DV TWITTERING

RECENT POSTS
RECENT COMMENTS
THE PRICE OF REWARDING TERRORISM

You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.

HIT THE TIP JAR!
More About This Website

 

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

We'd really like to have you comment on our site! We want good conversation, no abuse and no trolls. I reserve the right to ban anybody who wilfully and persistently breaks these rules. So go ahead and speak your mind!

Can America Trust the BBC?


"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that", Jane Garvey, BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.

Login
Powered by Squarespace
Powered by Squarespace
SEARCH ATW
SITEMETER

« SICK AND SICKER... | Main | A STELLAR LINE UP... »
Sunday
19Oct2008

THE RIGHT TO KILL...

It's a tough subject and I can certainly understand the anguish of those with loved ones who seek to die but in the final analysis, euthanasia is wrong.

"One of Britain's leading moral philosophers has called for a change in the law to allow assisted suicide in Britain following the death of paralysed rugby player Daniel James. Baroness Warnock, writing in today's Observer, calls for liberalisation of euthanasia laws on the grounds that 'we have a moral obligation to other people to take their seriously reached decisions with regard to their own lives equally seriously'.
Sorry but once again, Baroness Warnock is misguided. Allowing people to kill their nearest and dearest is not moral, it is immoral. The obligation must be to protect the sanctity of life and that it what must prevail.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (4)

I agree, the slope is too slippery.

Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 01:03PM | Unregistered Commentermahons

Both sides play God on this issue. But who can say if either or neither is right...or wrong.

Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 01:45PM | Unregistered Commentercoaldust

Slippery slope arguments don't make any sense unless the next step in the process is genuinely required by the first. You may as well say that allowing killing in self-defence is the first step in a slippery slope to legalising murder.

Or for that matter it is no better than the argument that if you prohibit killing in the name of 'sanctity of human life' then that is the first step on the road to outlawing killing in self defence.

People should say what's wrong with the thing being discussed, not some other thing it may lead to.

Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 02:15PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank O'Dwyer

Allowing people to kill their nearest and dearest is not moral, it is immoral.

Except that that is not what happened in this case. This young man had made three attempts on his life before his parents facilitated his journey to Switzerland. Now (thanks to a tip-off from some interfering moralising busybody) they are being investigated by police in the UK and may well be prosecuted.

The law needs to change to allow individuals in this young man's position the choice to bring to an end a life which they do not wish to lead. In the end this is a matter of individual liberty.

Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 07:14PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>