Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Oh please bsl4doc, could you even concider keeping on topic instead of telling everyone, on every post and every thread, that I say and believe things I haven't and don't.

It's because of the WONDERFULL doctors, police, masons and many other people of 'high' and 'low' 'class' who have blessed my long, busy and curious life, that I've formed the opinions I have, and though formed, they haven't been 'fired' , so I am quite capable of re-forming them if anyone, who's opinion is based on truth and justice, cares to guide me.

The problem I have with letting you mould opinions, unchallanged, is that you carelessly take a sledge hammer to all opinions that differ from yours, and then 'tell' people to trust your 'compassion' on the issue of the 'mercy' killings of babies.

How about, before you attack me again, you read that book, "Defient Birth", so you can at least understand, a little, the perspective I share with those who 'should not have been born', on this very important issue?

I know far more athiests than Christians, most of whom accept there is truth to the belief that 'justifying' the killing of anyone 'for their own good' leads to us all being at risk of being declared 'better off dead'. Just as I held this opinion long before I became a Christian.
Can you see that it isn't even a question of any 'religion' but of a 'just humanity'.

So Nakash, would I be right in thinking we should thank and bless your Gran for moulding your, increasingly rare, ethical, 'good man' nature?

For her to stand solid against the world wide push to normalize abortion, for so long, kind of tells me she was blessed with a good measure of The Holy Spirit, which has a habit of spilling onto loved ones, and us strangers who thirst for justice.

Thank you for the peace your post gave me, God does know I needed it right now, and that I pray it be multiplied back to you when you need it.

Yikes, sorry, now I finished this post 'off topic'...well only if you believe the background and character of people isn't important when weighing their opinions.




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I can only think of all the millions who can participate in this discussion because some doctor killed them. Their voice cut off, sometimes before a first breath. God's wrath will be mighty, swift and just. Not just at those who's hands are bloody, but those who did nothing to stop it.

I have found many death doctors to be bullies and thus cowards at heart.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
It's really diconcerting, suzy ryan, that you have such a hard time remembering your own exact words. Perhaps you should get checked for alzheimers? Anyways, I'll refresh your memory:


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.

The first mention of medicine as a death cult


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'.



The full blown branding of medicine as a death cult.


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.


Labeling of all feminists and calling me "pro-death". Were you aware that many feminists are against abortion, just simply women's rights? And that many men are feminists, as well? No, I didn't figure you were.


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.

Another branding of the medical profession as a death cult, and a recommendation of trying to weed out "death cult devotees" in medical admissions. What, you don't think members of a death cult would lie? Are you that ignorant?


Ahh, if you're not aware of Hitler's eugenesis doctors who 'studied' healthy children to slow, torturous deaths, and that same culture being exported around the world by those who 'escaped' (with the assistance of) the allies, why would you take in any others I mention, like those during my babyhood in a hospital that still employs paedophiles on the run from charges in other countries.


You somehow pull Hitler and dead eugenicists into the argument, despite the fact that this has nothing to do with anything, and then somehow connect it to paedophile doctors.


Those beliefs didn't die with those people, infact eugenics, even with it's darker side, is on the rise. A great deal so in practice, without using the name, but even publicly, people are arguing for it.

There are other threads on SRA that have what you claim I can't provide. It exists and is growing, mainly due to people denying it rather that tackling the problem.


Yes, infant eugenics is a problem in China and India. You seem to not care about them.


A medical student from one of Nth. America's best medical schools and you haven't learned to, straight up, advocate all medical ending of life?

How will "they" convince the world that NOT KILLING is IMMORAL, with people like you getting about and opening their mouths?

You may want to learn to lie about your opinion untill you get that ticket, lest "they" create a reason to fail you.


An appeal to "them", which I assume is the "medical death cult".


So, now that I've shown you your own words, will you stop ignoring the fact that you made many offensive and ignorant statements?

~MFP



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Those who can read english know I'm not posting what you keep claiming, bsl4doc, so why do persist in it rather than post on the topic?
eg. "(dark?) 'faith'," means I'm asking the question, "Does your 'faith' in medicine have a 'dark' (as in occult) base or element?" and so on through your twists and spin.

I'll guess it's because you don't want anyone to concider any point I raise, that the topic is less important to you than calling me 'mentally challanged' (against ATS T&C) and pretending you can't comprehend english, to 'justify' it.

Why didn't you challange Nakash's comment that "all" the "death doctors" he has "known" are 'bullies' and 'cowards'?
Is it because he's a med. student at Canada's top Medical School and had/has? a granny who in 60 years of being a gyno. NEVER did an abortion?

I do question your "agenda" and it's "source", in your repeated efforts to 'tell' people, anyone who doesn't fully and UNQUESTIONALY support the 'mercy' killing of babies, lacks 'compassion' and is 'mental'.

You support the killing of babies to 'end their suffering' yet you fully support and promote vaccination (your chosen field to make a living in?) even though they have been needlessly causing the life long suffering of children around the world.
Did you kick and scream demanding all vaccines containing any mercury be trashed, when you found out what they were doing to children? No, told everyone else off for even QUESTIONING it's continued use.

