03 May, 2010

Canadian Euthanasia Information

The May 2010 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Newsletter can now be found at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Newsletters/Newsletter108(May2010)(RGB).pdf

Bill C-384 was soundly defeated by a vote of 228 to 59. Check how the Members of Parliament voted at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/HowTheyVoted.pdf

On June 5, 2010, we are co-hosting the US/Canda Push-Back Seminar at the Radisson Gateway Hotel at the Seattle/Tacoma Airport. The overwhelming defeat of Bill C-384 proved that we can Push-Back the euthanasia lobby in the US and Canada and convince people that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a dangerous public policy. Register for the Seminar at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/2010SeminarFlyer(RGB)(LetterFormat).pdf

The Schindler family are being attacked by a Florida television station and Michael Schiavo. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is standing in solidarity with the Schindler family. My blog comments: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2010/05/attacks-on-schindler-family-are.html  

We won! We defeated Bill C-384 by 228 to 59. We achieved this unprecedented success for many reasons, but the biggest reason for our incredible success is that we remained completely focused on our strategy to defeat the bill. We expended an incredible amount of money in the last few months of our campaign to defeat C-384. I met and directly contacted MP’s. The trips to Ottawa proved to be very effective. We need your financial support now! Donate to the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm  
Become a friend of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Euthanasia-Prevention-Coalition/138827297524?ref=ts

If you wish to receive the newsletter by email only, then email us with your Name and Address, and we will add you to the email only list.

Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca
euthanasiaprevention@on.aibn.com
1-877-439-3348

17 comments:

  1. In Oct of 2009 , with the blessing of our Pastor, our parish of Our Lady of Fatima in Elliot Lake in the SSM diocese initiated a petition asking folks to petition our MP to vote against the bill...we canvassed not only our Church but 6 other Christian denominations in our small city and got a wonderful response. We then presented them to our MP and she agreed to vote against it and honored her word. We just need to stand up for what we believe...it cost us time and thought and energy and no money...people have power they are not even aware of:)We prayed knowing our success depended totally on Jesus and we worked like it depended totally on us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous04 May, 2010

    Hi Tim,

    I hate to burst Mr. Schadenberg's bubble, but the defeat of this private member's bill is hardly surprising. According to hillwatch.com, only 1.5% of private members bills since 1993 have received Royal Assent in Canada. Notwithstanding Schadenberg's efforts to pump more money out of potential donors by crowing about his huge "success", the real story here is how out of step the current Parliament of Canada is with most Canadians.

    According to most credible polls, there is broad based support among Canadians for euthanisia: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35073/most_canadians_generally_agree_with_euthanasia

    My prediction is that as we boomers age, demand for more and better end of life options will force legislative change in favour of euthanasia. What is needed is an open debate. Strong legislation that provides the necessary protections and safeguards to the vulnerable, while respecting personal autonomy and choice, is the ideal end state in our plural, open and tolerant society.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do NOT understand the utter glee with which people interfere in the lives of others whom they do not know.

    If you don't like the idea of assisted suicide, you don't have to subscribe to it. But in working against its decriminalization, you are depriving me of my own choice in the matter.

    My life in mine to do with as I see fit. Or not. It does not belong to the rest of the country to choose on my behalf!

    "We just need to stand up for what we believe..."

    And in doing so, you manage to deprive me of the right to stand up for what I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lady Janus
    u did not choose the time to be born nor do u choose the time to die///there is a Supreme Being and the nomenclature we give Him is not important...we are all created by a loving God and we are made to live with Him forever in the new Jerusalem:))

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lady Janus,

    "I do NOT understand the utter glee with which people interfere in the lives of others whom they do not know.

    If you don't like the idea of assisted suicide, you don't have to subscribe to it. But in working against its decriminalization, you are depriving me of my own choice in the matter.

    My life in mine to do with as I see fit. Or not. It does not belong to the rest of the country to choose on my behalf!"

    I strongly doubt you will agree, but there is no such thing as absolute freedom to do as one chooses. We have laws against sexual abuse, taking illicit drugs, drinking and driving, theft, etc. etc. Governments have a duty to protect their vulnerable citizens including those who would take their own life or have someone assist them in doing so. Many believe the taking of another life or the taking of one's own life is wrong.

    We understand pro choice people do not agree with us. The principle of the sanctity of life is enshrined in the Bible which many believe to be God's Word.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous05 May, 2010

    Mary G - You write about your beliefs in a Supreme Being, however, those are your beliefs. Lady Janus' point is that you have no right to impose them on others who may not share them.

    Small Town Guy - most of the ills you describe involve harming others. Deciding how to end one's own life ought to be a free and personal decision. As for your comments regarding "sanctity of life" those are your personal beliefs. You do not get to impose them on others.

