Manent exposes the growing toleration of the liberal state for taking the lives of the sick and the infirm. Treating death as an extrinsic accident leads some to claim, paradoxically, that they can make authoritative judgments on the “subjective state” of a sick or infirm person. The old and always authoritative verity—“thou shall not kill”—is thrown to the wind by the same people who treat the death penalty as an abomination. Modern liberty, in its most extreme theoretical articulations and applications, has replaced liberty under law with a one-sided preoccupation with death as the summum malum. Innocents at the same time get put to death in the name of curbing human suffering or respecting unlimited individual autonomy. In either case, respect for the moral law is lost. Manent is not the first thinker to show that modern man has an unbalanced approach to death. But more than any other writer I know, he shows that the inability to place death in a truly human context is linked to the modern repudiation of conscience and natural law.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/recovering-moral-contents-life-16079.html

I'd like to read Manent. There are some fundamental aspects of humanity and freedom which need to to be reexamined. I'm not just a political issue voter, I consider society, human nature and morals on a case by case basis. I do not subscribe to a political view, a religion, or philosophy.

However, I do believe that a person who is so infirmed by old-age that they can no longer wipe their own arse, that person has the right to end their life, should they wish, and no younger and fit person should have the right to stop them.

The death penalty should be used in certain cases, but not on circumstantial evidence.

In war, the Geneva Conventions should be binding on all belligerents, and those who break the conventions should not receive their protection. In other words, open season on "terrorists." Here come the whingers.

Jasin wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 7:43pm:


Make sure you keep a copy of this post for future reference.

Why do ppl lump euthanasia and death penalty together? They are not the same thing

Spot

Jasin wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 10:07pm:


No. I'm watching someone die.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 5^th, 2019 at 10:15am:

Juxtapose, not lump together.

Reading the aricle, even if not the book the artile reviews, might aid comprehension.

At the end of the day, people can do whatever they want with their bodies (within their means).

If an old codger wants to OD on something to end his pitiful life, he doesn't require religious or government approval to do so. All he needs to do is find somebody to help him hook up with the black market and get himself a dodgy batch of heroin.

Just like these people who fought the government for cannabis oil -- what a waste of time. Just buy some Mary Jane, no need to get the moronic government involved. Just don't get caught.

If 'culling' those that are sick or infirm would be like the Spartans throwing the 'weaker' infants into the dog pits.
Or Logan's Run of treating Old Age as a 'weakness' to be culled away.

So many 'old people' get around at 90+ years of age, far better than many at just 40 years - because they looked after their health both in mind and body. Then, while they are still walking around well, without any technological aids or medications - they 'get things in order' because they have made the 'choice' to go and pass away in their sleep to wherever their dreams take them.

I will die like this - hopefully at 111 years (Devil's number), but definitely hope I make 100 years just to get a baggy green cap for knocking up my century.

I love 'life' too much to go earlier.

Then we come to the death penalty, which people have always favoured as a means of ridding society of creatures whose crimes offend humanity -- same creatures who should not be suffered within the community

Death is final.  Gone.  Chuck them in a hole and move on

but then -- and it would be interesting to see the reason behind the abolition of the death penalty in that rancid queen's territory -- fakery ground the death penalty to a halt.  The US in its wisdom dumped that fake 'royal family' and has continued (albeit less frequently) to impose the death penalty

And what a pandemonium there is on the eve of a much delayed execution, with all the clueless wonders waving their idiotic cigarette lighters into the night and chanting -- as if a hero was to be randomly slaughtered

There are way too many lumps of bone and flesh occupying this planet -- and they won't stop breeding more of themselves.  Abortion is rampant, wars are constant, murders, plural, are daily now in the fair land of Oz and everywhere else.  So sure, it makes sense (?) to some to spend millions of dollars and endless wailing and pontificating before just one lump of scum is finally despatched

it's as if some people are of the belief that the scum would go on to life a worthwhile existence -- if only the baddies wouldn't end his life and throw him in a hole.  Sure, that paedophile in that cell there, who's been living off the taxpayer for decades, would go out into the fresh air and become a philanthropist if only they'd spare his life

meanwhile, in another part of town, the young guy who was buggered senseless by that same paedophile, is slitting his wrists because his life was rendered hell by the guy getting three meals a day, cosy in his cell and serviced by prison psychologists thrice a week

Whenever the subject of the death penalty arises, all the virtue signallers flock to the scene, mouthing worn-out BS about letting guilty men go free rather than ….

And when one or more thugs smash into the moaners' homes in the early hours intent on stealing, abduction, murder, etc. …. different story.  Police are summoned.  The victims are outraged.  Take those thugs away.  Give me a gun and I'll deal with them myself. Why isn't the govmint doing more to protect us.  Where are the cops when you need them. Who let these bastards out on parole

then back to, ' Oh no, we can't have the death penalty because … because this and that and everything else'.  As if people are condemned to execution by the State for nothing, right?  They had a bad childhood. They were on drugs.  They can't remember how it happened but they know they're innocent.  yep

Me?  I'd be happy if the ranks of subhumans were thinned out.  Not as if we're going to rehabilitate them. Not as if we need them.  Not as if they'll be missed.  Not as if they were worth saving.  They've proved what they are, so what's the problem?  Get rid of them.  And I do not care if the death penalty acts as a deterrent, although I'm pretty sure it would in many if not most cases

one thing's for sure, treating them with kid gloves --- making excuses for them before letting them out after a handful of years when they've ended someone else's life -- is not working

treating them like victims and handing down slaps on wrists seems to be actively encouraging the decimation of victims by scum

for example, I know, based on the stupidly lenient sentences being applied these days has encouraged me to believe I could murder one or more individuals with little punishment.  I might even be able to walk free out of the court, depending on how far I was prepared to go in manipulating the system

all anyone need do these days is claim mental ill health

You can't find a job?  Just join up. Put on a uniform. Get yourself overseas on full pay and kill or maybe die.  Men in frocks sanction that

but do not imagine that when riddled with disease and pain that you'll get the same deal.  No.  You are not allowed to die and must suffer so that others can luxuriate in the knowledge you're screaming in pain and the exits are blocked

So get in early.  Kill to your heart's content, because that's alright -- you have poor mental health and other's lives don't matter

but do not dare imagine you're getting out of this life of yours, because the same 'authorities' who deem it fine to kill foreigners and fine to kill your neighbour -- insist you remain right here, suffering, to the  bitter end

And that folks is what passes for a sane and healthy society in 2019

Bring on freedom of choice ...

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 11^th, 2019 at 11:57pm:



That suicide booth will be working 24/7 with people queued around ten city blocks -- and that's if the price were lifted to $1000

Quit the crap, JaSin

Maude down the road doesn't have access to bombs and we all know it

Clive could slit his own throat, but understandably, he doesn't want his kids, grandkids, spouse, friends OR the ambos and police to be put to that sort of mess and inconvenience.  So Clive, like Maude (who were both forces to be reckoned with in their attractive and active younger years) give in to doctors and family for the sake of peace and relieving everyone of those pesky feelings of guilt were he to wither away at home, as Clive (and Maude, no doubt) would doubtless prefer

We live for others, JaSin -- or maybe you don't

We spend our lives caring for others, treating their feelings with tenderness, going out of our way to make other people comfortable

so just because you've spent way too many hours hunched over kid's computer games and just because you occasionally feel a bit of a blood rush watching bits and bytes slashing each other to a soundtrack that screams, 'FREEDOM ! ' adds little to this discussion in real terms

The JaSin of future years will NOT be strapping a bomb or any self-destructing device to his person when the chips are down -- I'd stake a thousand dollars on that

Yes, people are pulling the plug for themselves and they're doing that by seeking the assistance of orgs like Exit International and Dignitas.  They leave Living Wills for those they leave behind and they face with equanimity and courage that which might lie on the other side of physical death.  And no, they do not make a splat all over the furniture or landscape via anything as melodramatic and juvenile as you advise

We are civilized people, in the main. We attempt to leave this life with the same consideration for others as we displayed during life.  We leave quietly, humbly, after putting as much in order as we can, before we go.  We don't seek headlines or attention and we don't explode ourselves for the reasons given above

However, there are many, probably the majority, who do not know about Dignitas or Exit International.  And many cannot afford those options.  So they throw themselves under cars, buses, trucks and trains, because they're not thinking clearly and the expletiv government does ZERO to help them.  Because it's almost a cert that pollies and other rancid gutter dwellers have money in care-homes, for profit

None of which assists those who DO want to end their lives with a minimum fuss and attention, a minimum pain, minimum mess, minimum inconvenience to others

and they are prevented from ending their own lives by individuals and groups who regard themselves as authorities in the matter

and we're back to where we began

Anyone, regardless of age or health should be able to end their life should they wish to do so, without interference from others and in a manner painless, swift and economically

PZ547 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2019 at 11:47am:



A little bit of good news:

"California's Governor has halted the death penalty, saying he is deeply troubled by the possibility of executing an innocent person even though the state's voters have repeatedly backed capital punishment."

California Governor orders halt to death penalty

Greg's post: "California's Governor has halted the death penalty, saying he is deeply troubled by the possibility of executing an innocent person even though the state's voters have repeatedly backed capital punishment."