Gee, you could run for High Priestess of a 'death cult' and shoe it in, if you aren't one already. Take that as you will, oh that's right you do anyway.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
First, I never said I don't understand English. My mother is actually from Wales and I feel I speak her language pretty well. Second, vaccinations are not my future career. I am going into internal medicine in underserved areas, most likely eastern Europe/former soviet bloc. I chose the screen name bsl4doc because I am fascinated by those viruses and their mechanisms of attack. I'm allowed to be interested in other fields, right?
Finally, I am most certainly against pure mercury in vaccines. However, there never were any vaccines containing Hg2. There were, however, some vaccines containing organic compounds with mercury functional groups, but functional groups act much differently than pure diatomic mercury, I would hope you understand that. The organic compounds most certainly could have an effect on individuals with glutathione deficiencies, but then, they would have experienced the same effects due to mercury in the polluted water, fish and other seafoods, air, etc., would they not?

~MFP



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I chose the screen name bsl4doc because I am fascinated by those viruses and their mechanisms of attack.
~MFP


Well then do some research on "stanleyville" and the evil done there in the 1950's. You can start with ATS archives.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
thermopolis I'm with you on this.

A judgement about "quality of life" is, at root, de facto subjective (although admitrtedly informed by objective fact). The fact of existence of a life is not subjective though: there either is one, or there is not. The irrefutably binary nature of life-death is one of the problems for moral relativism when it tackles decisions about death. I have an innate problem with killing someone (an objective act) according to a morally relative social judgement (a subjective opinon).

There is also a clear distinction between "accepting" death and "causing" death (our legal systems usually rely on this in their criminal law on omissions and actions and their factual causality of the crime).

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by d60944]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
thermopolis I'm with you on this.

A judgement about "quality of life" is, at root, de facto subjective (although admitrtedly informed by objective fact). The fact of existence of a life is not subjective though: there either is one, or there is not. The irrefutably binary nature of life-death is one of the problems for moral relativism when it tackles decisions about death. I have an innate problem with killing someone (an objective act) according to a morally relative social judgement (a subjective opinon).

There is also a clear distinction between "accepting" death and "causing" death (our legal systems usually rely on this in their criminal law on omissions and actions and their factual causality of the crime).

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by d60944]


Whew........what a statement. I am not sure very many posters to this thread could have said it in quite that way. (author takes another drink to suppress brain after rereading above statement 100 times to "get it")

Thanks ?? I think?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
D, thankyou for exposing situational ethics in a well composed manner. Your getting a vote next month from my bag.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Likewise d, I automaticly hit "way above" as soon as I finished reading it.
Because...
I nearly posted a similar thing from an ethics book, but as so many disreguard even secular opinions if they're presented by someone they know to be of faith, I didn't want to deminish it's value...so I prayed, you answered.

Thank you so much, for simply stating the bleeding obvious.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I originally asked 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?" for which you replied


Originally posted by bsl4doc
That's not even the issue at hand.


Hello? This is the exact issue at hand. My latter question sums up well what is being discussed on the board, or what should be, without even entering the religious POV which you abhor. You seem to think every opinion contrary to yours is either religiously based, or hysterically based, and thus can be dismissed or ridiculed. You also get very off topic yourself when you spend your time attempting to debunk the opposing view and bash it for being religious, or for assuming it is, or attack the posters personally, twist their words, evade the subject at hand, twist it, etc.

I simply ask does your POV that this is a compassionate act, extend to the belief it is also a progressive act to eventually clean up the gene pool-which you did answer finally in a round about way.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
I agree with euthanizing newborns who will live only for a short time and in excruciating pain. I don't agree with euthanizing 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.


Thank you for clarifying that,


Originally posted by bsl4doc
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 euthanizing that child as valuing human life, enough to realize that this child deserves the dignity of dieting painlessly in his or her mother's arms, a dignity I wish all human beings had.


I can understand not prolonging their life, and medicating them to be comfortable, but I don't have a problem with nature taking it's course over man intervening to end it.

However, I can understand your view and see how you would view it as compassionate. When my mother in law passed away from cancer at 45 years old, it was after a long battle that was clearly unsuccessful, and her final demise was a natural effect of the morphine being increased to the point to make her most comfortable, unfortunately to take it to that point it did suppers her respiratory system of course and she had a DNR order. It wasn't my choice, but I understood the choices of those involved.

My point is, I CAN understand that some view euthanasia as mercy and that it is your view.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
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.


See, it is your "hard-on for religion" statements that paint an ill picture of you as a person, thus a human, and especially a doc. Obviously meant to offend those with spiritual perspectives, and one that I take exception with. I take exception, but am not offended by your childish stone throwing as I do not have a "hard-on" for religion myself... any more than you receive sexual stimulation or satisfaction from killing babies in a humane way...at least I don't think you do...well, I certainly wouldn't imply or say you do... any more than I'd say all those doctors who euthanize do.

