Its begun again and there is a Select Committee that has compiled a report but legislation is probably not going to be put forward until late 2019.
That's where its at & by the way the report is 600+ pages long.
So soon we'll be asked where we stand & what we want so there's a couple of responses...
a) Glad we're being asked what we want. That's democracy.
b) I or the opposing view...one of us won't get our way. That's democracy.
c) Sometimes good things get legislated, sometimes bad things do. That's democracy.
d) Sometimes bad legislation isn't dropped, sometimes it is, sometimes good legislation gets dropped...that's democracy.
For all its faults I wouldn't want to be without democracy.
What I very much don't like is this being used as a vehicle to expand or attack a worldview whether its a religion or opposition to religion. I'm expecting that people of faith will be expected to enter into the debate with whatever view they have, (influenced or dictated by their religion or not) but argue from a secular basis. This is very much the way to go as it's pointless citing Christian Scripture to make a point when some people will never be Christians. Some of them are non Christians and some might be ANTI Christians.
Similarly I expect those who are atheists, agnostics, Humanists, Utilitarians to cite facts relevant to the issue & not cite their worldview or philosophy to make a point. When either side does this its an argument from authority that the other side may never ever agree to concede to.
Similarly whilst someone shouldn't cite in context exegesis of the Bible, people shouldn't cite out of context interpretations of any holy scripture. Nor should anyone use it as a vehicle to denigrate or pot shot at a world view they dismiss or dislike.
We do not live in a theocracy, there is no religion run government, no one is ramming the Bible down anyone's throat. That's a false premise.
Some people will have a view on the sanctity of life and that's possibly a self found premise or it's influence by their religious faith. Either way that's every bit as valid as anyone's view but if we're to look at a controversial issue like Euthanasia, Capital Punishment or Abortion (the big difficult three) then we have to look at them whichever way we want but present in the secular fashion.
Its not a vehicle to push a religious view (even if it comes from there) nor is it a vehicle to lampoon a religious view even if you disagree with it...I can go the religious pathway if either a religious or non religious person pipes up...but whilst I might win an argument from that angle it won't deliver an outcome that's fair to all.
You watch, its coming and I expect to hear the words happy clappers, god botherers, religious nut jobs, sky fairies.
Good chance of hearing the words sinners, killers, suicide, murder, God haters and the list goes on.
If there's to be a proper cogent argument, its going to be bloody difficult to keep anyone's worldview out of it but that has to be everyone's aim
On the big difficult 3...
Its always difficult.
Huge amount of back ground information is available here
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/($all)/702507C2CB8742824825818700247E53?opendocument
The Select Committee Report is available here
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/71C9AFECD0FAEE6E482582F200037B37/$file/Joint%20Select%20Committe%20on%20the%20End%20of%20Life%20Choices%20-%20Report%20for%20Website.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment