Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

et again I find ATS full of people who judge and condemn God for not living up(down) to their standards, yet don't condemn, and even advocate, the taking and ending of children's and babies lives.


You don't think this is in any way indicative of a religious agenda? Even in subtext? Wow. Maybe you're brainwashed by your American televangelists or the "Pay the Lord" channel.

Also, like I said earlier, just because YOU personally have had a bad experience with handful of medical professionals does not mean you have any right to make blanket statements about physicians. Just like any profession, there will be good and bad. There are bad doctors, bad police officers, bad priests, many bad politicians, etc. There are also good ones, but you seem to think there is no such thing as a good doctor.

~MFP

Subtext be blowed, I was having a clear shot at those of Satanic 'religions' who 'respect' every faith but Christianity.

I am soooo not American and see those you refer to as part of those 'satanic' religions.

Can you say, "Good Christian"? I can even say 'good mason'.

I do hope that should you ever become a doctor, you will read files and respond to key facts better than you do post of those you decide to only find disagreement with.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Subtext be blowed, I was having a clear shot at those of Satanic 'religions' who 'respect' every faith but Christianity.

I am soooo not American and see those you refer to as part of those 'satanic' religions.

Can you say, "Good Christian"? I can even say 'good mason'.

I do hope that should you ever become a doctor, you will read files and respond to key facts better than you do post of those you decide to only find disagreement with.


You accuse me of not seeing the key facts, and yet you keep dodging the crux of my posts. You are basing all of your arguments on a few bad experiences you've had with doctors instead of logic and compassion, hence your "key facts" statement.

~MFP



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

You accuse me of not seeing the key facts, and yet you keep dodging the crux of my posts. You are basing all of your arguments on a few bad experiences you've had with doctors instead of logic and compassion, hence your "key facts" statement.

~MFP

Your posts mostly seem to attack Christians who dare to share their opinions on this issue. I believe a Christian's opinion is not null and void BECAUSE they are Christian.

My post was about a book written to explain all the science, medicine, and logic thrown at lay mothers to 'convince' them to abort babies the 'experts' say should not live, in the form of cases of these mothers and there surviving children.

Why can't you grant value to the opinion of happy and productive adults who medical experts wanted not to live, "for the childs sake". Isn't this the real crux of the issue.

No, it's as if you're terrified people may find a secular researchers book about people defying the 'experts' and choosing life, too threatening to your (dark?)'faith' to even acknowledge it's existance.

A good student of medicine would surely jump at the chance of adding this book to their library before they decided to promote any 'mercy killing'. Are you too busy attacking Christian's opinions to be a good student? That's what your posts read like.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan

No, it's as if you're terrified people may find a secular researchers book about people defying the 'experts' and choosing life, too threatening to your (dark?)'faith' to even acknowledge it's existance.

A good student of medicine would surely jump at the chance of adding this book to their library before they decided to promote any 'mercy killing'. Are you too busy attacking Christian's opinions to be a good student? That's what your posts read like.


"You have voted suzy ryan for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

(Author leaps to his feet screaming "bravo, bravo, bravo")



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Ahh no......Life is Black OR white, grey areas are created by man to try to cloud the truth. To quiet one's "id" and deny guilt.


I find it hard to believe you honestly think that.

What about your nation's disaster when Katrina struck. There are photographs and videos of people stealing food from abandoned stores to feed their family. Now, is this wrong because it is stealing, or right because they are doing it to feed their family?

See, grey areas exist.

~MFP


OMG.............Grey? These ?persons" should not have been there in the first place so YES it was stealing. No "justified theft" but stealing. They could have left payment or a least a note to the owner of their needs with promise to pay.

So NO..........no grey area......it was stealing period!

( this is for defunk13)

Stealing the unborn's life or the recently born's lives is theft of the future of the planet. (author stands proudly on large rosewood soapbox, gazing upward soaking up the aplause)



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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 disagreement.

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 speaking about.

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]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

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?


That's not even the issue at hand. I agree with euthanising newborns who will live only for a short time and in excrutiating pain. I don't agree with euthanising someone who will live a long life in little more discomfort than anyone else. People with mental handicaps have roles to fill in society. They can work, they have emotion, they are not in pain. A child born with far underdeveloped lungs. however, who will literally burn from the inside out due to reactions with oxygen and will die within a few days, I have a problem with not painlessly ending their life. I see euthanising that child as valueing human life, enough to realise that this child deserves the dignity of dieing painlessly in his or her mother's arms, a dignity I wish all human beings had. However, those with a hard on for religion seem to think the child should suffer incessant pain because "Ooh, you're not god! The child could pull through!" By the same token, a monkey could climb through the window with a cure. It's that unlikely.