Now, while I don't think it is so much a matter of if the child could pull through, or that some miracle of God or breakthrough of science could save the child-I will say you're monkey climbing through the window analogy is rather absurd. For such a seemingly logical person you say some really stupid things. Without doing the research, I know for a fact, medical science is often astounded, and statistical probability sometimes proved wrong-and a monkey has NEVER climbed through a window with a cure, so don't compare fact with fiction to make your point.

I do believe it is very unlikely that medical science could have any breakthrough or understanding of a particular illness if babies were simply euthanized for being born with a specific illness though. Furthermore, I have witnessed statistical anomalies in medicine, to the point of them being considered miracles. It will be a sad day in medicine when doctors give up hope in every situation thinking everything can be attributed to statistical evidence and no hope for the variances.

My own step father was a medical anomaly and should have died of cancer at 75 years old-twice now according to doctors. Once his internal organs were ravished with cancer to the point it was inoperable-the second time they jumped the gun to think his cancer had returned when it had not.

That second, though they finally ruled out cancer returning 10 years post remission, they still left him on his "death bed" attempting to medicate him comfortably and further incapacitating him, but doing so in the compassionate view that an 85 year old cancer survivor had cheated death long enough at 10 years, and should just be made as comfortable as possible with his broken and fragile back until he drew his last breathe.

We didn't accept the statistics -either of the prognosis of cancer survivors or men in their 80's recuperating from back surgery-and took him to the Mayo Clinic (THE ONLY PLACE I'D TRUST THE CARE OF A LOVED ONE THESE DAYS) Where despite the risks, he did come out of anesthesia quite fine, was walking soon after surgery on his back, and is a healthy happy cancer survivor of 15 years now nearly 90 years old-despite the statistics we'd been told all along.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
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.


That is a shallow and closed minded at best statement to think my view is absolutely about eugenics-I have not been a zealot nor been screaming "eugenics" Get your facts straight doc. Your name calling, religion pigeonholing, and consistent post or word spinning is absolutely tiresome to me-perhaps that is your tactic-spin and flame-for lack of being able to understand it is not concession of your view or beliefs, to understand and respect another's. Grow up. Learn to agree to disagree maturely.

The view I presented in my last post was to help you understand how in a thread like this, some would look at the precedence this case presents and then would logically worry about the future ramifications of euthanizing infants becoming not just legal, but acceptable, and possibly eventually ABUSED. That is hardly crying wolf.

You don't have to agree this case may set a precedence, nor that if euthanasia were to become legal and accessible that it means it would be widely abused, but is it honestly beyond your comprehension to see that some may see it as a plausible possibility?

Bibliophile does not respect life enough and would welcome a blanket approach of euthanizing the less than perfect preferably at birth, can you not see how his like-minded kind might take advantage of such?

Can you understand it is not YOU who hold the view of compassionately ending the suffering of another that EVERYONE has an issue with? Well, until you make it your place to act like an idiot-that everyone could take issue with...but maybe thats your thing-it sure seems like it.

It is when you protest too much, that you become blind to your own ignorance. This is for everyone. This is when you fail to compassionately and rationally see or understand the views of others clearly.

LostSailor stated he understood the compassion-based decision in this case. Are you aware of that?

However he was consistently attacked from all angles for defending the sacred nature of human life in general, in contrast to the view proposed showing a blatant lack of respect for life in general by the likes of proponents of infant euthanasia citing their opinions were based on this being progressive act and looking forward apparently for it to eventually be used on all sorts of seemingly inferior humans and thus a solution to the drain on resources the handicapped are, etc.

LostSailors views were based NOT in religion and NOT about this case any longer, but his opposition was to the inhumanity of such statements that took this case to it's logical next step by calling it progressive, and then further showing where some would like to see euthanasia progress to....to killing retards.

I became quite irritated at how LostSailor was being attacked because I see it all too often around here. He stated he found this to be a case of compassion, however he disagreed with the inhumanity of some and their world view where those less than perfect have no place. Then, because he could not be attacked for his view on this case since he was in agreement, and since he made it clear it wasn't a religiously based view so he couldn't be attacked for being a zealot of that sort-his love and respect for humanity in general was then attacked by attempting to discredit him, attacking his intelligence, twist his words/meaning and derailing his points entirely. It was ridiculous to me-it always is when that approach is used.

You have not heard my opinion on this particular case, nor asked my personal view, but have read a few posts of mine and assumed you know my view-I find that an ignorant move on your part. Like I said, I do have religious and spiritual views, and so when questions were proposed addressing such, I answered them to that poster, but not all of my views and opinions are dictated by my religious views-I can even have religious views and understanding while not subscribing to a particular religion or denomination. I certainly am no zealot.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
This was a case where a mother and father consciously 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.


I am a propionate most often of tolerance and understanding but I am not perfect by any means, and I confess the likes of you do wear me down with your ignorance and general style. Whether I am attempting to stop genocide in China, Somalia, Rwanda, or it beginning in Holland is not an issue here-perhaps I am doing that there though.

However, what is an issue here is your attack on others without understanding their views and your ignorant inability to see another's POV if it isn't in line with your own. Is Bibliophile's view in line with your own? Kill the retards?

You tell me "instead, you focus on parent's attempts to relieve their poor child." No, I do not. That is a false statement in it's entirety and another example of your unfounded statements, ungrounded spins and usual attack.

I can show you where Bibliophile sees this as a progressive act to end the drain on resources the handicapped are by euthanizing retards etc. Can you show me where instead of being concerned for worldwide genocide and humanity on a larger scale I am merely focused on parents' attempts to relive their child? Where have I focused on them or condemned them or this one act?

I've answered religious questions posed, and defended the attacks on those who I can agree with at best, or understand at least, and expounded on the beliefs of those who might see this as a precedence for those that do not value life, in hopes that those who do not, like Bibliophile, will show their true colors and so those unlike him but proponents of infant euthanasia can see why some would be alarmed by what Bibliophile represents, the evil he personifies the evil in the world that does not value human life.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
Doctor's admit what we do is not perfect, it is the best logical option.


Oh you don't have to explain the imperfection of the medical profession to me, I am aware what "practicing" medicine means...you do your best with what you have. Some just have more heart and brains than others. I have in no way attacked the medical field in general and have very good and ethical physicians in my family.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
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?


Gosh I suppose the religious bashing types as yourself, within and without the medical community, must roll with how funny that statement is, but can you tell me how that is remotely consistent with my viewpoint, posts, or opinions or pertinent to our discussion?

It is just yet another lame attempt to spin things to make it seem like I am illogical when in fact it is illogical of you to think from my posts any of that is relevant, or this. You are very disrespectful and I do hope your patients never have to incur your immature disrespect for them as an individual.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
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?


So now in your spin to attack me, you aren't just going to assume and attempt to portray me and discredit me as though I were just a religious zealot, but you are going to assume I subscribe to a belief, or am a member of an organized religion that will not accept medical intervention now? Boy you just don't stop shoveling the BS do you?


Originally posted by bsl4doc
All hail theocracy.


Another blindly ignorant statement when speaking to me. Appalling, but not surprising from you.

**dang typos!**

[edit on 20-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Here's a picture of one extreme:




N.Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed


North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.

Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.

"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.

He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.

The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."

More...




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis

Originally posted by d60944
thermopolis I'm with you on this.

A judgement about "quality of life" is, at root, de facto subjective (although admitrtedly informed by objective fact). The fact of existence of a life is not subjective though: there either is one, or there is not. The irrefutably binary nature of life-death is one of the problems for moral relativism when it tackles decisions about death. I have an innate problem with killing someone (an objective act) according to a morally relative social judgement (a subjective opinon).

There is also a clear distinction between "accepting" death and "causing" death (our legal systems usually rely on this in their criminal law on omissions and actions and their factual causality of the crime).

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by d60944]


Whew........what a statement. I am not sure very many posters to this thread could have said it in quite that way. (author takes another drink to suppress brain after rereading above statement 100 times to "get it")

Thanks ?? I think?




I don't normally do nested quotes, but this one merited it completely...

OK...only had to read it twice, but d60944, I think you got that one right!



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Here's a picture of one extreme:




N.Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed


North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.



Thanks for that example of the evil spoken of here, loam. It isn't hard to imagine where such a "progressive" act as "compassionate infant euthanasia" might lead to in this world when it is evident the evil already exists.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944

A judgement about "quality of life" is, at root, de facto subjective (although admitrtedly informed by objective fact). The fact of existence of a life is not subjective though: there either is one, or there is not. The irrefutably binary nature of life-death is one of the problems for moral relativism when it tackles decisions about death. I have an innate problem with killing someone (an objective act) according to a morally relative social judgement (a subjective opinon).

There is also a clear distinction between "accepting" death and "causing" death (our legal systems usually rely on this in their criminal law on omissions and actions and their factual causality of the crime).



I read this before and forgot to reply until reading loam's response.

I only had to read it once
but because I loved it so much I've re-read it several times over!

Rob- d60944-I think you're my new hero.

outstanding



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
hmmm…

lot of individuals attacking individuals here… mods?

heated debate is one thing, picking on individual bozos (no matter how deserving they may be) is pretty boring.

I know it’s a fine line, but c’mon people…

I have some serious questions regarding euthanasia but I have the sinking sensation that they are going to get lost behind the posturing, name-calling, mud slinging, ego-tripping, and the ‘my brain is bigger than your brain’ (or is it reproductive organs?) game.

For those who are under the opinion that euthanasia is a ‘bad’ thing, my questions for you are:

Just exactly When did your obligations and responsibilities to the alleged ‘victim’ begin?

Just exactly When do your assumed obligations and responsibilities to the alleged ‘victim’ end?

Just exactly what Are your obligations and responsibilities to this life you have now ‘saved’? (and how long do those obligations last?)

And, most importantly:

Just exactly what type of financial contributions are you personally going to be making to the alleged ‘victim’?

