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.
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.