they agree with our preconceived notions, of course.
Also, it seems to me to be a little bit insulting to have one's life be reduced to "such unbearable suffering that we'll kill you if you want".
Generally people with terminal/chronic/neurodegenerative diseases only seem to be listened to when we support euthanasia (or when we are "special", like Steven Hawking or Neil Daniher), never when we are against it.
Welcome to the world of anyone they use as a mascot.
One thing I realised recently by spending time there, is that many of these continental European countries take the idea of being a (theoretically, if not borne out at all in reality) "flat society", with supposed "full equality". Hence being extremely early adopters of gay marriage, and "trans rights" (Belgium seems exceptionally obsessed with the latter, for reasons I do not understand), and, in many cases, adopting Soviet-block apartments for all, even at the cost of levelling their historic, "vernacular" architecture (looking at you, Sweden, Norway and Finland)...
Which seems to be at least part of the reason they hate England (less so the other "Home Nations") so much - that idea, and everything that comes with it, just doesn't to jive with Brits, despite the efforts of Labour and the Guardianistas, lol.
If I had to sum up what the end result of the "flat society". model is, at least in the Nordics, I would say... Beige. Everything just ends up beige.
that many of these continental European countries take the idea of being a (theoretically, if not borne out at all in reality) "flat society", with supposed "full equality".
Well yeah, the idea of equality is just used to create inequality on a tremendous scale on other aspects.
Hence being extremely early adopters of gay marriage, and "trans rights" (Belgium seems exceptionally obsessed with the latter, for reasons I do not understand),
It is? Germany, UK and Ireland are the worst in my experience. Italy is the least bad, and Spain and France somewhere in between.
and, in many cases, adopting Soviet-block apartments for all, even at the cost of levelling their historic, "vernacular" architecture (looking at you, Sweden, Norway and Finland)...
That really has nothing to do with 'equality'. It means "we want to pretend like we did something for the people at minimum cost so that there's more for our corrupt cronies".
Which seems to be at least part of the reason they hate England (less so the other "Home Nations") so much - that idea, and everything that comes with it, just doesn't to jive with Brits, despite the efforts of Labour and the Guardianistas, lol.
Are you sure? I look at the UK as the worst of the worst. Even though Germany makes a big deal of prosecuting people for their speech, the sheer magnitude of government terror in the UK is far greater. Thousands are arrested for speech each year.
And not to make it personal, but continental Europe - or even the UK - did not have internment camps for people who came into contact with the virus.
If I had to sum up what the end result of the "flat society". model is, at least in the Nordics, I would say... Beige. Everything just ends up beige.
They do not actually believe in equality, as I think you understand. It's just a convenient excuse, here as elsewhere, for getting what they want.
"We put the Youth in Euthanasia!", there, thought of a trendy slogan for the Dutch. I'm sure they're proud of their decision and will broadcast that as their official country slogan coming soon.
Western Europe is descending into chaos brought in by leftist progressivism and people being afraid of being called racist. It's not racist to love my people first. The only way forward is to topple the leftist progressive government and send people back where they came.from.
Dutch doctors have been murdering children and babies for years, based on their eugenic dislike of certain curable and manageable conditions.
Also, this was the previous government (though I wouldn't expect the Wilders government to be any different on euthanasia). Also, 'ethicists' have been agitating for legalizing the murder of children for years because, they say, it is no different from abortion as children are non-sentient in their first few years.
See, what I find odd is that the supposed "majority" of voters in the Low Countries support laws like this, hence it tends to attract broad political support.
I don't really understand that, in countries with 10 Million+ each (you wouldn't see that in Au/NZ, but I suppose you do in Canada), but it's almost like... They don't seem to view human life as having the same "value", I suppose.
Obviously the ultimate result of such views is genocide, but we're not quite there yet.
But yeah, discussing issues like this with Germanics (Dutch, Flemish, Swiss, less so actual Germans, for obvious reasons) is... Interesting. There's a big "gap" there, and I'm not quite sure why...
There are many countries and cultures that value lives very little, for various reasons. Russians and chinese are classic examples, though it manifests in different ways.
See, what I find odd is that the supposed "majority" of voters in the Low Countries support laws like this, hence it tends to attract broad political support.
The thing is, while that is correct for this particular issue, what attracts political support in Europe does not have much correlation with what attracts political support. If you look at what attracts political support, you can only make judgments about elite support and not popular support.
