Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why do you feel the need to be so nasty? I'm really getting tired of explaining this to you:

    1. When I posted the coalition agreement with this policy included, only you and Rakas said something against it, four people explicitly supported it, and the rest were presumably indifferent. Since then, I've heard no more voices against the bill except for one person's concerns about voting aye.

    2. Asking Liberals to uphold the coalition agreement and then letting you defy it would be gargantuan hypocrisy. We are going to proceed in the same way we (including yourself) expected them to when some of them ‘had principles’.

    3. As I already told you yesterday, it would not have been rejected. Judging by the petition, the ‘no’ vote would be at about 30%, i.e. 10% less than needed to reject the policy.

    4. You. Are. Not. The. Centre. Of. The. Universe.
    But the Liberals did not uphold the coalition agreement, the Conservative upholding the coalition agreement when the Liberals did not does not make the Conservative Party honourable, nor honest, it makes the Conservative Party appear desperate for Liberal approval, and easily exploitable.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why do you feel the need to be so nasty? I'm really getting tired of explaining this to you:

    1. When I posted the coalition agreement with this policy included, only you and Rakas said something against it, four people explicitly supported it, and the rest were presumably indifferent. Since then, I've heard no more voices against the bill except for one person's concerns about voting aye.

    2. Asking Liberals to uphold the coalition agreement and then letting you defy it would be gargantuan hypocrisy. We are going to proceed in the same way we (including yourself) expected them to when some of them ‘had principles’.

    3. As I already told you yesterday, it would not have been rejected. Judging by the petition, the ‘no’ vote would be at about 30%, i.e. 10% less than needed to reject the policy.

    4. You. Are. Not. The. Centre. Of. The. Universe.
    Oh hello again LP.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Oh hello again LP.
    Don't think he's talking to you yet
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Don't think he's talking to you yet
    And he might never do again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, as I have previously indicated. Despite the best intentions and honourable motives I fear a slippery slope.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    But the Liberals did not uphold the coalition agreement, the Conservative upholding the coalition agreement when the Liberals did not does not make the Conservative Party honourable, nor honest, it makes the Conservative Party appear desperate for Liberal approval, and easily exploitable.
    Yeah, but those were individual members who have since been dealt with. The Conservative Party has its own reputation to uphold regardless of other parties' actions, and I trust you can recall multiple occasions which strongly suggest that we're far from easily exploitable. Although the idea came from them, this bill is not an exclusive Liberal endeavour. I've been a supporter of euthanasia ever since I can remember and many of my colleagues support it too.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    Aye. Without hesitation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I sort of admire JD's principled stand. Still very conflicted about the bill though.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I applaud the Tories for upholding their agreement, I wholeheartedly support the premise of the bill and agree with added protections such as in TDAs recommendations. I would add as well that I would consider adding a note pre-dementia that I be allowed to euthanise myself in the event of getting dementia and losing my competence (but that's too complex for this bill)

    JD raises the point about protections in his first point, and rightly so we should be insistent on no family manipulation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I applaud the Tories for upholding their agreement, I wholeheartedly support the premise of the bill and agree with added protections such as in TDAs recommendations. I would add as well that I would consider adding a note pre-dementia that I be allowed to euthanise myself in the event of getting dementia and losing my competence (but that's too complex for this bill)

    JD raises the point about protections in his first point, and rightly so we should be insistent on no family manipulation.
    No family manipulation is somewhat difficult to enforce without taking very dangerous measures. How do you prove that there was no form of family pressure without either excluding the family from the dialogue all together or somehow reading the mind of the person making the decision, which in turns sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

    The question that has to be asked to those that support this is at what point do you regret it? Will it be the first loosenings, which will likely be removing the court from the mix? How about to terminal conditions that can be cured, but has a high failure rate, or simply makes it a painful or uncomfortable chronic condition, or has a high chance of the illness returning at a later point? How about when it comes to the debate over uncomfortable chronic diseases comes along?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No family manipulation is somewhat difficult to enforce without taking very dangerous measures. How do you prove that there was no form of family pressure without either excluding the family from the dialogue all together or somehow reading the mind of the person making the decision, which in turns sets a potentially dangerous precedent.

    The question that has to be asked to those that support this is at what point do you regret it? Will it be the first loosenings, which will likely be removing the court from the mix? How about to terminal conditions that can be cured, but has a high failure rate, or simply makes it a painful or uncomfortable chronic condition, or has a high chance of the illness returning at a later point? How about when it comes to the debate over uncomfortable chronic diseases comes along?
    Please answer my question in the Commons Bar thread. I have asked you a basic question three times and you have avoided responding. Stop running away because you've lost a debate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I sort of admire JD's principled stand. Still very conflicted about the bill though.
    What are the primary advantages and disadvantages to you?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Please answer my question in the Commons Bar thread. I have asked you a basic question three times and you have avoided responding. Stop running away because you've lost a debate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    *cough* central park does exist

    I have a nice little 16 notifications waiting, patience is a virtue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    *cough* central park does exist

    I have a nice little 16 notifications waiting, patience is a virtue.
    Well I look forward to it.
    I have clearly explained that my opposition to the death penalty is nothing to do with the fact that we can not be certain, but rather because I disagree with the idea of taking away someone's life against their will, even if we can 100% prove they are guilty.
    My support for legalized assisted suicide again is on the basis of personal choice.

    In both cases I am arguing that the individual should have autonomy over their life and the decision about whether they live or die should not be someone else's. Now do tell me where the inconsistency lies.

    There is no contradiction in saying that the choice about whether someone lives or dies should be theirs and theirs alone directly and that it applies for both capital punishment and assisted suicide.

    I am really struggling to see the contradiction and I have asked you several times now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    aye
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This bill is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 23, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.