And no, I don't "see your view". Your view, to me, is that of a crazed zealot screaming "Eugenics!" just like the boy who cried wolf. This was a case where a mother and father conciously decided, with the help of a medical professional, to end the infant's suffering. The doctor wasn't pushing the parents to do it, he gains nothing from the infant dieing, despite what suzy ryan may suggest about physicians. I think tieing this to genocide is a tad bit too much of a stretch. If you want an example of genocide, look to China, Somalis, Rwanda, etc. THAT is genocide you should be trying to stop. Instead, you focus on parents' attempts to relieve their poor child.

Doctor's admit what we do is not perfect, it is the best logical option. If you come into the hospital with a broken leg, a doctor will take x-rays and set it in a cast because that is the best logical option. Would you rather the doctor contemplate what god would do, and then leave your leg to god's plan and let it heal incorrectly so you will forever walk with a limp and not regain full strength? Or perhaps doctor's should just stop treating everyone altogether, because after all, isn't that interfereing with god's plan? We shouldn't stop the natural course of life and death, right?

All hail theocracy.

~MFP

[edit on 3/16/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Therm, it has been said a dozen times that this infants future consisted of a very short time, filled with immense pain and suffering. Stop turning this into an abortion or "convenience" killing issue.

And I want to second LostSailors post to the REMOVED that said he had no problems killing the mentally handicapped to ease the burden on society. REMOVED INSULT and are wasting humanity's oxygen and I could care less if it costs me my account. I only hope you read it before the mods.

Some of us have some mentally handicapped people in our lives who are very far from a burden. I take comments like that personally. People like you belong in high school detention. Not on adult web forums.

Mod Edit: Removed insults.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Therm, it has been said a dozen times that this infants future consisted of a very short time, filled with immense pain and suffering. Stop turning this into an abortion or "convenience" killing issue.



Why blindly accept the word of a doctor? Doctors are wrong so much of the time. It also seems convienient that the doctors said, this baby will suffer, so its OK to kill it. That in itself is so dangerous.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
bibliophile -
I may have gotten a little emotional but my point is still the same. I believe this is murder. I consider murder to be the ultimate crime against another human being. When you take a life you can not give it back. I also do not believe you are a legitimate prophet. Therefore you have no way to predict the future of a handicapped or diseased newborn. No one can. The cure could be found within weeks of the childs birth and then exactly how would you give that child its life back? How would the attending physician give the child their life back. Medicine is called a practice for a reason. Doctors can and do make mistakes. In this case a simple error could lead to the murder of an innocent child. No government should ever be given the power over life or death. As to a parent who could kill their own child? Their is no cure for a sociopath. It is a physiological problem not a mental one.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I should not participate in emotional topics that involve innocent life.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Blaine91555]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I should not participate in emotional topics that involve innocent life.


Why? A discussion like this may seem small in comparison to the bigger picture. What could be gained from having a debate like this on such a small (relatively speaking) obscure website? We are all here to learn from one another in some form or another right? I hear your point of view Blaine... I also hear docs point of view. I may not completely agree with where she is coming from but I hear it none the less.

It is a passionate subject and hence you will hear passionate responses. But, if you don't make your thoughts heard than you lose. What's worse? Stating the way you feel and being shot down... Or never saying anything to begin with?

I hear ya.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I should not participate in emotional topics that involve innocent life.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Blaine91555]


Blaine,

There is no greater place to apply your energies and efforts than to a topic you have true passion for. It is also one of the most difficult task a person can take on, because it has many pitfalls.

Keep up the good work in all you are passionate about.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
There is one more point I'd like make about the credability of a 'religious' person's views and opinions; doc reminded me of it with the question, "What would a doctor gain from the death of a child?"

Where as part of being a Christian is admitting it publicly, many, if not most followers of Dark, Occultic, Death "religions", don't.

There is a thread going about sacrificing children to the 'goddess' Kali, that has people supporting their right to that faith, claiming it can't be called 'wrong' or 'evil'.

These are educated westerners, just like doctors and other professionals who use their position to get away with practicing what others believe are 'wrong' or 'evil'.

Just because someone claims their view is purely 'scientific', it doesn't mean they weren't drawn to the sciences to push, promote and harrass society into accepting the beliefs and practices of their Occultic, Death "Religion".

The difference between "them" and us Christians, is that they won't admit they are the ones actually ramming their religion down our throats, calling it 'good medicine'.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
"Stealing the unborn's life or the recently born's lives is theft of the future of the planet. (author stands proudly on large rosewood soapbox, gazing upward soaking up the aplause) "

----------------------------------------------------------------

okay, I'll bite....

we, as a society, throw so much crap into our air, into our water, into our food, ect. I can't help but think that at least some of these severe medical problems that kids are born with are being cause by them being poisoned by our pollutants before they were even born. so, in these cases, who has stolen the baby's life? when was it stolen? and are you willing to accept the responsibility for the part you played in this theft?

to me, at least in some cases, it's like someone throws a cigarette out the window, catches the forest on fire, the fire comes, destroys you house to the point that only the walls are standing, you get the money to demolish the house, and then you are accused of destroying the house!! only the person who is really responsible is off somewhere, throwing another cigarette out the _



