With our new parliament the debate on Euthanasia has been put back in the agenda.
I am strong believer in the principal that governments should as much possible stay out of our life choices, so long as I not causing harm to others. Be this in the choice of sexual partner, what I choose to see and read and amongst many others, the right to end my own life. So in principal I believe that the people have the right to have access to euthanasia. Most arguments that I have heard against this seem to be little more than religious values dressed up in some sort of fear mongering about people being euthanised against their will. In the case of abortion we respect the rights of women to have control over their own bodies, yet we don't want to extend to the terminally ill.
However I do have some concerns about this. This mainly stems around people feeling obligated to end their life as they have become a burden on those caring for them. To go back to abortion, with this now normalised, outside of religious circles it seems somewhat anathema for someone to have strong feelings that abortion represents the taking of a life. I have seen first hand pressure being placed on someone to have an abortion, despite her strong feelings against this choice, with complete lack of understanding of her position. Her body, her choice yet this doesn't seem to be respected when her choice is to keep the baby. If we were to legalise euthanasia could we possibly reach the same point? Would people be expected to take there lives rather hang on with every last breath? You are free to choose as long as your choice is the affirmative one? Maybe not a straight up as first appearances give.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Well that is it has been decided.
Well it seems like a long while that the election was held (it was only 16 days) and today we have government. First to say - boy didn't I get that wrong, but, I think this is a great result. Much better than a clear result for either side.
For me I am pleased, the one real point of difference between both parties was the NBN and I believe this is a important piece of infrastructure, with this result it will become reality. It was interesting and good to see that this was important to all independents, it was a pity that the Coalition decided to march in lockstep against this. I doubt that by the time they win government again that they will be able to stop it, even if it comes as early as the next term.
It was by coincidence that I was a BIS Shrapnel conference today, very interesting they pointed out just how beneficial government spending has been in preventing Australia from going into recession and were surprised by the fact that Labor didn't make more of it at the election.
Whilst I think that the Labor party has run the economy well, it certainly didn't govern very well. I thought that its failure of conviction to go to a double dissolution over the CPRS was more than disappointing. They presided over an abuse of question time that made the Howard government look open. By focusing on staying on message they lost purpose.
I am excited to see the changes that will be made to the parliament and I congratulate the independents on making this reform the most essential part of their negotiations and by getting bipartisan support for them.
At lunch today a number of people said that it will all fall apart, not me I am idealist and believe that this government will run full term. Time will tell.
For me I am pleased, the one real point of difference between both parties was the NBN and I believe this is a important piece of infrastructure, with this result it will become reality. It was interesting and good to see that this was important to all independents, it was a pity that the Coalition decided to march in lockstep against this. I doubt that by the time they win government again that they will be able to stop it, even if it comes as early as the next term.
It was by coincidence that I was a BIS Shrapnel conference today, very interesting they pointed out just how beneficial government spending has been in preventing Australia from going into recession and were surprised by the fact that Labor didn't make more of it at the election.
Whilst I think that the Labor party has run the economy well, it certainly didn't govern very well. I thought that its failure of conviction to go to a double dissolution over the CPRS was more than disappointing. They presided over an abuse of question time that made the Howard government look open. By focusing on staying on message they lost purpose.
I am excited to see the changes that will be made to the parliament and I congratulate the independents on making this reform the most essential part of their negotiations and by getting bipartisan support for them.
At lunch today a number of people said that it will all fall apart, not me I am idealist and believe that this government will run full term. Time will tell.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Coalition Says no to openness
How many times are the Coalition going to change the reason for not wanting Treasury to cost their polices. So far we have had:-
- We have adequate costing done by a Third Party.
- We don't trust Treasury (what will happen if they win?)
- They are confidential and breaks the Westminster system (what??? how)
We need much more open Government - the coalition seem to want continue along the way it alway has.
- We have adequate costing done by a Third Party.
- We don't trust Treasury (what will happen if they win?)
- They are confidential and breaks the Westminster system (what??? how)
We need much more open Government - the coalition seem to want continue along the way it alway has.
Do the Coalition realise that the election is over?
I would have thought it would have taken Tony Abbott relatively little effort to convince the independents to allow the Coalition to form government. They are conservative in nature and would more closely align to that side of politics.
The requests that the independents have asked of both leaders are entirely reasonable, yet it would seem that that Tony Abbott still think that he in campaign mode with his refusal to allow treasury to cost the Coalitions policies on the basis of potential 'leaks'. If the costings are correct will deliver the expected savings and outcomes that is contained in them then why does it matter if their are leaks or not. Any leak would just confirm that they are correct. From the outside it appears that they have something to hide.
Maybe it is time to get on with proper consultation and stop the intransigence, Australians have voted and expect our parliament to form government. As it stands it would seem the coalition is taking the my way or the high way line, which has the potential to hand the Labor government - hardly what is desired I would have thought. The words 'snatch defeat from jaws victory' come to mind.