In other words, who foots the bill for keeping these kids alive? SOMEBODY has too. Who is it going to be and WHY?

rock on
twj


[edit on 20-4-2006 by torbjon]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon

For those who are under the opinion that euthanasia is a ‘bad’ thing, my questions for you are:

Just exactly When did your obligations and responsibilities to the alleged ‘victim’ begin?

Just exactly When do your assumed obligations and responsibilities to the alleged ‘victim’ end?

Just exactly what Are your obligations and responsibilities to this life you have now ‘saved’? (and how long do those obligations last?)

And, most importantly:

Just exactly what type of financial contributions are you personally going to be making to the alleged ‘victim’?

In other words, who foots the bill for keeping these kids alive? SOMEBODY has too. Who is it going to be and WHY?

[edit on 20-4-2006 by torbjon]


OK, maybe it's just my mood today but your questions don't seem like they have any new- or more importantly any real valid- point beyond what has been discussed. Who is going to foot the bill? The parents. Why? Because they're parents-it's their responsibility. In other countries where healthcare is "free" you are going to tell me "the people" have a right to choose who lives/dies ...or is killed?

I am not saying you do not have a right to state your POV, you do so about all the "bickering" and comparing of body parts, etc, but when it comes down to the real issue, you spin your POV around by asking irrelevant questions, almost as if they were rhetorical and put a logical end to the debate in themselves-when they do not.

Am I to understand your point of view is that ill and handicapped infants are a drain on resources and society and just don't deserve to live because of it?

Well, then say so. You do have a right to that opinion. You and Bibliophile can even get together and discuss the eventual progressive act of cleaning up the gene pool thorugh the euthanaisa of the less than perfect.

Now, if I am going to actually answer your questions about the victims of infant euthanasia, I can sum it up, as I did by answering "their parents." If you breed and create life you are responsible for it's life-it's health and well being. Healthy children are the responsibility of their parents, and so are ill, injured, and handicapped children. Just because one can't afford to care their child doesn't mean you have the right to kill them.

To imply that those against euthanasia are only so opinionated because they don't have to foot the bill for that person's care, or that because of their opinions they should then all have to be responsible for supporting the ill/handicapped "alleged victims" they would save from being euthanized...is simply rediculous to me.

Now if this is a matter where a solicist country's healthcare isn't privatized, and thus the ill and handicapped infants are deemed a drain on such national resources, one needs to remember the individuals aren't really paying for their healthcare anyway, so why would they feel the right to DENY it to anyone...least of all a child that likley wont live long anyway?

Is everyone who then becomes terminally ill, or elderly in need of constant care then to be euthanized in such countries? Afterall, they aren't living an acceptable "quality of life', and are obviously a drain on those shared resources, in that train of thought, right?

In a nutshell, to answer your questions again: the same parents who would choose to kill their baby, are the ones who are obligated and responsible for the care of that baby ("alleged victim") that would be "saved" by such as those against euthanasia.

When did that obligation and responsibility begin and end? It began at conception and it ends when the baby dies of natural causes, or becomes an adult capable of caring for themselves.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
think2much:

I think it’s just your mood… I read the entire thread and did not feel that my questions had been adequately addressed or discussed. I did notice a lot of bickering (hence my stupid comments about that) and I did Not notice very much serious discussion about the very real issues of responsibility (hence my stupid questions about that).

This is a serious issue to me… I’m not trolling. To be honest, I don’t have the time nor the energy to troll and play little games (despite my stupid comments and questions… I am Male, after all… I’m really not trying to pick a fight)

I don’t know if you noticed my avatar or not, but that’s my daughter. She will be two years old next weekend. I’m a stay at home dad. I care for this kid from six in the morning ‘till midnight seven days a week and I take my responsibilities quite seriously. Perhaps too seriously. I get more than a little edgy when Anybody, friend or foe, family or stranger, comes between me and my offspring.

This child was no mistake, no accident. I very much wanted her. I assisted in the delivery and was the first person to hold her. I’ve changed Every single diaper and cleaned up Every bit of spit up.

So, when anybody comes between me and my kid and tells me I HAVE to do something, I HAVE to ask, ‘who are you? who are you to tell Me what to do with My kid? where were you the other day and where will you be tomorrow? exactly How Much input are you going to have on my daughters life and WHY?’ etc. etc. etc. (keep in mind that the ‘you’ here is generic and not you personally)

I would feel like a negligent parent if I Didn’t ask those questions when people start talking about how other people should treat their children…

I don’t see this as an issue of ‘infant rights’ or ‘right to life’ but rather one of ‘parents rights’

No matter how stupid, inept, lame, irresponsible, abusive, crazy, messed up, uneducated, brainwashed, backwards, uncivilized or childish those parents may be, they have rights and responsibilities. You say so yourself many times in your response to me… the Parents Are Responsible.

I agree with that whole heartedly.

In my eyes, a parent is not only responsible for their child’s life, but also their child’s death (if it should come to that)

I’m talking about My Daughter here… not some nameless faceless nebulous Baby Jane Doe whom I know nothing about and am in No position whatsoever to make Any type of judgment call, I’m talking about This person:

www.torbtown.com...