    Jeesh - are religious adherents incapable of respecting the autonomy and freedom of those around them who may not share in their belief systems? If you insist on the freedom of your religion, then others have the right to insist on the freedom of their own conscience.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  7. Martin,

    "Small Town Guy - most of the ills you describe involve harming others. Deciding how to end one's own life ought to be a free and personal decision. As for your comments regarding "sanctity of life" those are your personal beliefs. You do not get to impose them on others."

    You are confusing freedom of belief and freedom of speech. My expressing as opinion contrary to someone else who is in favour of euthanasia does not affect the autonomy and freedom of someone else. You cannot hide behind a claim that your freedom is deprived because I express an opinion contrary to yours. That is a phoney argument. Regardless of what someone else says, you are still perfectly free to belief what you wish.

    As far as your argument that most of what I mentioned concerns things that affect others, euthanasia does also affect others. They could be relatives or friends who would not wish to see someone die prematurely. Secondly, the person themselves who may claim they want to end their life is probably not in their right mind. Therefore their claim would be misguided. This is very often the case. Society cannot allow that kind of thing to happen to it's citizens. They must be protected.

    Only God has the right to decide when life is to end. To even question this is to try to place one's self in a higher position than our Creator. One reason we have seat belt laws is to protect one's self from the consequences of their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous05 May, 2010

    My dear Small Town Guy,

    First - two words: Reading. Comprehension.

    Second - "Only God has the right to decide when life is to end." Prove it.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Lady Janus
    u did not choose the time to be born nor do u choose the time to die///there is a Supreme Being and the nomenclature we give Him is not important...we are all created by a loving God and we are made to live with Him forever in the new Jerusalem:))"


    Mary. Sweetie. Butt the hell out. Clear? Thanks ever so much.

    "I strongly doubt you will agree, but there is no such thing as absolute freedom to do as one chooses."

    Wayne. Doubt all you want. You are wrong.

    I have the right to do what I like with what I own so long as I harm no other in the doing of it. My life, not yours. My death, not yours. My choice. NOT YOURS.

    "Jeesh - are religious adherents incapable of respecting the autonomy and freedom of those around them who may not share in their belief systems?"

    Not all of them, Martin. Only those who subscribe to the idea that they own Teh Truth."

    "Only God has the right to decide when life is to end."

    Wayne, I could tell you where to put your god and your ideas of what it wants and doesn't want, but this is not my blog and I am trying to be polite. I'll give you a hint, though: tell it to bring a flashlight.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lady Janus,

    This is a religous blog after all. So why be suprised that some people on here look at things from a religious perspective?

    Martin,

    If you don't accept the premise that there is a God who is sovereign ruler over the universe, then we are at a dead end. My belief is that God is both Creator and ruler of this world and in fact the whole universe as the Bible teaches. If one does not accept the Bible as God's Word or revelation to man, there is no basis for rational discussion on moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and our eternal destiny.

    The evidence for the existence of God is the creation all around us.

    The evidence that God is the author of the Bible is within the Bible itself.

    If you wish to discuss and hear a christian perspective, that can be accomodated. They are my personal beliefs. I don't "impose" them on others, but I do have as much right to speak as any atheist or agnostic who disagrees with the christian point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous07 May, 2010

    Hi STG:

    I and everyone else here can accept that you believe in god.

    Unfortunately, there is not an gram of evidence that god even exists. Should you prove that god exists, you would still have the burden of proving that the Christian god exists. And even if you could prove that, you would have an enormous mountain to climb to prove that your Christian god holds certain views on abortion, euthansia etc...

    Since this entire house of cards rests upon your very subjective beliefs - it in no way entitles you (or your fellow travellers) to impose your beliefs on others through the civil law.

    In an open, plural and free society we should allow maximum freedom for individuals - up to the point that such freedom causes real harm to others. In other words, your freedom ought to exist right up the point where your fist is about to touch my nose.

    You may not like euthanasia or abortion, and you may believe that your god commands you not to engage in such activities...however...unless and until you can advance a coherent secular argument to support your position, you have nothing to say in the public square that ought not to be dismissed.

    At the end of the day STG - every atrocity and evil on this planet can be justified by some nutty religious belief. We have no reliable method for preferring your brand of religion over another, except by an appeal to some outside standard (I would suggest science, reason and ethics for starters).

    We cannot rely on religious arguments because we can reach no agreement on which religious world views are true. Necessarily, we should simply skip the religious arguments and move straight to the secular ones.

    If this blog is only a place for quoting scripture at one another - then it has nothing of interest to me. I can make scripture say anything I want it to.

