Originally posted by bsl4doc
This is at the heart of the issue, think2much (or lack thereof). We are speaking two different languages, one of hard, provable evidence (my side),
and the other of religion, faith, and eternal spirits (you and LostSailor).
We are both speaking English and I understand your point of view quite clearly, and I think you understand mine. There is no confusion, there is a
I find it so hypocritical of those supposedly so rational and logical to constantly have to try to belittle those who do not agree with them. To go
beyond the issues always and attack their intellect, their debating power, their posting styles, their grammar or syntax, or semantics, to insult
others for their views and for not conforming to the "logical" viewpoint or "unbiased by religion" views, and when all else fails, see them and
labile them as hysterical religious zealots with no reasonable cause, but just an unfounded religious bias. That is nonsense.
In fact, I only gave my religious and spiritual views in answer to a post by Dawnstar asking, proposing questions pertaining to the religious view. My
view on this case is not religious, however I can give the religious perspective because I do subscribe to spiritual and religious beliefs of my own,
and therefor have the ability to give her the perspective she sought, and so I did.
However my truest and deepest views on this are based on the facts of where it could logically go, especially by those who think of it as
"progressive" and have shown a disregard for less than perfect mankind. Mine is a stand based on that and the moral and ethical impactions
independent of religion!
LostSailor made it clear he is NOT religiously motivated or biased, but feels a deep existential nature within him that cherishes life and humanity as
something amazing and precious, and thus opposes it being treated otherwise. I agree wholeheartedly and respect him for his non-religiously biased,
but deeply and passionately humane views.
So it is not about what you can logically prove vs what we cannot through religion. You don't need religion or God to value human life, and
LostSailor and I were not preaching anything to anyone or trying to insult anyone. Even for you to say "(or lack thereof)" to try to directly insult
me, my intelligence or thought processes and try to discredit my viewpoint-simply shows your weaker and illogical side.
Apparently, you don't see how logically that makes you seem purely childish, not to mention obviously threatened by me and my postings and opinion,
and in so doing, you actually show your weaker side and validate me-thank you.
Now, what despite mine and LostSailors views opposing the thought that this is a progressive and good idea to embrace in general being exclusive of
religious bias, indeed still what becomes the heart of the issue in these cases is those people without a spiritual or religious perspective will
always try to nullify the validity of such from others as not being pertinent to the subject at hand, when in fact, it's not just a medical case, but
an obvious moral and ethical controversy, and thus when dealing especially with morals, those religious and spiritual perspectives on morals are quite
pertinent to the discussion at hand.
However, those who voice opposition with religious views and those who oppose it by their sense of humanity and an existential nature, though their
morals and ethics may dictate their similar views rights and wrongs in the world, they are not basing it on the same seemingly "unfounded" by you,
religious biases as you'd like to assume.
Now, not everyone in the medical field who feel it is compassionate to end suffering through some type of medicinally induced respiratory depression
euthanasia, is going to agree with Bibliophile that it is beneficial and progressive on a larger scale to clean up the gene pool and get rid of the
retards and less than perfect babies as well. Let me ask you-do you? Can we not reasonably assume since you think infant euthanasia is good and
progressive it is not through compassion for the ailing infants as you at first would imply, but more of a sinister hope for progressing it to future
infanticide genocide to clean up the gene pool?
I am calling you out on this one doc and asking you: Is infant euthanasia a good way to clean up the gene pool? Would YOU have any problem with
putting down a "retard" just for being a "retard?" Would you have any problem with killing any baby that was born defective? Do you applaud
Bibliophile for his inhuman statements and agree with him? Do you see him as progressive with a pioneering spirit in the world of medicine?
Or do you disagree and think there is a big difference between compassionately ending the physical and painful suffering of an individual infant, vs
the general euthanasia for the purpose of infanticide of the less than perfect?
What says you doc?
I am very interested to know because Bibliophile has proved that people here are NOT hysterical when they believe that SOME doctors may twist what is
meant to be a compassionate act, into something more sinister like um....cleaning up the gene pool eventually.
So for all of his objections, one could clearly say "Me thinks thou dost protest too much" and that is what I have been trying to say and now we see
his true colors. I would like to know your true colors too. He was not defending euthanasia for the cause of humane compassion, he is doing so to
defend a more sinister belief and agenda he admits to now, and that is to see it as a progressive step to allow for eventually cleaning up the gene
pool, a solution to over population, genocide through infanticide, etc. He now personifies and exemplifies what many here in opposition have been
I feel very justified in my argument now that Bibliophile, one of the loudest voice attacking the opposition to infant euthanasia, has proved to
validate the opposition and show, it isn't about an isolated case compassion, but indeed about precedence, and about where it could progress to
eventually lead to in the hands of someone like him and like-minded individuals in the medical field.
He attempted to defend this case and defend himself by attacking those who suspected, if not him directly, then the mentality he obviously has. He
might even be suspected to come back and post "Oh I didn't really mean all that, I was just tired of everyone acting like I thought that way, and
wanted to feed the paranoia of the hysterical people" or some other lame excuse to try to hide his true colors again and denying it and saying
everyone is hysterical to think this was a matter of anything but a compassionate act to end suffering, when he in fact proves it is anything but
hysterical to think there are evil people who are even proud of their progressive views. Are you? Are you like minded?
Bibliophile has shown his true colors show-will you please show yours? Is this a compassionate act in the name of medicine, or a progressive act in
the name of genocide? Either way, you must see our point being made. If you agree with him, you too personify the view we oppose. If you disagree with
him, and truly only see such cases of ending human suffering through euthanasia, as a humane alternative to their suffering, then still, at least you
can understand now, our position, that even if some, in the name of compassion, like you would end a babies suffering, it still gives hope and a
precedence to those who see it as a progressive act not for medical compassion, but for more sinister reasons of depopulation, regulation, and bias
selection, and genocide.
So if you are with him, then yes, we are against you. If you are not with him, can you understand why we would be against him and what all he
represents, what we have been trying to say could exist. So do not take issue with us for knowing there were men like him, and I will excuse you as
not being one, and I will accept that not everyone for this compassionate act is like-minded with him, if you can accept not everyone against it is
against it with blind faith it is evil because of a religious bias, instead of understanding with or without religious views, we can oppose it based
on humanity, and the proof of human evil as personified by Bibliophile now, and historically evident through Hitler, Stalin and the likes.
What I personally, and I believe LoastSailor was, opposing, not based on religion, but on human ethics and morality, is indeed what Bibliophile stands
for and thus he is now the "proof" personified, not speculated upon, for "our side", independent of religious views.
Sailor has specifically cited his view is a moral one, with deeply existential beliefs independent of religion. I too have deeply moral beliefs
stemming from an existential human core, but havea religious view as well, so when dawnstar specifically adressed the religion question, I answered
those questions with that view.
Now, that all said and done, I don't know if we need to address the rest of your post to me further, but I will continue with the rest of your post
when I have time, for now I must make haste for a busy day, but I will be back.
**edited! Damn typos!
[edit on 16-3-2006 by think2much]