You asked me:

“Am I to understand your point of view is that ill and handicapped infants are a drain on resources and society and just don't deserve to live because of it?”

No. I don’t think you could possibly get any farther off the mark than that.

My ‘point of view’ is that I am not qualified to make decisions for other parents, and that NO ONE is qualified to make decisions for my daughter Except Me. (and I, of course, am willing to take Full responsibility for my actions)

My ‘point of view’ is that the parent is not only responsible for their offspring’s Life, but also for their offspring’s Death. Not you, not me, not the gov’ment or the church or any other individual or organization. The Parent.

And if somebody actually Is lame enough to come between me and my daughter and start making those types of decisions on my behalf, then they had better be prepared to a) kill me, and b) take on All of the responsibility and make All of the decisions for my daughter from that moment onwards.

And I don’t see that happening.

I see many people who are more than willing to Tell Me what to do with regards to my child, but to actually do it themselves? So far no one has offered to change the diapers, clean up the vomit, play bouncy ball for hours on end (and let’s face it, bouncy ball NEVER gets boring *laughs*) or stay up all night comforting her when she was teething…

Sure, tons of people have offered to Tell Me what to do in those situations, but to actually drop everything they are doing and come over here and Do It themselves? Nope. Not a one.

Needless to say, I don’t have much respect for those types of people. I doubt any normal, rational human being would have much respect for those types of people… would you? (the ‘you’ here Is specific and directed at think2much)

Honestly think2much, don’t you get more than a little miffed when some person or organization comes at you and Tells you what you can and can’t do with Your child? Especially if what they are telling you goes against your personal belief system?

Suppose you were one of those people whose philosophy taught that the body is the temple of God, that invasive surgery and non-holistic medicines were one of The Greatest sins you could commit against this temple, and now some bozo is going to come and take you away and perform some pretty invasive surgery on you and pump you full of some pretty harsh medicines “for your own good”… wouldn’t that tick you off just a little bit? Even though it’s “for your own good”?

Now suppose they want to do that to your new born child… wow. Heavy. “we’re Going to save your child’s life but damn their soul to your concept of Hell for all eternity” What’s the parent to do in this situation?

I know that’s probably not the best of examples and it doesn’t particularly apply to the Danish Baby case, but it’s the best I could come up while my daughter is shoving a pencil up my nose as I type…

Look, again, my ‘point of view’ is that I’m not qualified to tell you Anything about Your kids, and I’m sorry comrade, but you’re not qualified to tell me Anything about My kids.

And if you think you Are qualified, or better qualified, then I have to ask; does it go both ways? If you get to tell me what I can and can’t do with my kid, do I get to tell you what you can and can’t do with yours?

*laughs*

I would Love to keep chatting about this… as I said, it’s a Very Serious subject to me… but I am being informed that it is now time to stop typing and start doing more important things, like playing with blocks.... stack 'em up, knock 'em down, stack 'em up, knock 'em down....

sooooo

I gotta go
twj



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
think2much:

I think it’s just your mood… I read the entire thread and did not feel that my questions had been adequately addressed or discussed.


Well, I did preface it with it might just be my mood.



Originally posted by torbjon
So, when anybody comes between me and my kid and tells me I HAVE to do something, I HAVE to ask, ‘who are you? who are you to tell Me what to do with My kid? where were you the other day and where will you be tomorrow? exactly How Much input are you going to have on my daughters life and WHY?’ etc. etc. etc. (keep in mind that the ‘you’ here is generic and not you personally)


I hear you. Like if a doctor told you you really should just kill your baby instead of letting it live and struggle for a life they didn't think was worth living? You know?


Originally posted by torbjon
I would feel like a negligent parent if I Didn’t ask those questions when people start talking about how other people should treat their children…

I don’t see this as an issue of ‘infant rights’ or ‘right to life’ but rather one of ‘parents rights’


I too would feel like a negligent parent if I didn't stand up and say I thought it was wrong to kill babies. That parents could simply decide to end their child's life.

...but it goes further than that for me when I see so many who are Pro-infant euthanasia are also of the mind that it is progressive and a step towards cleaning up the gene pool. This isn't about the baby's right to die then, or the parents to choose death for their child, but an agenda they'd like to see fullfilled and a means to accesssing it.


Originally posted by torbjon
No matter how stupid, inept, lame, irresponsible, abusive, crazy, messed up, uneducated, brainwashed, backwards, uncivilized or childish those parents may be, they have rights and responsibilities. You say so yourself many times in your response to me… the Parents Are Responsible.

I agree with that whole heartedly.

In my eyes, a parent is not only responsible for their child’s life, but also their child’s death (if it should come to that)


Yes parents are responsible, but I disagree with you that they are responsible for their childs death. :shk: To let a child die naturally, yes, even to decide not to take evasive or intrusive measures, yes... but to cause death, no.


Originally posted by torbjon
My ‘point of view’ is that I am not qualified to make decisions for other parents, and that NO ONE is qualified to make decisions for my daughter Except Me. (and I, of course, am willing to take Full responsibility for my actions)

My ‘point of view’ is that the parent is not only responsible for their offspring’s Life, but also for their offspring’s Death.


Well, you never stated your POV you just asked all of those who were against it, who would be responsible even financially for the "alleged victim" so your absence of a stated POV and reasons for it, combined with the addressing those who were against infant euthanasia and term of "alleged victims" and questioning finances created a tone for me that seemed familiar by the "drain on resources" people who are pro infant euthanasia for those reasons.

I appologize for jumping to conclusions. I misjudged you.

But I still disagree with you that parents should decide, or be responsible for the death of their child. Responsible for making decisions that would allow a child to die, yes, responsible to make decisions on actions that would kill their child, no.


Originally posted by torbjon
And if somebody actually Is lame enough to come between me and my daughter and start making those types of decisions on my behalf, then they had better be prepared to a) kill me, and b) take on All of the responsibility and make All of the decisions for my daughter from that moment onwards.


Hell no. They would have to kill me, yes, andand be financially responsible for my child, but I'd not dare want to have them make all decisions about my child if they were someone who disagreed enough with me to try to take control of my child's life to begin with! But no, I don't see it happening anyway.


Originally posted by torbjon
I see many people who are more than willing to Tell Me what to do with regards to my child, but to actually do it themselves? So far no one has offered to change the diapers, clean up the vomit, play bouncy ball for hours on end (and let’s face it, bouncy ball NEVER gets boring *laughs*) or stay up all night comforting her when she was teething…

Sure, tons of people have offered to Tell Me what to do in those situations, but to actually drop everything they are doing and come over here and Do It themselves? Nope. Not a one.

Needless to say, I don’t have much respect for those types of people. I doubt any normal, rational human being would have much respect for those types of people… would you? (the ‘you’ here Is specific and directed at think2much)


Hehehe Nor do I! I hear you 100% there-trust me.

Heck, even a good pediatritian should be asked "and how many children to YOU have, or have YOU raised" before considering them an expert on children! ...and trust me I have asked every one of them I have interviewd for caring for my child if they don't offer the information! I even know the dentist who will be performing oral surgery on my 2 1/2 year old son next month has 7 children and one grandchild-and I haven't even met the man yet!


My point is when it comes to children, no one should be telling anyone what to do with theirs-good advice is helpful but it's a parent's decision what to do and no one is better qualified than a parent as long as they are educated about their choices. I agree and hear you as a parent. But still disagree a parent has the right to choose to kill their child. To make an informed decision to let it die, yes, but to kill it, no.


Originally posted by torbjon
Honestly think2much, don’t you get more than a little miffed when some person or organization comes at you and Tells you what you can and can’t do with Your child? Especially if what they are telling you goes against your personal belief system?


Oh you have no idea...


Originally posted by torbjon
Suppose you were one of those people whose philosophy taught that the body is the temple of God, that invasive surgery and non-holistic medicines were one of The Greatest sins you could commit against this temple, and now some bozo is going to come and take you away and perform some pretty invasive surgery on you and pump you full of some pretty harsh medicines “for your own good”… wouldn’t that tick you off just a little bit? Even though it’s “for your own good”?

Now suppose they want to do that to your new born child… wow. Heavy. “we’re Going to save your child’s life but damn their soul to your concept of Hell for all eternity” What’s the parent to do in this situation?


I am not one of those people so I am not qualified to answer for them. I imagine I would object, but it's hard to imagine because I can't imagine having those beliefs, though I know some do, and I try not to judge others for their spiritual beliefs. But we are way off topic discussing that and too much more.


Originally posted by torbjon
I know that’s probably not the best of examples and it doesn’t particularly apply to the Danish Baby case, but it’s the best I could come up while my daughter is shoving a pencil up my nose as I type…


hehehe BTDT


Originally posted by torbjon
Look, again, my ‘point of view’ is that I’m not qualified to tell you Anything about Your kids, and I’m sorry comrade, but you’re not qualified to tell me Anything about My kids.

And if you think you Are qualified, or better qualified, then I have to ask; does it go both ways? If you get to tell me what I can and can’t do with my kid, do I get to tell you what you can and can’t do with yours?


Yeah...go ahead and try to tell me what to do with my kids-that would be funny.
BUt I will tell you and anyone-you don't have the right to kill your child. To actively take their life from them. No.


Originally posted by torbjon
I would Love to keep chatting about this… as I said, it’s a Very Serious subject to me… but I am being informed that it is now time to stop typing and start doing more important things, like playing with blocks.... stack 'em up, knock 'em down, stack 'em up, knock 'em down....


Trust me-I understand! Priorities!



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
think2much:

woohoo! someone is having a nap *dreamy* (She hardly ever naps during the day)

Eugenics, racial cleansing, gene pool purification, drain on society… not going down Any of those roads… that’s too big of a can of worms for me, and I have too little free time to get into that…

So, if I’m reading you correctly (and Please slap me around if I’m wrong… I would suggest a poke in the eye with the plastic screwdriver as I’ve become rather immune to being clubbed upside the head with the plastic hammer) Allowing someone to die of ‘natural’ causes is okay… but assisting them in the death process is not okay, is that it?

Again, what other people want/need to do with their lives and their families is up to them (as long as it doesn’t directly mess with me and mine) I don’t care what others do or think or believe… personally I’m Glad we are all different.

But when it comes to me and mine, well, I have Very strong feelings and opinions about the subject…

Death has always been an option in my philosophy… perhaps not the Best option, or the Wisest option, or the Brightest option, or the most moral, ethical or spiritual option…

But it is a very Real option.

If my daughter were in agony, I was led to believe that her illness/injuries were fatal and that she would be dead soon, and some bozo told me that the Only option available to me was to allow her to die in agony of ‘natural’ causes, I would Have to say no, there Are other options, and take matters into my own hands (and face the consequences of my actions)

Does this mean I would opt for euthanasia for my daughter? *laughs* Doubtful. I hope I’m never put into that situation. What I would probably do is hold her hand through the whole agonizing process and pray to a god I don’t believe in for a miracle, is what I would probably do… but the Option of reaching out with my own hands and taking control of the situation IS available to me, no matter what society may think of that…

Then the question becomes one of consequences… what price must I pay for my choices, my actions, and my freedom? (what price must everybody pay, for that matter, you included)

IF I find myself in the above-mentioned horrible scenario and I should happen to choose the Death option for my daughter, what should happen to me and why? Should I be allowed to walk away Scott free? Should I be strung up by my thumbs and slowly tortured to death? Both consequences are perfectly acceptable to me, but it’s the ‘and why?’ part that I am most interested in…

The money thing is also a very real issue and deserves to be discussed realistically. Economics is not a very spiritual subject, but it is a reality that has an impact on all of us no matter what society we live in.

When my kid was four weeks old she spiked a high fever. I called her pediatrician and she said take her to the emergency room right away. (I gotta say right here, that I greatly appreciated that pediatrician, I asked, she Advised, and that was the end of that, no thought police, church police, gov’ment police, hospital police came and broke down my door and took my kid away from me, the Choice to take her to the emergency room was Mine and Mine alone… I Really Appreciated that)

Long story short, she had a bladder infection, which is pretty common in little girls, and the type of thing that, had she been a little older, a trip to the pharmacy and a bottle of antibiotics would have cured.

But she wasn’t a little older. I took her back to the hospital she was born in, which happens to be one of the better hospitals in New York City, not some Podunk hospital, not some clinic, but a state of the art facility with alla the groovy gadgets that go Bing.

I signed the papers, I gave them my kid, they did their thing. Because she was such a small person at that time, they played it real safe, plugged her into all sorts of monitors, checked her out constantly, and kept her for ten days, just to ‘make sure’ everything was alright.

I got no complaints with what they did, what went down, the outcome of the ordeal, nuthin’… BUT,

Cost of one very mundane very normal very average bladder infection? $30,000. ( and worth every penny of that to me)

Thirty grand and a Lot of hospital personnel tied up for a pretty normal non-fatal condition. That’s a very real cost and that cost is a very real issue. It’s something that I Don’t have an answer to. ((as an aside, I’m Still trying to pay off our bill, two years later))

And this raises yet another very real issue. Suppose my kid had been terminal, no chance of surviving more than a week or two, and I opted to have her plugged into alla those machines, and have all of that hospital staff waiting on her hand and foot for the entire two weeks so she could die a ‘natural’ death, (which is my right as a parent, right?) and now You come in, and your kid has a very normal, very mundane bladder infection and is Not terminal but Really Needs those machines and those personnel in order to survive, but you can’t have them because I got there first with my kid. You go to the next hospital, but the same thing is going on there, so you go to the next one, and the next one, and so on… and now your kid dies from lack of medical equipment and personnel, and shortly thereafter my kid dies from the terminal whatever…

Who’s the bad guy in That scenario? Wouldn’t it have perhaps been ‘better’ if I had just said ‘ya know what? pull the plug, we tried, it ain’t workin’, give those people a chance, they need this stuff more than we do…’??

Both my mother and step-mother were nurses, and, later in their careers, hospital administrators. NOTHING ticked them off more than having to turn away patients they could save because the hospital didn’t have the staff, equipment, or bed space to take care of them because said stuff was tied up with terminals that the hospital Couldn’t save (but couldn’t pull the plug on because that is ‘wrong’)

It’s a very frustrating situation. I Don’t have the answers for what you or anybody else ‘should’ do in this frustrating situation… basically hope and pray we’re never in it *shrugs* it’s not a lot but it’s something, ya know?

I sincerely doubt there’s a ‘right’ course of action that everybody can agree upon… I tend to lean towards ‘to each his own’, ‘you do it your way, I’ll do it my way’ kinda thing… personally I think that philosophy should work for everybody… but it doesn’t. Some folks seem to think they just know better, ya know?

hmmm… it would appear that somebodies nap is Over now…, and yep, she is Not too happy about it, either… *laughs*

I gotta go.
twj





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join