They don't seem to view human life as having the same "value", I suppose.
While I don't think you're a Christian (and neither am I), but there are consequences to the de-christianization of the West. The idea that human life, even if a slave, even if female, even if woefully crippled, has value, was introduced to the West by Christianity, and it disappeared with Christianity. Note that this is not true for 'females', but that's not for reasons of principle, but expediency - because of pressure groups.
Obviously the ultimate result of such views is genocide, but we're not quite there yet.
It's certainly possible and made more likely, but it's not necessitated.
But yeah, discussing issues like this with Germanics (Dutch, Flemish, Swiss, less so actual Germans, for obvious reasons) is... Interesting. There's a big "gap" there, and I'm not quite sure why...
I think your own experiences may have clouded your judgment here a bit. You have experiences with one country, and there, in the cities, and even there, with college students - the worst of the worst. There is great diversity within the 'Germanics', though undoubtedly socially the worst shitholes in Europe. If you talk to the man on the street, you'll likely hear common sense or at least reasonable opinions. But like I said, what you see is the opinions of the elites.
We are ruled by a world wide death cult
They got minimal pushback on murdering unborn babies, so why not just keep going with this. The Canada Plan is working out easy.
6th leading cause of death in Ottawa, correct?
Medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer. Ten times more than muh gun violence.
Why we make these butchers in scrubs so sacrosanct is beyond me.
You can't prosecute anyone for malpractice if the victim is already dead!
To quote Wikipedia (how bad do you have to be when even Wikipedia recognises something is off) :
"Liberalism", the ultimate destination.
Slippery slope? Try more like a greasy cliff.
Betting they skip over very low IQ and mental retardation given how that's played out in different places before.
Liberalism isn't designed to hunt down and murder children.
It's actually supposed to abhore that. These people are as far from Liberalism as you can get. These are Leftists & Socialists.
No True Scotsman.
This "real liberalism hasn't been tried" cope is no different than when the commies do it. Liberals are evil degenerate wastes of oxygen. Even the "good" ones.
Real liberalism was tried. it was subverted. What are you talking about?
Nothing was subverted. The current state of the left is inevitable. Going back to when it "worked" would just be a temporary hike up the slippery slope before we start sliding right back here again.
"Classical liberals" are either naive, or controlled opposition. With how self-defeating their views are, I am leaning to the latter.
"Leftism is inevitable", "Classical Liberals are controlled opposition"
Says the Leftist.
Quite the argument there. Maybe you could point out a single instance of liberalism not being "subverted" if you are so certain that it is a viable ideology.
You ask the impossible of him, fellow AIDS person.
Trying to put arbitrary bounds on liberalism, as he does, has always failed and will fail. Since he doesn't want to accept that liberalization is an unboundable process, his mind is simply forced to sanitize liberalism by positing that every conclusion that liberalism has reached with which he disagrees is simply the fault of 'subversion' by some other force, the 'Left'. Having persuaded himself of this, he can then live a life free from guilt for what it is doing today.
The 'Left' is simply the wastebasket into which classical liberals and libertarians dump their more modern, updated counterparts.
What they will never understand is that a clear line can be drawn from Locke through Marx to today. Positing that Locke, Paine, etc. belong to a different line altogether from Marx and his acolytes is remarkably disingenuous: Marx was all about expanding the Enlightenment and the ideals of the French and American Revolutions, that is, about expanding liberalism to include more than just landowning men. The last few centuries have simply witnessed its yet further expansion; having expanded now to encompass almost all that fits under the human umbrella, it is now expanding to the animal kingdom and beyond. Hence rivers with human rights, marriages between humans and trees, and so on.
Painting a line from Locke to Rawls, Rothbard, etc. without going through the 'socialists' is simply to paint a false view of history. Dewey and Popper are just two of those in the last century who seriously blur that faint line, the trivial differences, between the fraternal, deeply overlapping ideologies of liberalism and Marxism.
If you start from the same assumptions, you are gonna end up in the same place. Tabula Rasa + NAP = communism, every time.
If you believe that all people are created equal, and then observe that they do not end up equal, you are half way to communism. It must then be some violation of the NAP that has occurred to induce this inequality. Thus your libertarians are just communist.
Compare that to the other alternatives: If the Tabula Rasa is invalid, then who cares if there is inequality? If the NAP is invalid, then who cares if people end up unequal, might makes right.
Could you point to a single instance of a government that has existed in perpetuity without changing from it's ideological foundation, by destruction from outside forces, or by collapse?
There is no political structure that wins all of human history.
Or are you going to point me to a monarchy that never became a tyranny and exists to this day?
Yes, thank you Mr, Liberalism of 100 years ago. How’s that Victoria 2 game working out for you?
Good.
how does he know?
I think they have evolved beyond the leftists and socialists. It’s a word wide death cult. We’re entering Logan’s Run territory now (minus the AI overlord but might just be a matter of when and not how.)
Socialism is a death cult, though.
Its final form is. Socialism is the sweet promises before the punch is served.
Fair enough.
I think those down voting you don't know what a classic liberal is.
They know exactly what it is.
They are two versions of illiberals: Those who mistakenly assert that Liberalism has no boundary condition, and thus must be applied to all aspects of reality (rather than as a political framework); or are National Socialists: who see Liberalism as an arch-enemy that rebukes their collectivization.
Those are the two positions. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar who is attempting to obfuscate that they are either a generic illiberal, or a NatSoc illiberal.
In a non-clown world, this is something I would support. Terminal illness is rough and I would respect a patient's desire to go out on their own terms.
that said, seeing how laws like this are applied in Canada, I do not have any faith that this will be used appropriately.
It's more, in this case, about the fact that children, by definition, cannot consent. This is also why "gender affirming care" for minors is inherently immoral.
We, as a society, have determined that those below a certain age cannot (legally) consent to certain life-changing things, and I would argue that death is the most definitive of those.
Besides, even leaving aside the issue of childhood more broadly, an infant generally cannot even verbalise, let alone conceptualise the concept of their own mortality, so this becomes really, really fishy...
Unless we want to redefine euthanasia as eugenics, which this is much closer to, by that definition...
That's the thing, at what point does it go from "voluntary" euthanasia to state-sanctioned murder (e.g Zyklon B in the Nazi extermination camps)? Generally the line for that is drawn at consent, so if we're dealing with children who cannot legally consent (and unlike with say, dementia, cannot have consented earlier in life), then that opens a whole other can of worms...
And in a non-clown world, the parents should both be able to and trusted to consent on their behalf like they do with everything else in the child's life.
If a kid is born with horrific hydrocephalus or the like, it should be that everyone involved can be adult enough to make the decision to ends its misery rather than be forced to let it suffer just because the government says you have to.
But since we live in clown world, we cannot trust neither parents, nor hospitals or the government to even take a step in that direction.
I don’t agree, actually. I can see the argument for withdrawing continuing care to keep a person artificially alive (e.g. the Terri Schiavo case, or the Boy in the Bubble), but I do not agree with the parents or state deciding to euthanize an individual, who is cognizant (and again, that’s an important consideration), against their will…
That’s murder. Or, if you like, “justified homicide”. That’s where I draw the line, personally. YMMV, and that’s fine, but it scares me a bit that we’ve gone from Terri Schiavo to this level of discussion, in twenty years…
I wasn't part of the discussion of Terri Schiavo and that has always been my position. There are levels of suffering in life where it is kindness to let a person go instead of artificially keeping them in abject misery with no escape just so you can say "Look my hands are clean, I never will ever ever ever do anything to dirty them, my purity is more important than your pain." Its cowardice plain and simple and it always has been. Especially if you think "let them slowly starve to death" or whatever comes with withdrawing care is valid, because it keeps your hands clean through a loophole and that seems to be what more people are concerned with instead of the suffering person.
You can call it what you want to make it sound worse, but the end result is a person is free to go to heaven out of a body that cannot be healed and causes them to not be able to even live.
Now, that is a far cry from being willing to make that the norm or legal, because I don't trust neither government nor most of society to be able to make such decisions and I'd rather they not even be able to think of doing it because of how little I trust them. I thought that well prior to Canada proving the slippery slope of it and I do even more now.
Also if they are cognizant, then their wishes should always be taken into the greatest account. If they wish to fight then no one should be able to revoke that or even question it, and any who does is purely evil.
Interestingly, there’s a “Judge John Deed” episode that covers this quite nicely (not sure of the title) where a boy needs to have an organ replacement from an animal, and refuses it on the grounds of being a vegan, but his parents want to force him to take the transplant against his will. Won’t spoil it except to say that it gets ethically… Messy.
