Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
why?? would she have lived if it wasn't for our great medical system, wouldn't she had died soon after birth.


That's a very good point.
The doctors are keeping the baby alive artificially, feeding her milk through a tube in her nose.

That's not natural.
You could even argue that they're fighting against God by keeping her alive like that.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
....
Great........ murdering babies inside the womb is no longer good enough for the "challenge life" crowd, now let's murder them anytime anywhere.........

Many great scientist like Steven Hawkings would never have a chance.


Coming from someone that has an atomic bomb explosion as their avatar.

Basically the statement here is the baby can be in severe pain and then die sometime within the near future or die peacefully. Its only a decision the parent and doctor can make; not you.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by websurfer]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Who says technology isn't natural? Why isn't it? We invented it... For this very reason. Some of the people on this website need to think less with their brains and more with their hearts.

In my previous post I wasn't referring to the baby born in Holland. That was a special case where no treatment was available to help the baby. In this situation, I agree with the baby being put under. If you go back and see who I quoted before I made my comment you would see why I said what I said.

Bottom line is, someone loves this young brain damaged girl... Even if all you see is a screaming, drooling, retarded burden on the system... She is still a human being.

But you have to ask yourself what comes next... It's OK to put a baby under if she has an exotic incurable painful disease... It's already OK to stop that life from developing into a child, as long as it is in the mothers womb at the time. Out of sight out of mind.

Is the next step... Could it go so far as to be... Well, we wanted a boy?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Is the next step... Could it go so far as to be... Well, we wanted a boy?


Well that has been happening in China and India for many years. Recent stories indicate abortions based on 'eye" color being performed.

When does almighty "man" draw the line on WHO dies because of some issue? The fact is man has never drawn the line.......history is full of evil examples of horrid murder of babies.................

This story is yet another example of "civilized" man has become.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by thermopolis]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
[This story is yet another example of "civilized" man has become.

The suffering this baby was enduring has not even registered with you.. you haven't mentioned it's pain at all and have dismissed it as being irrelevent. What is uncivilised is the way you have twisted this tragic story to suit your own agenda. You do not care about the life of this little baby.. if you did you would have at least said something in regard to what type of life it had and what the parents went through.. instead STRAIGHT AWAY you went for the abortion spin. It was not an abortion. It was euthanasia.. so why didn't you just post an abortion story instead?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by thermopolis
[This story is yet another example of "civilized" man has become.

The suffering this baby was enduring has not even registered with you.. you haven't mentioned it's pain at all and have dismissed it as being irrelevent. What is uncivilised is the way you have twisted this tragic story to suit your own agenda. You do not care about the life of this little baby.. if you did you would have at least said something in regard to what type of life it had and what the parents went through.. instead STRAIGHT AWAY you went for the abortion spin. It was not an abortion. It was euthanasia.. so why didn't you just post an abortion story instead?


I haven't mentioned the "pain" this child is going through because I have little trust that it is real. It is an easy way to get the emotional affect that you demonstrate in your little speech above.

Can someone "Prove" beyond a showdow of a doubt.....100% proof positive they "KNOW" this child was in pain? How does one "KNOW" a child this small is in PAIN 24/7? Based on Doctors? thats a joke.......

My RANT is about how "modern" mankind so easily dismisses the miracle that IS life. It seems to me humans as little different now than 6000 years ago when they threw live babies into the fire for worship of BAAL.

My agenda is protection of those who can not defend themselves.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
I haven't mentioned the "pain" this child is going through because I have little trust that it is real.

Of course you don't.. if you even entertained the possibility that this was a genuine story with genuine heartache over a horrible choice parents were faced with.. you would have to take some moral responsibilty when hoaring their personal anguish for your own purposes. There is nothing about this story that indicates these parents wanted to kill their child to be nasty- you only choose to believe that because it's politically convenient. You should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by thermopolis
I haven't mentioned the "pain" this child is going through because I have little trust that it is real.

Of course you don't.. if you even entertained the possibility that this was a genuine story with genuine heartache over a horrible choice parents were faced with.. you would have to take some moral responsibilty when hoaring their personal anguish for your own purposes. There is nothing about this story that indicates these parents wanted to kill their child to be nasty- you only choose to believe that because it's politically convenient. You should be ashamed of yourself.


