This Victorian push for euthanasia laws seemed to arrive pretty much out of no where, didn't it?
Oddly, I notice that opponents have included some unusual bed fellows, such as Paul Keating, and Sinclair Davidson. (They wake up screaming in the morning.) The former thinks it's a case of "sending the wrong message", and the latter says he doesn't like slippery slope arguments, but it's a slippery slope. The state will be coming to encourage him to drink the hemlock soon, apparently.
In any event, I am pleased that some notably non religious people have, for once, made an argument that aligns with religious views, but using secular arguments. I find it surprising that (as far as I know) not one prominent non religious person has made a similar approach on same sex marriage. I find that rather irritating, because I actually think my lack of support* for SSM is not particularly religiously motivated. (In fact, I think that Catholicism is in the throes of coming to terms with a modern understanding of sexuality whereby homosexuality as a practice is not going to be viewed as inherently sinful.)
As for the Victorian law, it does seem from this description of how it would work to be relatively conservative, as far as these types of laws go. It doesn't appear to enough to allow relatives wanting the suffering of an uncommunicative loved one ended early by euthanasia if said patient has not already asked for it: even though I guess that is actually probably the circumstance in which most people would like to see it able to be deployed.
It's a bit like SSM - I don't support the law myself, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it being introduced in as "safe" a form as possible. Certainly, the type of "anyone should be allowed to top themselves with help whenever they want" nuttiness of Philip Nitschke should be rejected thoroughly. His involvement with the movement probably set it back politically a decade, at least.
* I am simply not voting in the current flawed exercise.
6 comments:
PK's article was first class.
Sorry to tell you this Steve but homosexuality as a practice is inherently sinful. It says this clearly in the bible whether it be old or new testament.
perhaps homosexual acts are 'sinful' but I'm not sure whether a state of mind/disposition can be a 'sin' in itself. but then again, your stupidity may be sinful homes
PJK has been wrong on lots of things. this is one of them
Jason: Catholic teaching is that the desire or disposition of itself is not a sin, but it gets complicated:
4. Sins are acts involving the intellect (knowing) and the will (choosing). An orientation is not, in and of itself, an act or a sin.
5. The homosexual orientation itself is intrinsically evil, but is not itself a sin.
6. Since the homosexual orientation is intrinsically evil, any and all acts, whether sexual or not, by which a human person knowingly chooses to move toward, cooperate with, reinforce, or act upon, a homosexual orientation is itself a sin, either venial or mortal.
I think the Bible is very clear on the issue of sexual behavior: hetero(in marriage) or sinful. The Church has a long history of changing attitudes to conform to the prevailing culture. Homosexual behavior(does that including behaving "camp" like)? Paul wrote in Corinthians: it is better for a man to marry than burn. I think the distinction is paper thin.
OT: am I one of the few people in this country who thinks PJK is over rated?
Soony if you had read what I had written on this topic you would not be in your state of ignorance, Getting very Catallaxian these days.
you have the projection down pat!
The Church never conform to modern culture John. Perhaps the Uniting denomination or Anglicans other than in Sydney but then you stand for nothing.
Post a Comment