But the fact that we’ve gone from that to actively discussing whether parents should be able to consent to actually killing their child (because that’s what it comes down to, in the end) is quite frightening, imho…
If you make an exception for [word], leftists will inevitably change the definition of [word] to include whatever despicable fucking thing they want to do.
The Canadian in me is torn between disgust at the purely monstrous nature of this and relief at finally not being the worst country in the world for it.
Depending on how you look at it, the worst is probably their fellow Low Country, Belgium (in spite of the whole Catholicism thing)...
They've been doing it for longer, and their "scope" for euthanizing the mentally ill is considerably more broad. Plus I think they are higher on raw numbers, for that category...
However I believe the Dutch are the first to allow this for children, i.e. those who cannot consent to other things, but apparently can consent to state-sanctioned murder..?
Where you guys in Canuckistan differ seems to be in the breadth of where this is being applied, e.g. for "financial distress", etc.
It does strike me as fairly terrifying that we have gone from "in the case of terminal illness, in a few jurisdictions, in limited cases" (the Northern Territory in Australia, Jack Kevorkian, the Terri Schiavo case), to this becoming so widespread that it is a media trope, now, and there are whole TV series and movies based around it, and that you have bipartisan support for such extreme laws, everywhere from Canada to the Pays-Bas. It's insane.
Makes you wonder - if we're at this point now, where are we going to be on this issue (and abortion, and "gay rights") in another 20 years? Are we unironically headed for Futurama-style suicide booths? Because hell, at the rate we're trending, that doesn't feel all that far off, sadly...
It's also interesting as someone with a disease that would make me eligible for this (way into the future, but not as far into the future as for most people), that my voice is... Ignored as an "inconvenience"? Generally people with terminal/chronic/neurodegenerative diseases only seem to be listened to when we support euthanasia (or when we are "special", like Steven Hawking or Neil Daniher), never when we are against it.
As Stella Young said like a decade ago, before she died, that seems a little bit backwards and fucked up.
Trudeau has had legislation all drawn up to off disabled kids.
I believe they keep kicking its enactment down the road by a year or so coupled with his unpopularity.
It is not stretch compared to what we already allow in regards to mutilation, and it serve multiple schemes to enforce it, all from the bean counters attempt to balance a sheet to a rulers system of ensuring that discontent is handled. In that regards the voices allowed to speak does not matter they are merely a tool to allow the process of change with minimal fuzz.
Wait, did not the aboriginal already allow this for children, haha
I mean, to be facetious, we know they're not above diddling their kiddies, and I do believe honour killings were a thing in Abo communities, historically, but...
More seriously, it largely comes down to it being a unicameral territory, with a relatively small population (and therefore a small parliament), where it is relatively easier to get controversial legislation across (the US equivalent is DC. The British equivalent is maybe Wales). The only trouble was/is that the Federal government had the power to overrule said legislation, which is what they did:
https://archive.is/80OkQ
The Abos, in this case, had very little to do with it, apart from I suppose being the historical reason why the NT is still a territory rather than a state.
Darwin, though (where the political power is) is extremely different to say, Alice Springs, or even Arnhem Land, which is where we generally hear about the kiddy-diddling and such. I'm not even sure Abos are a plurality in Darwin...
Interesting did not know that, I was mostly being facetious also fun coincidence with naming of the place?
To answer my own question there, Darwin is apparently roughly 9% Abo or Abo-heritage, whereas Alice is a smidge over 20%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Springs
21.2% of the population is enough to turn it into a dysfunction shithole. "Impressive", in a sense.
Belgium is about as Catholic as the pope.
Why not? They can consent to having their bodies butchered by "doctors". Why not this as well?
In all honesty, I was a fanatical supporter of abortion and "gay rights" a few years ago. I'm still pro-choice but unwilling to paint opponents as "they hate women", which I now realize that it's quite a ridiculous non-argument only accepted because it suits people. As for the other thing, as you say, if things have gotten this bad in this short a time, I cannot even imagine how bad they can get in a few decades.
The voices of black people, or people with X, they matter, we need to listen to them... as long as they agree with our preconceived notions, of course.
Also, it seems to me to be a little bit insulting to have one's life be reduced to "such unbearable suffering that we'll kill you if you want".
Welcome to the world of anyone they use as a mascot.
"Thank God for Great Britain" - basically the motto of any continental European country that is a trainwreck, but I repeat myself.