I contrast you still can't see the larger picture here, it is YOU who is fighting for the DEATH of a child based on a birth defect. It is you who are cheapening the miracle of LIFE itself.

There are thousands if not millions of people alive today because there were no "medical experts" telling thier parents it was OK to kill their child.

The parents took the "easy" choice based on a emotional and convenient "wayout" buy medical "experts".

This was more likely a financial decision rather than compasionate.........

Life at any cost is far better than death for any reason.

So what's next, a kill them till they are 12 law?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Of course you don't.. if you even entertained the possibility that this was a genuine story with genuine heartache over a horrible choice parents were faced with.. you would have to take some moral responsibilty when hoaring their personal anguish for your own purposes.


Lets not get nasty here... No need for personal attacks on a thread about such a touchy subject. Verbally attacking thermo isn't going to change his mind on the subject at hand. There are checks and balances in everything we say, do, and think. The religious have the right to call out what they think is wrong... In the same manner others can call out what they think is right.

You think everyone is going to agree that euthanasia... even in an extreme case like this... Is OK? If you don't like thermo's views then just don't respond to him.

You too thermo... Both of you need to take a chill pill...

[edit on 7-3-2006 by LostSailor]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Where do you draw the line at keeping people alive artificially Thermolpolis?

Science has advanced to the point that you can keep a lump of flesh with no brain activicty, that is unable to breath or eat without the aid of machinery, alive for decades or even more than a century.

Do we keep people in a hospital bed attached to machines from the day they are born until the day that they die instead of letting nature take it's course?

[edit on 7-3-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Therm, those atoms becomming a living thing are no more a miracle than your Quarter Pounder with Cheese turning into a turd on the biological scale.

Life is precious, but an infant with no chance of survival outside its respirators, incubators, and various other beeping equipment is hardly life. What is life? Is it the death of a soul that makes you so uncomfortable about this? Do pets have souls? I dont think this is about executing retards. Its about compassion for human suffering.

So long as this is the mothers decision, with the doc's ok, I see no problem.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I agree with Ace of Base. This is a very touchy subject though, understandably. The choice to take a human life should never be ours, ideally, but I agree that if it wasn't for our "intervention", they would die anyway. It is MUCH more humane to let them die peacefuly than to let them suffer for a week, a month, a year, or how long they can survive it.

Obviously, there needs to be extremely strict guidelines, and I would only agree with it in the case of a baby being in pain (and to say the doctors can not tell if the baby is in pain, is absurd) or completely without a chance at a happy, semi-normal life.

Being slighty disabled or having a slight genetic condition should be no reaosn to end life, and most parents would willingly bring up their child in these circumstances (I would hope), but there DOES come a point where it is more cruel to allow the suffering to continue than to end it peacefully and early, IMO.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

...Some of the people on this website need to think less with their brains and more with their hearts...


This statement is illogical.

As I stated in a previous post:

Would you really consign someone to this existence simply because he is alive and human? One must question the values of an individual who would allow a fellow human being to suffer in this way.

Some would not call this humanity at all, but what it is - sadism.


Definition of sadism - Principle citation is cruelty, therefore >

Definition of cruel

Definition of inhuman(e)

Your stance is pure barbarism.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Where do you draw the line at keeping people alive artificaially Thermolpolis?

Science has advanced to the point that you can keep a lump of flesh with no brain activicty, that is unable to breath or eat without the aid of machinery, alive for decades or even more than a century.

Do we keep people in a hospital bead attached to machines from the day they are born until the day that they die instead of letting nature take it's course?


Ok I'll take the bait............

Natural death is a choice of the individual. Had this child "died" of natural causes I would have no issue. If a parent want's to keep a child alive on a machine....that's Ok because it is LIFE. Death is FINAL.

Pain can be medicated, vegetable brain cases HAVE reversed when given time. But once the order is give to terminate life, there are no more chances.................

Such so called extreme cases give emotional cover to those who seem to worship death. All to often they become a point of president for future judges to use to push a little further.

next thing you know we are dicussing "kill them up until they are 12" or OVER 30.....................(logan's run)



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
I contrast you still can't see the larger picture here, it is YOU who is fighting for the DEATH of a child based on a birth defect. It is you who are cheapening the miracle of LIFE itself.

I have a brother with a disability and I love him dearly. Please be very careful with your assumptions about me as I do not appreciate what you just insinuated.
I just feel compassion for this poor family and what the baby had to go through.

The parents took the "easy" choice based on a emotional and convenient "wayout" buy medical "experts".

This was more likely a financial decision rather than compasionate.........

While I'm sure it's easy for you to judge from the sidelines.. unless you have been in their shoes you have no idea [aside from what the parents have said] what other motivations they may have had. You wish to demonise them to further your own agenda even though it's clear their child was in constant agony and could not even be touched without feeling pain. Try at least make an attempt to see things from their perspective.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bibliophile

This statement is illogical..


Are you even reading my posts Spock?

In the context of who I am replying to?

Go back and reread before you preach to me about my barbarism. Oh and thanks for insulting my intelligence with your definitions....


Gah, I'm taking the bait......

[edit on 7-3-2006 by LostSailor]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I have a brother with a disability and I love him dearly.

"snip"

While I'm sure it's easy for you to judge from the sidelines.. unless you have been in their shoes you have no idea [aside from what the parents have said] what other motivations they may have had. You wish to demonise them to further your own agenda even though it's clear their child was in constant agony and could not even be touched without feeling pain. Try at least make an attempt to see things from their perspective.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by riley]


I admire your "love" for your brother.

The point is "where" to draw the line? At what point does one "deserve" to live? Nowhere does it say the child was "incureable". They just "chose" the easy way out.




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis

{1.}...This was more likely a financial decision rather than compasionate...< snipped >

{2.}...Life at any cost is far better than death for any reason...


1. This is a completely unsubstantiated statement and, therefore, irrelevant to the discussion.

2. This view is unrealistic.

Example -

Using your statement that you believe the parents' decision was financial in nature, you are saying you would consign the parents to destitution to save a child that had no hope of living.

These people would likely spend a significant portion of the remainder of their lives paying medical bills for a child who died within two to three years of birth. You give no thought to the quality of life of the parents or remaining siblings.

In your eyes, these people are now without value and unworthy of quality of life because they must fulfill your expectation that all life should be preserved despite the cost.

You have imposed your values on other people. You have placed yourself within their family circle, a position to which you have no right.

This is not about your values and your ideologies. It is a private matter between the parents and their physician.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
I admire your "love" for your brother.

Why exactly did you use inverted commas?!

The point is "where" to draw the line? At what point does one "deserve" to live? Nowhere does it say the child was "incureable". They just "chose" the easy way out.

I'm guessing you haven't been close up and personal with someone dieing of cancer.. there are some levels of pain that cannot be treated with painkillers and there are times when death is kinder than allowing someone to suffer. There have been people who have asked for the right to die because they could no longer withstand the pain. I in no way condone or agree with a baby killed for birth defects.. again.. I was talking about the pain the baby was going through and not the abnormality itself.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

Originally posted by thermopolis

Many great scientist like Steven Hawkings would never have a chance.

He isn't in a lot of pain, and he developed his disease later in his life. He used to row in the Oxford rowing team.

I'm sick and tired of these pro-life idiots (I don't mean you, thermopolis) creaming ooh that poor baby, those cruel Dutch...
Face it; the baby is in a lot of pain, and has no chance of a normal life. She better off dead.

Quote from her mother: "It made me feel at peace inside to know that she wasn’t suffering any more.”

How about you, let's say you brake u'r leg now and for the rest of your life
you cant do anithing, should they not put you to sleep, after all you got no chance, it does not matter if u'r grown up you still are usles and got no real chance .how does that sound, how would you like it.
Who are we to play god over a life.
Life it's self is to live it as hard as it is, bad as it is it's a good feeling to be alive.
Some times life is hard but I think it's all I got.

As for Bibliophile I think it's just greed for him, too worryed that a disabled kid might influence his buget.

It's not up to us, what if that being wanted to live, I think a crime has been comited, I belive that even a insect would want to survive.




[edit on 7-3-2006 by pepsi78]





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join