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Bsl, if you think your a hotshot because your a medical student in a third rate university, then please, let me win this lengthy argument using the same appeal to authority cheap trick- I too am a med student, and at McGill which is better than anything you can aspire to, how about that? That said, I think this is a worthy debate, the unborn and "invalid" can't stick up for themselves, I really respect anyone who chooses to stick their necks out for them. Go suzy, go all you pro-lifers who didn't do the pc thing (support abortion). This is plainly unethical and disgusting, this is murder. What next now- euthanasia for the elderly? Even Hitler didn't go that far, but the pro-choice crowd going piece by piece is heading towards progressive acts of genocide simply by slapping a nice name to an atrocious act.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Bsl, if you think your a hotshot because your a medical student in a third rate university, then please, let me win this lengthy argument using the same appeal to authority cheap trick- I too am a med student, and at McGill which is better than anything you can aspire to, how about that? That said, I think this is a worthy debate, the unborn and "invalid" can't stick up for themselves, I really respect anyone who chooses to stick their necks out for them. Go suzy, go all you pro-lifers who didn't do the pc thing (support abortion). This is plainly unethical and disgusting, this is murder. What next now- euthanasia for the elderly? Even Hitler didn't go that far, but the pro-choice crowd going piece by piece is heading towards progressive acts of genocide simply by slapping a nice name to an atrocious act.


Nakash, I'm sorry you're insecure enough to attack someone who goes to a prestigious university that turns out a great deal of research. I'm also very sorry that you view my opinion as somehow less valid than yours, and that I somehow come across as a "hotshot" by using science instead of anecdotes. I'm sorry that you feel the need to personally attack me somply because you can't come up with a logical argument against me.

Most of all, I'm sorry you brought up Hitler. To quote America's great Jon Stewart, "No, you know who was like Hitler? HITLER was like Hitler." To bring up Hitler in an argument such as this one really shows a lack of maturity and debate skills. Sorry.

~MFP

P.S. Do you even know what school I go to?

[edit on 3/17/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I found a link to the book, "Defiant Birth";
www.defiantbirth.com...
and I do so hope no one will dare promote child killing "for their own good", untill they at least read it.

It's the side of the 'debate' doctors, schools, media and those witches who call themselves, 'Enlightened, New Age Feminists', avoid like the plague.

These are the stories of people who "should have been aborted" and their mothers, that should, in any just and sane world, trump arguments from any 'pro-death' medical student.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   

I found a link to the book, "Defiant Birth";
www.defiantbirth.com...
and I do so hope no one will dare promote child killing "for their own good", untill they at least read it.

It's the side of the 'debate' doctors, schools, media and those witches who call themselves, 'Enlightened, New Age Feminists', avoid like the plague.

These are the stories of people who "should have been aborted" and their mothers, that should, in any just and sane world, trump arguments from any 'pro-death' medical student.


That's some incredible spin you have there. You should be on Bill O'Reilley's show. Since when have doctor's become "pro-death"? If we were "pro-death", why would we allow people to stay on life support, why would we allow the birth of new children, the treatment of cancer patients, the researching and testing of new, more potent drugs?

There are no doctors gnashing their teeth at the thought of being able to commit and abortion. There are no nurses or doctors pacing the halls, contemplating how they can get the woman in labor to kill her child, and there are no physicians begging families to pull the plug on their relatives. This is all conjecture made up be religious zealots and crazies who think anything outside of their opinion is heresy and what they don't understand scares them.

I'm sorry, but you can present all the anecdotal evidence you want, but at the end of the day, you are just hot air surrounded by a cloak of religion. I would much rather an infant die in their mother's arms painlessly than in a screaming, seizing mass two months down the road.

~MFP

P.S. Here's an interesting review of the book your linked to:www.cannold.com...

Seems the pressure to abort she cites in the book is from abusive husbands and boyfriends, not doctors or really anyone in the medical profession. So, I'm assuming you will now apologize for your misinformed comments, right?

[edit on 3/17/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Well as you haven't read it or heared any of the stories (that include some horrible pressure from "health professionals") and chosen to 'debunk' all of 'the other sides' argument based on one review (or my recomendation?) then I can only assume you are the one with a 'firm agenda'.

Going by your pathetic attempt to discourage others from reading it (comparing me to a "spin for profit" merchant and the claim of a bad review. The link didn't work) then I will encourage everyone to put you on 'ignor', as your posts have had many 'bad reviews'.

Before you accuse anyone else of 'spin' you should study up on the doctors who kill. They usually support ideas like 'mercy killings' and eugenics. And work for people like Hitler....wow you are the first person to inspire me to use that cheap shot...sorry readers.

There is one doctor, Australia in trying to bring back from the U.S. to charge at the moment. In word anyway, as they sent him out of the country before many whistleblowers could finally get him charged.

I also noticed that you won't admit that there is no board to weed out Death Cult devotees from gaining medical qualifications. Just as some paedophiles become priests to access children, some 'death cultists' become doctors to kill.






top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join