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  12. "This is a religous blog after all. So why be suprised that some people on here look at things from a religious perspective?"

    What YOU don't seem to understand is that there is more than just one religion! And that you CANNOT apply the rules of YOUR religion to those who are not bound by it.

    If you have religious objections to assisted suicide, that's your problem. I have no such objections. In fact, my religion directs me to be ultimately the ONLY decision-maker regarding my own life. You can't wrap your head around that, but that's tough.

    "They are my personal beliefs. I don't "impose" them on others..."

    Yeah, you do. Every time you support legislation that removes choice from other people, based on your religion and its rules, you impose them on other people.

    "The evidence that God is the author of the Bible is within the Bible itself."

    That argument is not valid. Never has been. Try again?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lady Janus: I agree with everything you wrote above, save for this one line:

    "Yeah, you do. Every time you support legislation that removes choice from other people, based on your religion and its rules, you impose them on other people."

    The essence of democracy is that we can all have our say in formulating what will be the law of the land. Such a decision must necessarily be rooted in ones convictions and beliefs as to what is right, true or moral. Thus if Christians CAN succeed in having their values enshrined into law, it is not an imposition of their values or beliefs - it is an expression of democracy.

    On a related point, I want to thank you for your ongoing participation on this blog. You bring an insightful and articulate voice to these discussions - often calling people out of their heretofore unchallenged ideas and challenging us to reflect upon the consequences and implications of positions.

    You (and others like Martin) are a gift to this blog and to these discussions. THANK YOU!

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello Martin,

    Thank you for your reply.

    "Unfortunately, there is not an gram of evidence that god even exists."

    You must have heard the saying there are no atheists in foxholes.

    In actual fact, the evidence of God is everywhere in creation. Unless you have some other credible explanation to explain where the infinitely complex universe came from and how all the physical laws came to be, you are left with the conclusion that there is a God. Perhaps the biggest lie of the last 150 years has been the theory of evolution. This theory has been widely debunked and is full of holes.

    God has not remained silent. He has indeed revealed himself to mankind through the written revelation, the Bible. God has told us who he is, what he is like, and what his plan is for mankind.

    Because of the very nature of God, he cannot be discovered through the human mind, secular reasoning, or philosophy. The Bible teaches us the nature of God is such that he can only be known by those to whom he himself has chosen to reveal himself.

    God does not fit into the normal scientific methods of measurement or observation because God is a Spirit. He does not fit into the realm of time and matter and cannot be thought of in that sense. The Bible says God is present everywhere (omnipresent), is all powerful (omnipotent), and knows everything from beginning to end (omniscient). God had no beginning and will have no end.


    Another powerful reason we know God exists is because he has chosen to appear in human flesh. Jesus Christ is God Almighty who became man. This is proven by the fact He was resurrected from the dead as He said He would be and seen by many eyewitnesses after the resurrection. The resurrection verifies the credentials of Jesus Christ's claim to be God. If one wishes to know what God is like, they may study what Jesus Christ was like while on earth. The Bible says He is God in the flesh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You're quite welcome, Tim. And thank you for making me feel welcome here.

    But I have to disagree with your take on what constitutes democracy. It's much more than "majority rules." It's also based on the concept of protecting the minority from the tyrany of the majority and vice versa. Democracy has never been about "everyone thinks this" or "everyone always does that."

    If the law of the land is truly based on what its citizens believe is right, true, and moral, then it MUST take into account that the definitions of those terms vary from person to person and from culture to culture and religion to religion within the boundaries of that land! So, if Christians succeed in getting what they call their values enshrined into law, what happens to MY religious values, which are not the same? Oops...there goes religious freedom...and that's the end of democracy.

    The best solution is minimal force of law in matters of individual choice that are strictly personal. It should be up to the individual whether or not to breed. It should be up to the individual whether or not to wear specific articles of clothing unless such articles or lack of them would cause a public danger. It should be up to the individual whether or not to marry...and which gender or even how many. And it should be up to the individual to choose a specific death over an involuntary death.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Northern Exposure08 May, 2010

    Euthanasia, assisting suicides, wars of aggression, nuclear weapons, poverty, starvation, abortion, ethnic cleansing....

    Religious arguments aside, why is there such callousness in the face of this carnage? When will we wake up to the fact that we (whether believers or nonbelievers) are breathing the poisoned air of a culture of death?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You must have heard the saying there are no atheists in foxholes."

    We've all heard it. I dunno about anyone else, but I think that's one of the stupidest things anyone ever said.

    Northern Exposure...how do you define "culture of death?" Don't just throw out someone else's glib phrase; parse it and explain it for those of us who don't automatically buy that it's valid just because somebody said so.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics