blackbird

I don't "control" anyone. That is your fiction. You are free to believe what you wish.

I see you replied right away without reading anything of the reference I gave you which explains why the Bible is the word of God. I gave you the information to look up. It is up to you. If you choose not to read it, that is entirely your choice.

I replied above to your comments on the authority of the Bible and God. I cannot control what other people do and never claimed to. But everyone who wishes can express their opinions and beliefs in western democratic countries. Secular humanists, Communists, Socialist, Capitalists, atheists, agnostics, liberals, conservatives, globalists, nationalists, and people with various religious beliefs all express their opinions and governments make the laws based on everyone's opinions and deciding from that.

The Bible is the authority and there is only one God, the God who inspired men to write the Bible. I cannot go into it all here because it would take forever. But you can easily Google and read the evidence yourself if you are interested in finding out or at least weighing the evidence. "There are many books today that claim to be the Word of God. The Koran, the Islam holy book, claims to be the Word of God. The Book of Mormon claims to be the Word of God. The Hindus believe the Bhagavad Gita is the source of eternal truth. Karl Marx, with his atheistic worldview, claimed his writing, The Communist Manifesto, was the ultimate truth. We Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God and the eternal source of truth we live by. How do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Can we actually prove that the Bible is truly the Word of God? The answer is yes." Check this website called Evidence and Answers. Authority of the Bible – Evidence and Answers This site does not let me paste the URL here for some reason. You would have to Google the words Authority of the Bible - Evidence and Answers and look for the website.

I don't think you can compare humans with animals. God has given man dominion over all animals. This is why we eat animals, fish, and fowl. "3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; {All…: Heb. Flocks and oxen all of them} 8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. 9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!" Psalm 8:3-9 KJB As for your other point about breeding, people are free to have as many children as they wish. Yes, there are diseases and wars in the world. It is not a perfect world and never has been since the fall of man in the garden of Eden when Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Man fell and the world became a corrupt, evil place. However, in spite of that, God still commands man to love thy neighbour as himself. So the first order is for one to take care of himself and his own family. Since we have a government that is able to throw hundreds of billions of dollars out there to take care of people and since the governments in the country set up a public health care system, it should include care for the old, infirm, handicapped, and elderly.

"quite perverse" ...to take care of society's handicapped, ill and old people? hmmm The writer of Mein Kampf would probably agree with you.

Yes the government has failed miserably to take care of the old people in care homes. It is a complete disaster. As far as the government is concerned, they are willing and ready to oblige the population with medical assistance in suicide. It is far less expensive to help the people kill themselves at $400 a person than it is to provide proper palliative care which could cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. The answer is not to cave in to the death culture but to demand and force the government to provide proper care for people or throw the government out.

"The Party regularly reminds the Chinese people of the country’s century of humiliation at the hands of foreigners. Striking back by appropriating technology for the motherland can seem downright patriotic." Mulroney, David. Middle Power, Middle Kingdom . Penguin Canada. Kindle Edition.

Sorry to have to differ with you, but it has everything to do with the Creator of the universe and Creator of man. He will hold us accountable after death whether one believes it or not. According to the Bible all the evil actions of men will be judged but there is forgiveness for those who believe the gospel and are saved. Everyone else is lost for eternity.

Turning the medical system into institutions administering death and having doctors and nurses trained to administer death is not my idea of a civilized country that cares for people. It is a descent into barbarism and uncivilized behavior. When you get old or are dealing with serious medical problems, I hope you can trust the doctors and medical system that they are sincerely trying to save your life and not take the easy way out and end it or just let you die when it's not necessary. Because the attitude of medical professionals toward life will change as it is devalued. The only thing that could possibly deliver people from the death mentality is the Bible and gospel of Jesus Christ which includes respecting human life as sacred and loving they neighbour as thyself. When life ends is God's domain, not man's.

Take a look at the Netherlands. Euthanasia is now administered to people with or without their consent. This is the kind of slippery slope MAD leads to. It really fits in with the atheist Communist/Marxist ideology where human life has no value. Whatever seems expedient on the surface rules. You end up with a system where humans whose life is deemed of less value are sacrificed to save money for the communal good.

Canadian politicians, led by liberals, have been selling out Canada to China for decades, particularly since JT's father, PM Pierre Trudeau, was one of the first western leaders to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China in 1970. It has been one long complete sellout to Communist China ever since. The Trudeaus have been enthralled with Communist dictators, like China's leaders and Fidel Castro. Incomprehensible.

If you haven't, try to get the book "Claws of the Panda" by Jonathan Manthorpe, Beijing's Campaign of INfluence and Intimidation in Canada. The tentacles of the CCP reach far into every aspect of Canada. That coupled with the fact most of Canada's politicians can't see the danger and can't grasp what is happening. I am presently reading the Kindle book "Middle Power, Middle Kingdom" by one of Canada's former foreign ambassadors to China, David Mulroney. He says in one part: "Lack of respect for the rule of law leads to some other mind-boggling situations, including a number of outrageous examples of intellectual property theft in which the Chinese partner not only steals his foreign partner’s idea but then successfully sues him in local court for having the temerity to continue using the technology he (the foreign partner) developed in the first place. There are many accounts of trusted Chinese employees taking valuable production secrets to the local competition or even siphoning money from the joint venture to build a competing factory down the road." I haven't finished this kindle book yet. It is quite detailed and describes how Canadian government departments operate in a disconnected un-coordinated way with respect to China and there doesn't seem to be a coherent foreign policy in Ottawa. David Mulroney has a deep knowledge of the Canada - China relationship and how it operates, although he has been so deeply ensconced in the system, he may not be able to see the broader picture of what is happening to Canada's sovereignty. It seems like the CCP has moved into and taken up residence in Canada as though they are a sister country and Canadians, including Canadian politicians, do not see this as a Trojan horse taking control of Canada. Canadian politicians are so enthralled with the policy of multilateralism that they are completely blind to the real danger and the need to protect their own country from foreign control and influence.

No, I don't think that is a necessarily true. It is an oversimplification to blame it all on Trump. It is more complex than that. You have to understand how Americans think about government and understand how they think about personal freedom. Trump represents a large segment of the population that puts individual rights and freedom above everything else and don't trust government for many good reasons. Many other countries also had high numbers of Covid cases and deaths and they don't have Trump. The simple truth is many Americans consider any regulations imposed by the Federal government as contrary to their rights under the Constitution. Many state governments believe that as well. They do not trust government to always be acting in their best interests. There are lots of reasons that prove their fear of government is justified. There are lots of states that had high death rates, like the Democrat state of California, that could have brought in far stronger measures to fight the pandemic, but did not do it. Many are Democrat run states. They oppose anything the Federal government does and they have as much or more responsibility over health care for their states but didn't take strong measures when they should have.

Quote: Roger Foley’s case, for example, continues to haunt me two years after I first wrote about him. Foley suffers from a neurodegenerative disease, cerebellar ataxia, that renders him unable to function independently. In his London hospital he has suffered food poisoning and substandard care serious enough to cause suicidal ideation. Foley has recorded being reminded that MAiD is an option. His only other choice is a forced discharge and dependence on contracted agencies that proved unreliable in the past. Foley wants a third option: “assisted life with self-directed funding,” which would cost 10-15 per cent of the daily $1,845 his London hospital charges him. Why can’t he have that? It would allow him to live in the community with dignity, safety and continuity of care instead of in the soulless sterility of a hospital. Foley’s spirit and determination are indomitable, but one can see how easily others in his situation might request MAiD and, thanks to C-7, get it on the same day. In 2016, Quebecer Archie Rolland, who suffered from advanced ALS and required specialized care chose MAiD when he was transferred against his will, for cost-saving reasons, to a facility with inadequately trained staff whose incompetence made his life a “living hell.” In the end, Rolland said, “It’s not the ALS that’s killing me; it’s my fight for better care, for decent care.” Dr. Catherine Frazee gave heartbreaking testimony to the Senate hearings, citing Rolland’s case and that of Sean Tagert, also a prisoner of ALS. Tagert considered his quality of life good. He had shared custody of his adolescent son, while an elaborate technological system gave his days purpose. Denied the two additional daily hours of home care he required, Tagert was transferred to an institution far from his son, without the sophisticated technology that added critical value to his existence. So no “viable alternative” for Tagert. Is it any wonder he then chose MAiD? A 2017 Journal of Ethics in Mental Health study of those who signed up for assisted suicide in Oregon concluded that pain and suffering were amongst the least cited reasons for choosing assisted death. Most significant were loss of autonomy, loss of self-control, feelings of being a burden, and, paramountly, fear of being alone. As anti-euthanasia physician Paul Saba writes in his eloquent new book, Made to Live, “The euthanasia and assisted suicide mindset has been marketed by attacking people’s failing courage and preying on their fear that they will end their lives as a worthless human burden or worse, alone.” Further, “It is irresponsible to promote the myth that euthanasia and assisted suicide are never the result of severe external pressures, and that they are pure rational choices freely arrived at by citizens of a civilized and caring country.” Quebec Justice Christine Baudouin approved the right to MAiD (which he got) of the cerebral-palsy afflicted Jean Truchon, because “He can no longer live on his own … He says he has been dead since 2012.” Why couldn’t he live on his own? He couldn’t afford to. In an August 2017 email to Jonathan Marchand, who suffers from muscular dystrophy and is “trapped in my long-term care facility,” but has long fought for the right of the disabled, including Jean Truchon, to live with adequate assistance at home, Truchon confided (my translation), “I want to thank you for your interest in my cause. In response to your question concerning home care, I think that actually if there were services of 70 hours and more, I would have preferred to stay at home and possibly I would not have had the same wish to die.” Two more care hours daily might have saved Sean Tagert’s and Jean Truchon’s lives. We should not be offering wider access to euthanasia until every Canadian that needs it has a truly viable option: access to excellent palliative care (only accessible to 30 per cent of us) or optimal life assistance for the disabled. But C-7 will, shamefully, make Canada one of the most MAiD-friendly countries in the world. Unquote --Barbara Kay: Wider access to assisted dying in Canada will be catastrophic for the disabled (msn.com) Where is the compassion and concern for the disabled and least in our society?

Sadly in Canada, the CBC and mainstream media only present one side of the issue, the side in favour of assisted suicide. We hear little or nothing of the important reasons why it is wrong. Tragic that most people do not understand the full implications of this as a result.

I am sorry you have a brother going through that. You are correct in saying unless one is in the situation, they don't really know what it is like. Hopefully the intravenous pain killers he is receiving are providing much-needed relief for him. It naturally causes you and his loved ones around him a great deal of distress. It is understandably why you would wish it would all end. But there are a number of serious reasons why man should not take it into his own hands to end life. Here is an article that enumerates some of those reasons. I hope you will not dismiss this out of hand but give it serious consideration over time. 10 Reasons to Ban Assisted Suicide By Ben Broussard Topics: Assisted Suicide 1. Assisted suicide turns doctors into killers. The American Medical Association rejects physician-assisted suicide in the following terms: “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” 2. Assisted suicide endangers the weak and vulnerable. Wherever assisted suicide has been legalized, safeguards to protect the ill have been inadequate, watered down or eliminated over time. People who deserve society’s help are instead treated like chattel and offered death. 3. Assisted suicide laws give societal approval to killing. Legislation that allows people to end their lives automatically creates incentives to seek death as a cost-saving option. The elderly and infirm are seen as burdens and can easily be disposed of. Suicide becomes the easy way out. 4. Just call it what it is: suicide. Under the false guise of ‘compassion,’ all sorts of euphemisms are being used to force this dangerous legislation on America -- phrases such as “aid in dying,” “end-of-life options,” and “death with dignity.” But there is no getting around the truth: these laws allow doctors to administer drugs designed to facilitate suicide. Even more insidious, the lethal drugs are falsely labeled as “medication” while designed to do the exact opposite of any true medicine. 5. Assisted suicide laws are unfair to the disabled. The vast majority of those requesting assisted suicide in Oregon was not because of pain, but the loss of functional ability. The mindset involved in allowing the practice of assisted suicide equates disability with a “loss of dignity.” But, every day, thousands of disabled Americans rely on the assistance of others, without any loss of dignity. 6. Assisted suicide laws lead to euthanasia. Euthanasia, defined as “the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to end pain and suffering,” has followed wherever assisted suicide laws have been enacted. Instead of the suffering person requesting it, euthanasia is administered by others with or without patient consent. Dr. Herbert Hendin writing in Psychiatric Times sums up what’s happened in the Netherlands: “The Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (called “termination of the patient without explicit request”).” In fact, the Dutch now kill patients and babies born with deformities. 7. Assisted suicide laws put the poor at risk. Those without financial resources are most at risk from this dangerous legislation. Suicide becomes the cheap alternative for the poor who cannot afford costly treatment and medication. By passing assisted suicide laws, the state takes an interest in promoting the suicide of its citizens in order to save money. In fact, many insurance companies also favor assisted suicide because is saves them a lot of money. 8. It pressures dying people to end their own lives. Those coping with terminal illness are pressured to take the easy way out. “Not being a burden” becomes a powerful temptation to end one’s life. Instead of cherishing the sunset of life, a terminally ill person’s last moments are deliberately cut short. Laws of this type also allow relatives and family members to kill in order to access inheritances and take advantage of the situation. 9. 3.4 million nurses oppose assisted suicide. The American Nurses Association, which represents 3.4 million registered nurses, has clearly stated that:"... the nurse should not participate in assisted suicide. Such an act is in violation of the Code for Nurses [...] and the ethical traditions of the profession." 10. Assisted suicide laws go against the Law of God. The practice of suicide goes against the 5th Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment prohibits the murder of oneself or the murder of others. The state has no right to approve laws contrary to the moral and Divine Law. And all people of good will should firmly reject assisted suicide and stand up for morality and right reason. Do you know what the difference is between civilization and savagery? The difference is respect for natural law. Even the pagans knew how natural law is engrained in our rational human nature. We tend to do good and avoid evil. So, to kill oneself or to “help” another person kill himself shatters that fundamental principle of natural law and paves the way for a new "stone age" of dog-eat-dog barbaric savagery. And -- as history demonstrates -- the gap between “assisted suicide” and mandatory suicide can be very narrow. Who can guarantee that the legalization of “assisted suicide” today won't prepare the way for a new version of Auschwitz cremation ovens tomorrow? God bless you and please help us defend moral values by subscribing here.

Speech was totally different 50 or 75 years ago. People said all kinds of things that nobody says today. That was the way the world was then. Churchill's accomplishments in leading the British and Allies to victory in WW2 far overshadow any comments he might have said. He needs to be shown respect for leading the free world in it's greatest threat and battle in history.

Ever thought of the possibility of someone with mental problems is not fit to make such decisions? I have a son who is a schizophrenic and has been in a care home since he was about 20 and for several decades now. He often says crazy things and is not fit to decide to have assisted suicide. That would be criminal to give him such a right.

Obviously you think the doctor and hospital had his best interest at heart. Turned out they were the ones that killed him. Some medical care system.

A man in Chilliwack not too old apparently had mental issues, depression, and requested assisted death. His relatives strongly disagreed with the hospital and doctors. The guy needed treatment for his depression and mental issues, but the medical staff went ahead anyway and gave him MAID against the wishes of his relatives. All I can say is better stay away from hospitals and long term care homes as much as possible if one wants to stay alive. The system has become a Frankenstein monster.

I agree there are entire countries with laws based on religious views that I would not agree with. But those views are not the same religious views I am talking about. Western society is largely based on Judeo-Christian principles which come from the Bible. The ten commandments are a good example to show where our laws came from. We don't believe in the same religious beliefs as Islamic countries or Hindu countries for example. We don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat and don't consider animals such as cows sacred. But human life in western society has always been considered sacred by many people and laws. But I will admit many people in western countries have departed from the historic Judeo-Christian beliefs. Many are following secular humanist ideas, Socialism, Marxism, and Progressivism.

Yes, we come from different points of view. But that is what discussion is all about. If there were no differences and we all thought the same way, there would be no point in discussing anything. I believe life is no accident and human life is of infinite value. You say religion has no place in making laws, but the fact is most laws and how society functions arose out of historic Judeo-Christian principles which came down through the centuries from thousands of years ago. That is why western society recognizes fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, association, etc. It is part of recognizing the dignity of the individual. That is not recognized in Communist systems because they try to be atheistic and their god is the state or Communist leaders. Every member of Parliament and every lawmaker in every level of government has certain beliefs or ideology that governs his belief system. You can say all you want that religion has no place in making laws, but the truth is everyone has beliefs of some sort and that will never change. Even the leader of the political parties in government each have certain religious beliefs. Your beliefs are based on secular humanism which is a belief system in and of itself. You say you belief in the right of the individual to take his own life, but on what basis do you believe that. Is it just a human ideology or is there some greater foundation for that belief. Man-made ideologies change from time to time and depend on what's popular at any given time. So they are not a strong basis for anything.

I don't look at it as "dictatorial" because life is sacred and nobody has a right to take another's life or his own. We have laws for countless things that limits our freedom. We cannot do what we please in a civilized society. We can't take another person's life. We can't take their property because we think they have too much or don't need it. We can't justify taking someone else's life with MAID for the same reasons. There is no moral reason to justify it. The arguments in favour of MAID is a purely secular humanist reason. Much like some other laws that were passed based purely on secular humanist or populist reasons. It doesn't make it right. Suicide as a crime was removed from the books years ago. But that doesn't mean it is right for a teenager for example to take his or her own life because of stress or difficulties he or she may be experiencing.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Your ideas are based on beliefs too, right? I just happen to believe differently. I believe that human life is sacred and man does not have the right to end someone else's life or even end his own life through suicide. If you reject certain principles, then anything goes. We don't have to look far in history to see how that worked when dictators were free to do what they wanted and end other people's lives. The same thing could apply here if the government thought it was more practical to end people's lives when they reached a certain age or condition. What is there to stop them? The answer is not ending lives as I explained. It is in providing good care and good quality of life for everyone in need of it.