One thing I realised recently by spending time there, is that many of these continental European countries take the idea of being a (theoretically, if not borne out at all in reality) "flat society", with supposed "full equality". Hence being extremely early adopters of gay marriage, and "trans rights" (Belgium seems exceptionally obsessed with the latter, for reasons I do not understand), and, in many cases, adopting Soviet-block apartments for all, even at the cost of levelling their historic, "vernacular" architecture (looking at you, Sweden, Norway and Finland)...
Which seems to be at least part of the reason they hate England (less so the other "Home Nations") so much - that idea, and everything that comes with it, just doesn't to jive with Brits, despite the efforts of Labour and the Guardianistas, lol.
If I had to sum up what the end result of the "flat society". model is, at least in the Nordics, I would say... Beige. Everything just ends up beige.
So Brutalist? Always fun to joke that the projects can be used as improvised fortress, haha
Well yeah, the idea of equality is just used to create inequality on a tremendous scale on other aspects.
It is? Germany, UK and Ireland are the worst in my experience. Italy is the least bad, and Spain and France somewhere in between.
That really has nothing to do with 'equality'. It means "we want to pretend like we did something for the people at minimum cost so that there's more for our corrupt cronies".
Are you sure? I look at the UK as the worst of the worst. Even though Germany makes a big deal of prosecuting people for their speech, the sheer magnitude of government terror in the UK is far greater. Thousands are arrested for speech each year.
And not to make it personal, but continental Europe - or even the UK - did not have internment camps for people who came into contact with the virus.
They do not actually believe in equality, as I think you understand. It's just a convenient excuse, here as elsewhere, for getting what they want.
any time an "ethicist" shows up you know you're about to hear the most deranged nonsense.
Sorry Sven, your grades aren't high enough. Into the oven you go
"We put the Youth in Euthanasia!", there, thought of a trendy slogan for the Dutch. I'm sure they're proud of their decision and will broadcast that as their official country slogan coming soon.
If you can consent to the government killing you at age 10, what else can you consent to?
We should
askdemand the cultists advancing these evil policies to lead by example.Western Europe is descending into chaos brought in by leftist progressivism and people being afraid of being called racist. It's not racist to love my people first. The only way forward is to topple the leftist progressive government and send people back where they came.from.
"Absolutely not. That's fucking crazy. Do not murder the children."
Russia needs to invade.
That's pretty far away, comrade Zukov.
As reparations for historical inequities, the right to euthanasia should be extended to refugees but not the native Dutch.
What sort of healthcare system do the Dutch have?
Parallel public/private? Any universal?
Dutch doctors have been murdering children and babies for years, based on their eugenic dislike of certain curable and manageable conditions.
Also, this was the previous government (though I wouldn't expect the Wilders government to be any different on euthanasia). Also, 'ethicists' have been agitating for legalizing the murder of children for years because, they say, it is no different from abortion as children are non-sentient in their first few years.
See, what I find odd is that the supposed "majority" of voters in the Low Countries support laws like this, hence it tends to attract broad political support.
I don't really understand that, in countries with 10 Million+ each (you wouldn't see that in Au/NZ, but I suppose you do in Canada), but it's almost like... They don't seem to view human life as having the same "value", I suppose.
Obviously the ultimate result of such views is genocide, but we're not quite there yet.
But yeah, discussing issues like this with Germanics (Dutch, Flemish, Swiss, less so actual Germans, for obvious reasons) is... Interesting. There's a big "gap" there, and I'm not quite sure why...
There are many countries and cultures that value lives very little, for various reasons. Russians and chinese are classic examples, though it manifests in different ways.
The thing is, while that is correct for this particular issue, what attracts political support in Europe does not have much correlation with what attracts political support. If you look at what attracts political support, you can only make judgments about elite support and not popular support.
While I don't think you're a Christian (and neither am I), but there are consequences to the de-christianization of the West. The idea that human life, even if a slave, even if female, even if woefully crippled, has value, was introduced to the West by Christianity, and it disappeared with Christianity. Note that this is not true for 'females', but that's not for reasons of principle, but expediency - because of pressure groups.
It's certainly possible and made more likely, but it's not necessitated.
I think your own experiences may have clouded your judgment here a bit. You have experiences with one country, and there, in the cities, and even there, with college students - the worst of the worst. There is great diversity within the 'Germanics', though undoubtedly socially the worst shitholes in Europe. If you talk to the man on the street, you'll likely hear common sense or at least reasonable opinions. But like I said, what you see is the opinions of the elites.