The requests that the independents have asked of both leaders are entirely reasonable, yet it would seem that that Tony Abbott still think that he in campaign mode with his refusal to allow treasury to cost the Coalitions policies on the basis of potential 'leaks'. If the costings are correct will deliver the expected savings and outcomes that is contained in them then why does it matter if their are leaks or not. Any leak would just confirm that they are correct. From the outside it appears that they have something to hide.
Maybe it is time to get on with proper consultation and stop the intransigence, Australians have voted and expect our parliament to form government. As it stands it would seem the coalition is taking the my way or the high way line, which has the potential to hand the Labor government - hardly what is desired I would have thought. The words 'snatch defeat from jaws victory' come to mind.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
2010 Election - a lack of leadership.
Well it has taken me a couple days to gather my thoughts. I was somewhat surprised by the result. Despite the poor performance of Labor in campaigning and up to the election I believed that they went to the election with at least some plans for future. To me the coalition seemed to want to undo a couple key Labor initiatives (namely the NBN and putting a price on carbon) but otherwise maintain the status quo.
Both sides fought disappointing negative campaigns and for the most part seemed to be seeking power for powers sake and little else. Lies about Workchoices, lies about debt and lies about boat people from all sides.
At this stage it seems likely that the coalition will get the nod to form government from the independents and perhaps rightfully they should, they are not bereft of the divisions that are taking place within the Labor party. Unfortunately this means that it is likely that the NBN will be canned. I believe that this important infrastructure will only ever be built by government as the private sector will not undertake a project with that risk profile or length of time before it get a commercial return. It will disappointing to see it go and if does it we will be stuck with poor speeds and the domination of Telstra for a long time yet.
I often wonder if Australia will just become an economic backwater, dying just like many towns in rural Australia. There seems to be no appetite in the broader population for the kinds of reform that need to take place for Australia to continue to have sustained economic growth into the 21st century. Be it taxation reform, reduced business regulation (Tony Abbott was quite right to say that parts of Workchoices were good), government infrastructure development or population policy.
Unfortunately not many of politicians are keen to take a role that defines a future for Australia, instead choosing to pander to fear and special interest groups. Time will tell if the next parliament will do any better. I don't hold out much hope.
Both sides fought disappointing negative campaigns and for the most part seemed to be seeking power for powers sake and little else. Lies about Workchoices, lies about debt and lies about boat people from all sides.
At this stage it seems likely that the coalition will get the nod to form government from the independents and perhaps rightfully they should, they are not bereft of the divisions that are taking place within the Labor party. Unfortunately this means that it is likely that the NBN will be canned. I believe that this important infrastructure will only ever be built by government as the private sector will not undertake a project with that risk profile or length of time before it get a commercial return. It will disappointing to see it go and if does it we will be stuck with poor speeds and the domination of Telstra for a long time yet.
I often wonder if Australia will just become an economic backwater, dying just like many towns in rural Australia. There seems to be no appetite in the broader population for the kinds of reform that need to take place for Australia to continue to have sustained economic growth into the 21st century. Be it taxation reform, reduced business regulation (Tony Abbott was quite right to say that parts of Workchoices were good), government infrastructure development or population policy.
Unfortunately not many of politicians are keen to take a role that defines a future for Australia, instead choosing to pander to fear and special interest groups. Time will tell if the next parliament will do any better. I don't hold out much hope.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Why some Christians frustrate me.
Tonight I had an extensive discussion with Sharon (my wife) on my issues with some segments of Christendom.
It turned into quite a heated argument in parts, but was good on the whole as it made me order my thoughts into a set of rational points.
On the whole I believe that I do believe that Christians desire a better society for all and want to see people live healthy, happy lives (not too sure about Eric Abetz though). However in the broader society they are often seen as hypocritical, judgemental and ignorant. Churches, especially the large ones, are seen as money grabbers that exist only for the enrichment of their leaders.
I recall a Christian songwriter sharing that when he spoke to people in pubs, that often they quite liked Jesus, but really didn't like Christians.
Why is this? Well I think it largely that while they have a vision of what healthy may look like, that have no idea on how to cope with those that don't share the same vision, nor do they have any idea of how to start the journey towards it. In many cases they are similar to many other middle class people and have fear about a changing society. I also believe that in some cases the vision that they have is at odds with the Bible.
To give some examples:
I don't doubt that many would disagree that for most people heroin use is very harmful. In an ideal community we would not have heroin addicts. But the reality is that we do and as such we need to provide services to them just like we do for any other health problem (addiction is a health issue). I think part of an overall strategy is to provide safe injecting rooms for heroin users. Yet we have some segments of Christian representatives (eg Family First) suggesting that these are somehow bad policy and suggesting that we vote against any one that seeks to introduce them. I think the reason that some Christians are opposed to these are, they are seen as promoting drug use (no evidence for that) and therefore pose a danger to others, notably their kids. I also think that they somehow think that having these falls short of a desirable community as we suddenly acknowledge that we have drug use that we are unable to prevent. So we see them rail against against anything that is seen to "approve" of drug use. However I believe that this sort of harm minimisation in our less than perfect world is a Christian response to the problem of drug addiction and hence we I see Christian opposing this I get extremely frustrated.
Another example is providing condoms to teenagers to prevent the spread of sexual diseases and teenage pregnancies. The response from many Christian groups is "well they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage and we should preach abstinence". This ignores the reality that many young people experiment with sex regardless of what the parents want and that providing condoms or not will not prevent this. Again to me, while I think that having sex at a young age, without being bonded in other ways is hardly ideal and to young women in particular can, to a degree, be physiologically damaging, that we as Christians have a responsibility to reduce that additional harm caused by an un-wanted pregnancy or sexual disease.
I could go on.
To me if Christian want to create the community they desire that need to change their thinking.
- Want to reduce the abortion rate? provide places for those women who want to have to their baby, that gives them the security they need and assists them in reaching their life potential.
- Want to reduce drug usage? Get alongside kids in schools and find out what their real issues are so that they don't seek drugs to find a happy place
- Want to keep families together? Stop building ever larger worship centres and use that income instead to fund social workers.
James 2:15-17 says the following (The Message Translation)
For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?
Whilst there are many Christians out doing this work, there are equally many that need to heed this message and take a good look at what Bible really says.
It turned into quite a heated argument in parts, but was good on the whole as it made me order my thoughts into a set of rational points.
On the whole I believe that I do believe that Christians desire a better society for all and want to see people live healthy, happy lives (not too sure about Eric Abetz though). However in the broader society they are often seen as hypocritical, judgemental and ignorant. Churches, especially the large ones, are seen as money grabbers that exist only for the enrichment of their leaders.
I recall a Christian songwriter sharing that when he spoke to people in pubs, that often they quite liked Jesus, but really didn't like Christians.
Why is this? Well I think it largely that while they have a vision of what healthy may look like, that have no idea on how to cope with those that don't share the same vision, nor do they have any idea of how to start the journey towards it. In many cases they are similar to many other middle class people and have fear about a changing society. I also believe that in some cases the vision that they have is at odds with the Bible.
To give some examples:
I don't doubt that many would disagree that for most people heroin use is very harmful. In an ideal community we would not have heroin addicts. But the reality is that we do and as such we need to provide services to them just like we do for any other health problem (addiction is a health issue). I think part of an overall strategy is to provide safe injecting rooms for heroin users. Yet we have some segments of Christian representatives (eg Family First) suggesting that these are somehow bad policy and suggesting that we vote against any one that seeks to introduce them. I think the reason that some Christians are opposed to these are, they are seen as promoting drug use (no evidence for that) and therefore pose a danger to others, notably their kids. I also think that they somehow think that having these falls short of a desirable community as we suddenly acknowledge that we have drug use that we are unable to prevent. So we see them rail against against anything that is seen to "approve" of drug use. However I believe that this sort of harm minimisation in our less than perfect world is a Christian response to the problem of drug addiction and hence we I see Christian opposing this I get extremely frustrated.
Another example is providing condoms to teenagers to prevent the spread of sexual diseases and teenage pregnancies. The response from many Christian groups is "well they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage and we should preach abstinence". This ignores the reality that many young people experiment with sex regardless of what the parents want and that providing condoms or not will not prevent this. Again to me, while I think that having sex at a young age, without being bonded in other ways is hardly ideal and to young women in particular can, to a degree, be physiologically damaging, that we as Christians have a responsibility to reduce that additional harm caused by an un-wanted pregnancy or sexual disease.
I could go on.
To me if Christian want to create the community they desire that need to change their thinking.
- Want to reduce the abortion rate? provide places for those women who want to have to their baby, that gives them the security they need and assists them in reaching their life potential.
- Want to reduce drug usage? Get alongside kids in schools and find out what their real issues are so that they don't seek drugs to find a happy place
- Want to keep families together? Stop building ever larger worship centres and use that income instead to fund social workers.
James 2:15-17 says the following (The Message Translation)
For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?
Whilst there are many Christians out doing this work, there are equally many that need to heed this message and take a good look at what Bible really says.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Why Labor will win the next federal election.
Frankly despite what the polls and the bookies say I think the new parliament will look pretty similar to the current one. There might be one or two upsets (like the Greens winning Melbourne of the back of Lindsay Tanner's retirement) but that is about it.
Why? Well I think that despite voters disappointment with the current government they will get to the ballot box on the 21st and realise that Tony Abbott is not Prime Ministerial material. Just like the flirtation that we had Mark Latham at the end of the day voters will realise that he just won't cut it.
I firmly believe the Howard misread the electorate in the 2004 election as an overwhelming endorsement of him as opposed to a rejection of Latham. In this the election we have the same factors, an electorate that is dissatisfied with the performance of the government and seeking a suitable alternative, they know however that Tony Abbott is not it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)