Greg, you cite the above claiming it to be 'good news'.  Good news for whom? 
Not for those convicted of murder, when you consider that death-row is said to be the best the penal system can offer.  Chris Watt's mother, remember, said he would have been better off on death-row than in standard prisons, because on death row, there are endless opportunities to appeal and it's often twenty or more years until a convict is executed.  Very often they are not executed.  And throughout, as long as they're on death row, they enjoy the perks which are well publicised in documentaries etc., in which death row prisoners describe themselves as the elite and list the perks. In fact, in one documentary that I remember, a killer killed his cellmate in order to 'progress' to death row, which he finds to be quite a comfortable situation


But all that's in the US

here in Australia, we don't need a death penalty, do we?  Killers enjoy a unique situation whereby you lie, deny, cost the populace millions through trials, etc.  Then, on the eve of court proceedings and judgement by a jury, you simply instruct your solicitors to advice the prosecution that you'll plead guilty to manslaughter, ala Ristevski. And with time already spent in custody pending trial, you'll be lucky to spend more than a year or two -- if that -- in prison, before walking out to take up life as before

Baden Clay played the same game but with a slight variation, whereby he put the public through the expense of a trial, slandered the wife he murdered, left reams of copy for his young daughters to read in a few years, sulked and pranced around in prison -- then decided he couldn't  afford to waste any more time inside and decided to plead guilty to manslaughter.  Only a concerted effort by the public at large, bolstered by outraged outspokenness on the part of media celebrities prevented him from getting away with it.  Three judges had already decided to send him out into the street a free man

So who needs a death penalty in Australia when the sentencing is so lenient -- when the sentence of 'life' means eight or less years -- when you can murder your own or someone else's child or parent and plead mitigating circumstances such as 'I wuz on drugs yer honner and I had a mental health crisis' to receive sympathy from the judge and the slight inconvenience of a year or two in prison and motel-style comfort?

We don't NEED a death penalty in Australia

and the way things are going, we won't need prisons either, or judges

the sentences being handed down decrease all the time


soon it will be accepted that you can take someone's life and tough

afterwards it will be a killer will receive compensayshun for trauma


so don't worry about the US system Greg

it has a long way to go before it's as liberal as Australia

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 11:33am:



You posted without reading a word of my post
and we know that because you leapt in mere seconds after I'd posted

so much for your interest in the matter

PZ547 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 11:31am:


Didnt we just go through this in another thread? In some states the life penalty means exactly that - life thanks to the "truth in sentencing" thing. Its a recent thing though so maybe you didnt know about it.

Spot

Cast your mind back to March 2016 and you may remember a co-ordinated set of suicide bombings in Brussels: two at the airport, one at a metro station. The three Isis-inspired terrorists managed to kill 32 people that day. But you may, understandably enough, have forgotten about it. The attacks came after the even larger ones in Paris, and people didn’t really have much to say about them.
...
The victims that morning included members of a school party heading to Rome. Unlike many of her classmates, Shanti De Corte was not among them. Miraculously, she didn’t sustain any physical injuries. But the 17-year-old was standing just a few metres from one of the suicide bombers at the airport and was severely traumatised by what she saw.
...

As it happens, in a couple of weeks a cell of nine defendants will be going on trial for their role in the attacks. The trial was delayed because of a controversy over the conditions in which they were due to appear: in individual closed glass cubicles. This seems to have been deemed inhumane by the Belgian authorities.

Whether being isolated in a self-enclosed glass cubicle is inhumane or not is the sort of row that Belgian justice – like our own – excels at. Assuming at least some of the cell are found guilty, in due course there will doubtless be further rows about the conditions in which the prisoners are kept. One person who will not contribute to that discussion is Shanti De Corte.

This month the news was announced by her family and friends that on 7 May De Corte was euthanised on the authority of the Belgian state. A month earlier a panel of doctors and psychiatrists had judged that the PTSD and depression from which she suffered were incurable. She had requested euthanasia and they granted her request. So they killed her, or at least agreed to let her be put to death by lethal drugging in the decent and painless manner that the state allows. According to the official who oversaw the case, De Corte ‘was in such a state of mental suffering that her request was logically accepted’.
She was 23.
...

So six years on, the Belgian state will officially notch up the number of victims of the 2016 Brussels attacks to 33 people. Yet although De Corte was certainly a victim of the jihadis, it was Belgium that killed her. And there is something deeply strange, almost dystopian, in this.

After all, if the cell of nine people are convicted when they go on trial next month, what is the worst that any of them will suffer? A number of years in a Belgian jail, obviously. The worst offenders may find themselves there for life, joining the other Muslims who make up less than 10 per cent of the country’s population but around 30 per cent of its prison inmates.

But it would be impossible, of course, for Belgium to put any of the perpetrators to death. Belgian law, indeed European law, forbids any such thing. In certain states in the US the death penalty exists – also by lethal drugging – but this is scorned by most Europeans, for we are beyond such barbarism. Executing a criminal would be illegal under the European Convention, the European Court of Justice and a whole slew of related laws and protocols. That’s because in the 21st century, Europe is so sophisticated that it is unacceptable to execute criminals. Executing their victims, by contrast, is not just acceptable but ‘logical’.
Douglas Murray

Quote:


Yes anyone guilty of committing Euthanasia should be put to death ?

Frank wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 8:51pm:


Capital punishment isn't voluntary.

Voluntary euthanasia is.