Want an example? Alright; I don't understand why people deem wind farms as eyesores and prefer to preserve the countryside and green fields at best as possible. Why? What's the point? Its just fuc***g nature and wasted potential! As people on this Earth we have a growing consumption and as long as people remain, the more and more our consumption will be. We have growing populations all around the world and need places to live and ways to obtain energy like water and electricity to fulfil our needs as people. I don't know if people have noticed or not but nature can be bloody unmerciful at times! Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, land slides and so on... What happens when a natural disasters occurs? Death, famine, suffering and so on. Is that side of nature likable? What is an unfortunate eyesore is the devastation of land and lives by such disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Compare to that; a wind turbine isn't an eyesore, so what's the bigi about having wind farms dotted around the UK when it yields "clean energy" on green fields or out at the sea like the Scroby Sands Wind Farm? I live in Dorset and I can tell you that there are plenty of opportunities for wind farm development or other energy sources. Just look at the sea on the right hand side of the Ferrybridge as you come from Weymouth, there is an ideal sight for renewable and "clean energy" development. I don't care if it endangers wildlife or is unsightly to other people; call it a necessary evil if you lie, but I underline "necessary" because we will as people inevitably need more and more energy provisions as we consume more and more overtime.
Got that? Good, that's an example of how I think and see the world, I'm not forensic in my approach or have considered the enormity of cost and repercussions to instigate such a development because its unnecessary. Finance is readily available whether people want to believe it or not and though there may well be several wrongs involved, we are far from saints. Speaking of which...
As I grew up, I began to learn several things that make the world what it is, and question why. Why are there people deemed as evil? Why are politics useless, and why people stick pineapple on pizza? Overtime I have accepted that things are the way they are, just like how people are all different, but still I questioned the reasoning and logic behind some of the more baffling specifics. Such as why is Euthanasia such a terrible thing? Or the ridiculousness of the so called "justice system". Apparently there are ethnical reasons and rights that get in the way of the two things I mentioned above.
WELL THAT'S A TON OF BIBLICAL BULL***T RIGHT THERE!!!!
I think by now you figured out that I don't believe in "God" or follow any beliefs. I have no problem with people who do follow "God" or believe in certain ways, and I certainly don't try to challenge "the Lord Almighty" or people's beliefs, but it is absurd to me when ethnics and rights and morality get in the way of the best possible outcome. Take euthanasia for example, while there are different classifications of euthanasia for humans such as voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary and so on, the empathises is looked upon as
“a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express
intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering" according to
The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical
Ethics. Both Euthanasia and assisted suicide is illegal under UK law and any commencing of ending one's life is defined as murder/homicide or manslaughter. And yet modern history is filled with noteworthy exceptions and cases where a person validly chooses to have their life ended. You would think that if someone who is suffering can responsibly decide and choose to have their life ended; then there would be no reason to prohibit that person to having their last wish granted. Surely if one makes the conscious decision to have their life ended like in suicide, then politics, religious policies, ethnics, law and morality wouldn't matter. Stupidly however when the act of Euthanasia requires another person to assist the person who chooses to die, say a doctor or a loved one, it is taboo and unlawful in the UK and other parts of the world. While I agree ending another person's life is effectively murder, it shouldn't be penalized and forbidden wherever in the world if people rightly and consciously choose to end their lives and require another's hand in the act. Those who go above the law and ethnical bull***t for the greater good and wish of the person pleading for their live to end shouldn't be discriminated for their actions as long as it is abiding to the rights of those who undertake.
I grew up with three (3) elderly relatives, and as time went on their lives disintegrated. Maneuverability, eyesight, hearing, speaking, memory, sense, and capability all falter as the human body ages and weakens. Strokes are significantly more likely in the elderly and are just as damming to the health and life quality of an elderly person as it is for a younger person. My dad's mother suffered from a stroke and lost significant maneuverability and ability to hear, see and take care of herself. As a result she lived in a nursing home for the rest of her life, and though still able to walk and get about to trips to Hastings and so on, it would be impossible without various aids such as a "rollator", wheelchair, powered lifting chairs and bed, and caring people to assist. When all eyesight was gone; her quality of life was unbearable. In due time she died. Being a witness to her life failing until the date of her death taught me about the cruelness of being no longer able to life satisfactory or comfortably. With this it amazed me that there were many, many elderly people who are going through the same cycle of dying and suffering, and yet the law was and still is as stubborn as a rock the size of a house guarded with barbed wire and guards. I wouldn't want to deny a person's rational desire to have their life ended if it meant prolonged suffering and difficulty for the person and family or loved ones. As I speak another elderly relative of mine had suffered from two (2) considerable strokes four (4) or so years ago which as drastically effected their life. Although now able to get outside the house to attend to the garden with her beloved husband or go out for lunch at a restaurant, doing so requires being in a wheelchair at all times, paralyzed entirely on one side, incapable of speaking cohesively, and incapable of doing anything without nurses assisting. Following the first stroke and knowing of the hardship following her recovery, my mother's adopted mother signed for a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Although her husband intervened and thus they still live together, the decline in life quality continues and will result in the inevitable in due time.
Knowing that there are people suffering whether they are elderly, middle aged, or younger, who rationally choose to have their life ended but are denied by law, ethnics and so on is inexcusable. While there are countries in the world that do not have the same attitude to euthanasia and assisted suicide as the UK, it is terrible and hard going having to travel so far to another country and at significant expense. Some who choose to have their live ended want to die in their homes, surrounded by their loved ones within the UK. Who and why would people want to deny that? Is personal feelings and obligations to policies and ethnics really that much more important than a person's last wish?
Personally I would change the law and legalize Euthanasia if I could. I wouldn't listen to religious or politics or ethnics, and adopt a policy that allows anyone aged ninety (90) or more to choose to have their lives ended at no cost. I'm not trying to be indiscriminate to elderly people in particular, its just at the honorable age of ninety (90) the life quality will expectedly worsen and life would become less enjoyable. Giving those who are ninety (90) the choice allows clarity and a means to avoid suffering in years to come. I would even go so far to legally arrange specialist doctors to offer their hand in the act of Euthanasia and assisted suicide for those who choose to have their life ended, elderly or not provided the supposed patient fits a criteria of inability, depression and ability to rationally come to the conclusion of having their life ended.
It may sound "extreme" and despicable even, but its undeniable that there are legitimate cases where people want to have their life ended to bring an end to suffering and complications of any nature. Religion, politics, ethnics, and so on are merely labels in my opinion, and yet sadly prevent people from choosing to end their life. The reality is however that while people may choose to value such labels and beliefs to be most important; it is without a doubt that "people have a right to self-determination, and thus
should be allowed to choose their own fate".
...Or at least for those who have not committed horrible crimes.
Another ludicrous logic is that people who have offended in the worst kinds of actions such as mass murder, child assault, rape and so on still have rights. I argue very strongly that those who offend in such a manner not only abused their rights by committing the offence in the first place but discard the rights of others. Thus when an offender who killed people is sentenced for whatever sentence, the offender is stripped of all his/her human rights and cannot earn them back ever. What is monstrously insane is that offenders who have life sentences still have rights and are entitled to such comforts such as TV, independence from other offenders, and are routinely checked upon and fed to ensure that they live out their sentence, a sentence by the way that seems to not mean "life" with parole and bail opportunities years after being sentenced. There are schemes and policies for offenders that will aid those who finished their sentences so that they can supposedly return to normal life with others.
The absurd luxuries these offenders get costs money and resources. In order for offenders to fulfil their sentence, they must be fed and allowed to live a suitably comfortable manner. Picture therefore the offender Ian Huntley who has a life sentence of which he must undergo 40 years minimum, For all the atrocities Ian committed, he has to be kept safe and alive throughout his duration, which means food, water and transport, which costs money and resources that should belong to the public. What's more the claims of this offender created further unrest in the public:
"On 14 September 2005, Huntley was scalded with boiling
water when another inmate attacked him, a
prison service spokesman said that due to the nature of high-security
prisoners, "it's impossible to prevent incidents of this nature
occasionally happening", but Huntley alleged that the prison authorities
failed in their duty of care towards him, and launched a claim for £15,000
compensation. Huntley was reportedly awarded £2,500 in legal aid". "On 21 March 2010, Huntley was taken to hospital and later
Huntley applied for a £20,000 compensation pay out for his injuries".
Seriously this bull***t has to stop! Strip the serious offenders of all their human rights, strip them of their entitlements and absurd luxuries which they do not deserve, allow the offenders to suffer, and when it comes to life sentences, bring back the death penalty so that the atrocious human beings are permanently removed from the world of the living. Its absurd knowing that the public has to effectively pay to have an offender like Ian Huntley and countless others to live out their sentences. Its worse though when people who don't deserve to live following their committed offences are still known to the public at large and still pose threat. The way these atrocious offenders should be treated is like garbage, with no rights, no aids, and then killed via lethal injection or otherwise. Prisons are overflowing allegedly and cost the public and services lots of money, time and resources to manage prisons and maintain safety amongst the inmates and staff. Screw that! If the offender is as guilty as sin then they should be executed promptly. Offenders like Ian Huntley don't deserve sympathy or rights or to live; the less offenders there are, the more public spending can be used within the public.
While my theories are "extreme" to say the least, can it really be said the alternatives that are in place today are for the better? Agree or disagree, the matters I've raised in this post are in fact issues that are discussed and go on restlessly day after day in the UK and apply to other parts of the world. It should be noted that although public opinion is divided and may well be TV static noise to those politics in charge, a voice in unison is a powerful force and may yet bring about the changes that need to be addressed.
Speak out and speak freely, after all we all have rights. Until next time, see ya!
No comments:
Post a Comment