Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
First off, to understand what I am speaking about you will have to learn to think in the abstract. Drag your nose out of your books and think for yourself for a minute. I am just going to ramble on about my previous night. Maybe you can catch why I don't consider myself to be an "animal."


Yes, you're right LostSailor, once I joined the medical field, I lost all capabilities in my left lobe, I can no longer think in abstract, when I view art, I now see it as a pattern of brush strokes, not as art. Wow, you know me so well. *Sarcasm off*


First, how many animals are able to converse across entire continents, and have a debate on the level that we are now?


How many horses can fly? Does this make them less of an animal? No, it just makes them a different type of animal, as are humans.


Remember, I am not talking about a science book here. I read your posts questioning my thought process, but decided I didn't have the time to respond. I had to get some homework done for my Diesel Engineering class. I Decided I would go over to my girlfriends house, get some work done, and have a few drinks. Hmmmm... Hmmmm... Sweet sweet warm whiskey.


Sorry, but anytime you bring up taxonomy and animals, that is the realm of science, no question about it.



On the way I was thinking about [...] Only the ones that are just below us on the evolutionary ladder.


You're right, humans do have advanced tools and advanced societies because of these tools. This is due to our natural, animalistic evolution producing a frontal lobe, and our natural, animalistic need to communicate and socialize with like beings. Also, how can you say all these other creatures are "below" us on the evolutionary ladder? Environmentally, we are one of the easiest killed animals on the planet because we have tried to remove ourselves from harsh climates and biospheres for so long. The amoeba currently is credited with having the most genes of any creature on the planet. There are more of them than us, and they are on literally every continent. Doesn't that seem like an evolutionary success to you?


The whole idea of me saying I am not an animal stemmed from this comment...


Originally posted by bsl4doc
Actually, one of the first purposes of medicine was herbal abortions. Animals do it, and our ancestors here in Italy and Greece noted which plants the animals ate and used the same herbs.


I don't care if animals do it... I am not an animal in the context that you refer to. My self awareness, empathy for others, higher intelligence, and emotional magnitude separate me from even the closest of evolutionary cousins in the animal kingdom.

Because we are technically animals that means it's OK to act like animals? Do what animals do? We don't have something that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom? If we do, we don't have an obligation because of this, to act differently than animals?


I never said animal behaviour is a catch-all excuse for our own behaviour. What I DID say, however, in reply to a poster saying we are the only animal who kills, is that this type of behaviour occurs throughout the animal kingdom and is not exclusive to humans. I was merely pointing out that we should look at the natural side of the issue as well. That side being, will this child survive? Animals, including us, have an innate system of self that allows us to quickly determine whether a nearby creature is the same as us or not. If something is wrong with a child, be it a deformity, etc., we can sense it. How do you think a mother knows when he child is just starting to et sick? There are distinct signs that we pick up before symptoms even fully set in. Certain smells, discolorations of skin, etc. These are all animals instincts. When a child is born who will not survive, why is it unnatural to allow this child to die with dignity instead of pain?


Science will always conflict with my thoughts. That's fine... Science is not always the answer. Facts and knowledge are not always the answer. Sometimes you just have to look inside and think for yourself.[/quote[

You know why you can look inside yourself and think? Nature has blessed you with a frontal lobe and the capacity to see self, just as many other animals do. There's nature again, huh. Weird.


You guys asked... I am just trying to explain why i feel the way I do. I never literally meant that I didn't think I was an animal. It was just assumed that was what I meant. I am only a sailor, taking classes trying to upgrade my engineering license. I am no scientist, nor claim to be, or even claim to think like one. But, you can agree with me Right? Agree that there is something that separates us from the rest of the animals on this planet?


No one ever asked you to be a jerk and post unsubstantiated claims of a "higher sense" only you could detect. Also, you "never literally meant" that you aren't an animal? Are you serious? Look at these quotes from you:

Speak for yourself. I am no animal


Am I an animal? No.


On the way I was thinking about why I don't consider myself to be an animal


Wow, so, remind me where I was supposed to pick up on some hidden context where you "never literally meant" you aren't an animal?


Oh well... Go ahead and flame me for thinking the way I do. I will not change my mind. We all learn what we want to from each other. You can dismiss my thoughts if you want to... That's the beauty of being a human being.


Oh, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just strongly suggesting you post things that have some, or any, evidence behind them or are within the bounds of reality. And you're right, thought is the beauty of being a human being, but it's quckly being discovered we aren't alone in the realm of thought.

Ciao e buon giorno,
~MFP

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita,
mi ritrovai per una selca oscura,
che la diritta via e smarrita.




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Cereal City is Battle Creek. Its where Kelloggs and Post and Ralston are, or used to be before the outsourced most of the jobs. Ditto on the hellhole of a state! I graduated college almost a year ago and I still have to work 60 hours a week at two bs jobs just to make ends meet.

Cool to see you love Marley too. I regard him as a prophet in the true sense. He took a message that mankind really needs to hear and he put it in such simple terms. He was a man of simplicity as most rastas are. He once said that he always tried to express himself in ways that could be easily understood by even a baby.

But back on topic, which I think we still disagree...

I dont mean afraid of tech like that. I mean you are afraid that if we allow already dying babies to die now, we will soon by killing them because we dont like their eye color, or whatever. Our tech allows us to see whether this baby will live or not. We already know that the child would not have survived past...18 months (wasnt it?) without our machines. We also know that he/she would be in pain. This is the tech I embrace. We know enough about the conditions to know when it is more humane to let our technology sustain life, or to let nature take its course.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Yes, you're right LostSailor, once I joined the medical field, I lost all capabilities in my left lobe, I can no longer think in abstract, when I view art, I now see it as a pattern of brush strokes, not as art. Wow, you know me so well. *Sarcasm off*


Ooops... never meant to offend. Isn't it your right lobe by the way? I'm not entirely sure... I don't claim to be an almighty intelligent being of superior knowledge like some here.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
How many horses can fly? Does this make them less of an animal? No, it just makes them a different type of animal, as are humans.


What the heck does this have to do with what I said? You lost me with this comment.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
Sorry, but anytime you bring up taxonomy and animals, that is the realm of science, no question about it.


You sure? What was said in that quote that had anything to do with the classification of animals anyway? I know big words too.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
You're right, humans do have advanced tools and advanced societies because of these tools. This is due to our natural, animalistic evolution producing a frontal lobe, and our natural, animalistic need to communicate and socialize with like beings. Also, how can you say all these other creatures are "below" us on the evolutionary ladder?


Look, if you want to argue that we are on the same level as amoeba... What? You can't possibly be serious here..............


Originally posted by bsl4doc
I never said animal behaviour is a catch-all excuse for our own behaviour. What I DID say, however, in reply to a poster saying we are the only animal who kills, is that this type of behaviour occurs throughout the animal kingdom and is not exclusive to humans. I was merely pointing out that we should look at the natural side of the issue as well. That side being, will this child survive? Animals, including us, have an innate system of self that allows us to quickly determine whether a nearby creature is the same as us or not. If something is wrong with a child, be it a deformity, etc., we can sense it. How do you think a mother knows when he child is just starting to et sick? There are distinct signs that we pick up before symptoms even fully set in. Certain smells, discolorations of skin, etc. These are all animals instincts. When a child is born who will not survive, why is it unnatural to allow this child to die with dignity instead of pain?


Wow... We agree... To a point. However, I think that unlike in the animal world we have the duty to not let a child die. Even if it is born with a birth defect. You did read that I thought this case was an acceptable example of euthanasia right?


Originally posted by bsl4doc
You know why you can look inside yourself and think? Nature has blessed you with a frontal lobe and the capacity to see self, just as many other animals do. There's nature again, huh. Weird.


I don't deny this at all. Why do you bring it up?


Originally posted by bsl4doc
No one ever asked you to be a jerk and post unsubstantiated claims of a "higher sense" only you could detect. Also, you "never literally meant" that you aren't an animal?


I never was a jerk... And I never made any claims to a higher sense only I could detect. Quit with the spin already.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
Wow, so, remind me where I was supposed to pick up on some hidden context where you "never literally meant" you aren't an animal?


From what I said in my last post... Look you obviously are threatened by something I said. Some way I think... I can't help that.


Originally posted by bsl4doc
Oh, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just strongly suggesting you post things that have some, or any, evidence behind them or are within the bounds of reality. And you're right, thought is the beauty of being a human being, but it's quckly being discovered we aren't alone in the realm of thought.


We aren't alone in the realm of thought. That's you again. I'm strongly suggesting you shouldn't claim to know what is and isn't relevant and within the bounds of reality. What kind of evidence do I post for my line of thought? Is there any? Uh oh... There may not be........................



Originally posted by bsl4doc
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita,
mi ritrovai per una selca oscura,
che la diritta via e smarrita.


Hatwse Hetse Oesdse Histse Eanmse?

[edit on 9-3-2006 by LostSailor]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Also, you leave most of us wondering if you truly are "highly educated"due to your grammar and syntax.

~MFP


Thank you for confirming your status to me and "my other hillbilly", redneck, buddies. This is a "typical" elitest" statement.

If you have ever been published in international journals it is very likely I was part of the peer review...........


I am glad you can seem to dumb down your statements for us "common folks".

It don't take no big ivy leeege book learn'in to fig'er out killing babies er rong!





[edit on 9-3-2006 by thermopolis]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Therm:

If you have ever been published in international journals it is very likely I was part of the peer review...........


I highly doubt this. Could you provide the names of journals, or perhaps your credentials as a peer reviewer, i.e. degree and university attended? Be smart here, there's always a way to check =).

LostSailor:



quote: Originally posted by bsl4doc
How many horses can fly? Does this make them less of an animal? No, it just makes them a different type of animal, as are humans.

What the heck does this have to do with what I said? You lost me with this comment.


I was commenting on the fact that our ability to communicate across continents sets us apart from animals. Well, then what about a bird's ability to fly? We can't do that. Does that set it apart from animals, as well? Same logic.


You sure? What was said in that quote that had anything to do with the classification of animals anyway? I know big words too.


Big words? You think my use of "taxonomy" is just an attempt to use "big words"? I hope you understand that English isn't my first language, and I'm just trying to use the word that seems the most contextually appropriate.


Look, if you want to argue that we are on the same level as amoeba... What? You can't possibly be serious here..............


I'm not arguing we are on the same level as an amoeba. Please read and understand my example before trying to put your slant on it. What I was saying is that just because we are smarter doesn't make us "higher" evolutionarily. Amoebas and some bacteria survive and thrive better than we do in nearly all environments. That is huge, on an evolutionary scale. Can you live on thermal vents? Can you survive without oxygen or produce spores? No. These microorganisms take less time to adapt and evolve than us, due to their unicellular state, and thus are given a bit of an evolutionary advantage.



However, I think that unlike in the animal world we have the duty to not let a child die. Even if it is born with a birth defect. You did read that I thought this case was an acceptable example of euthanasia right?


There's that word again, think. What you and I are ultimately disagreeing about is that I am using scientific fact and comparison studies, while you are using opinion, which isn't always a bad thing. I respect that fact that you feel euthanasia in general is wrong, and that you feel this case was appropriate. However, I do take objection to your use of personal opinion in the classification of humans as animals. That is just a plain, scientific fact.


I never was a jerk... And I never made any claims to a higher sense only I could detect. Quit with the spin already.


You said that what separated us from animals was some "higher aspect" which I apparently couldn't detect. That gives you a condescending air and makes me think you are just putting us on.



We aren't alone in the realm of thought. That's you again. I'm strongly suggesting you shouldn't claim to know what is and isn't relevant and within the bounds of reality. What kind of evidence do I post for my line of thought? Is there any?


I brought this up because you used the human ability to reason as a way to separate us from animals. Many higher apes and even some lesser apes exhibit this ability.


Hatwse Hetse Oesdse Histse Eanmse?


What?

~MFP



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Striker8441

Originally posted by FredT

Some families have elected to stop treatment and allow thier child to recieve pain medication and die in the love and warmth of thier parents embrace.
To me this is NOT euthanasia, this is simply letting nature take its course with compassion in regards to the pain meds.


Yes it is! A compassionate and loving manner yes but the adminstering of pain medication in often large enough doses to cause repiratory system shutdown IS how it is practiced and that is Euthanasia.

I did not state give the person pain meds in large doses, I stated simply to give the child pain meds and let nature take its course. There is a huge difference.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Therm:

If you have ever been published in international journals it is very likely I was part of the peer review...........


I highly doubt this. Could you provide the names of journals, or perhaps your credentials as a peer reviewer, i.e. degree and university attended? Be smart here, there's always a way to check =).



American Biotechnology Laboratory, Biotech Reporter, I-labs, Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering

I also must say anyone can say "BLS4doc" on the web and still be in high school................

Don't forget I have "quized" you about simple BSL4 protocols in the past and you were unable to answer.




[edit on 9-3-2006 by thermopolis]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Your credentials, thermo? Degree granting institution? I still highly doubt the veracity of these statements you made based on your language skills and attitude. Seems too childish. But, I could be mistaken. You may just be too lazy to properly use your own language.

Also, you're right. Anyone can call themselves anything they want online. I think if you look back on my posts, you'll see more than enough proof that I have a degree in molecular biology and have a few years of medical school under my belt. If I were in secondary school, as you suggest, surely I would be a child prodigy, no?

~MFP



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Look man, you have been misquoting and misinterpreting my posts since this thread began. You aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know. In fact, most of what you mentioned in your previous post was already stated by me in earlier posts.

You think I sound condescending? Really?

I am sorry, but you can regurgitate all the factual scientific data you want. I respect that as well. But, it’s not going to change my feelings on this subject. You asked me to try and explain the way I was thinking… And I did my best. I think you put to much faith in science. That is also my opinion. Also, I never said that our ability to reason was the sole thing that separated us from animals.

Hell, this is getting no where… We could argue like this for ten pages. I concede. You win.

One more thing… I guess you don’t speak Pig Latin.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
i think that we've gone way off topic here trying to demoralize eachother with subtle insults, dont patronize anyone...stick to the topic



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
what was the topic again??

oh, ya, allowing people to die, and in exteme cases, where the prognosis and suffering warrents it, helping them with the transition.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
what was the topic again??

oh, ya, allowing people to die, and in exteme cases, where the prognosis and suffering warrents it, helping them with the transition.



Transition..........you make it sound like a taxi ride.........


Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill." There are two problems here -- the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren't "terminally ill." There are many definitions for the word "terminal." For example, when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was "any disease that curtails life even for a day." The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to "terminal old age." Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will occur in a "relatively short time." Others state that "terminal" means that death is expected within six months or less.

Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as "hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition," and "meaningless life."

An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .


www.euthanasia.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Are we animals are we not animals...Sometimes we would be better off if we acted like the other species...

This is a difficult subject to wrap your mind around and not come out swinging. I personally think most days our society's behavior is below that of the animal kingdom.


Lets say you let a child live that was in constant pain for years and suddenly there was a cure for his/her physical ailments...what about there mental state? I am no doc but I dont believe that it would have escaped harm.

I am no expert, but as a parent I believe letting my child die would be very hard for me to do. I would like to think that we live in a society that you have the right to make that choice.(in a situation like that)

This is a topic people are very passionate about. Something people take great leaps with also. No agreement will ever be made that all will be happy with. I am really amazed reading this how the mud slinging began and the anger and emotion I felt in some of the posts.

I ramble



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
You know it always seems like a debate between the world and science vs the universe and spirituality, but "on my own here we go" (Green Day)

Originally posted by dawnstar
okay, let's put it into religious terms for just a minute, here's this new soul, just arrived on planet earth. unfortunately, she is not developed right. as a result, she will struggle her first three years of life (snip)okay, so she undergoes operation after operation, all the while suffering, and all the while struggling, just to live. and never, ever able to even come close to reaching the full potential of being human.


Ok, first, since you are inviting the religious perspective I will endeavor to give you my spiritual perspective, from the "religious" view I hold...and first and foremeost within that view, I will tell you straight up it is not for you, or anyone to say what is or is not reaching one's full potential of being human.

Full potential...how do we gauge such? Like "quality of life" who sets such standards? Full potential could be seen as reaching an age of maturity and education, say an active fit and intelligent 18 year old gradutating highschool, or 22 year old graduating college...or perhaps beyond all that the full potential of human life must include reproducing, and/or contributing to society in a positive way...becoming a grandparent or an old bachelor scientist...who's full potential are we able to decide?

A human's full potential is not within it's physical nor mental abilities, sure to some it may seem, but from a particular "religious" view, a full potential is measured by the success of one to be tried and tested spiritually, and to endure to progress to a full spiritual potential...and who is to say that a few days of life, a few weeks, or a few struggling years is not the "fire"which a particular soul must be refined through to reach it's full spiritual potential. And you want to deny them such?

It's just seems sickly ironic to me to see the full potential of one's life being the basis of wanting to snuff out any possibility for any potential to be reached- physically, mentally, or spiritually.

Likewise we could speak of the qulaity of life...what determines such? Does it strictly mean the person is healthy and happy and successful at best, and on the lowest scale of what would be acceptable for still being seen as having a quality of life, as being able to care for themselves, or be reasonably cared for with no pain or suffering, able think for themselves, communicate in some way...I mean surely we can't eauthanize those wheelchair bound just because they can't walk or run or have a quality of life others do, or those needing live-in aids, medical care and intervention or those who are in pain. Who decides about quality of life? It is simply to subjective


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.


Perhaps, she would have lived or perhaps died...but perhaps she'd have lived longer or better than ever suspected... but we don't know do we? We can speculate, but we do not know what would have happened had we not done this, or what would have happened if we had done something else...if you end a life-there is just no telling what would have happened because you've taken all options away.

Even knowing similaar cases, and having medical facts and assumptions, it's still speculation and if one chooses to speculate, even within factual statistics of what happens to babies in such situations, you never allow for what might have happened, what scientific breakthrough that baby's life may have taught the medical community, what miracles the universe or God could have wrought.


Originally posted by dawnstar
well, what do you think would have happened to that new soul after death? would it have gone back to god? or maybe be given another chance at live, maybe this time with a healthy body? what do you think would have been the worst that could have happened, she would have been deprived of a life of suffering and pain?


Well, since you ask what would have happened, I will give my opinion. I do not think it would have been given another chance for another body, and where you say facetiously "denied a life of suffering and pain" I will say the worst that could have happened happens when we willfully choose to play God and end lives, and in such a case of ending a baby's life it is then is denied the purpose of life to begin with...to progress spiritually, be tried and tested and refined physically, mentally, and spiritually.



Originally posted by dawnstar
our medical system can be either a blessing or a curse. it can keep us healthy, so we can live a life relatively free from pain, disablity, and early death...
or it can also serve to prolong our death, and thus increase our agony and pain.
the first, I believe serves a higher purpose of good, the latter though, could only serve to make our world a darker, more miserable place.


Well, for some I can see how it would seem so. I do think God is behind every great benefit to mankind, but perhaps I error, perhaps it is the opposition that gives great life saving and sustaning technology to prolong our suffering. Either way though, it is a tough call to decide someone esle's quality of life, full potential, or suppose ourselve what they are willing to endure for the cause of their own life.

Some even subscribe to the idea, before coming here to Earth and recieving our physical bodies, we know-are presented with- what we may have to endure-physically, mentally, emotionall, spiritually, and know the amount of anguish and pain we will be faced with, and agree, for our own progression to come and attempt to endure such and progress.

Some may argue then that we may know we'd be euathanized-I'd say no, but we may know that at any time, that many things may threaten our mortal lives and possibly it prematurely.


Originally posted by dawnstar
christians are susposed to welcome death when it comes, without fear, with faith that the loving creator waits to welcome them.
why fear death when it comes to those who are too weak, ill, and quite frankly in so much pain that they would be willing to accept death themselves?
would you rather that life be spent here on this earth, in pain or misery, or would you rather it be spend in the arms of the creator?


Well, I am a Christian and I do not fear death...well usually...sometimes I do fear missing a loved one, needing them, or on the flip side not being here for them, but certainly not death itself...unless I'm in a way I haven't quite been living up to the standards I should be.


But mostly, as a Christian, what would have me wanting to save a life-especially a baby's life, would be to preserve the miracle and gift I believe life to be. To try to help that soul reach it's full potential whatever that by God has been deemed. To progress as far as is expedient for them-as far as God will allow.

Euthanasia just ends potential altogether-for everything in every way. As far as wanting suffering to end and to be in the Saviors arms...well we know such suffering in life-most of us, some time or another know unbearable pain of body, mind or soul, and many commit suicide to end the suffering here, but suffering and enduring is a process and the Savior does not want to see suffering either but allows it-just as I will allow my children to make mistakes and suffer consequences...it will grive me to see them hurt in any way-but I must let them grow.

There have been mother's that killed their young a mother awhile back that thought it best her children never know the pain and confusion of the world and of mental illness as she knew, and drowned her 4 beautiful children in the family bathtub and turned herself in. Another bashed in her two sons heads with a large rock. They didn't feel they were doing anything that bad because they knew they'd be fine, accepted into the saviors arms, and she ended any suffering they may have to go through in this life.

We may argue they were mentally ill, unstable, evil, but in their heads they was doing something good for them, sending them to the savior and ending any possibility for their suffering. I think they heard voices telling them to do so even. So yes, mentally ill and a travesty because they snuffed out the potential of those normal children.

But what if not mentally ill...what if someone snapped after taking care of their less than perfect child, mentally challenged etc...and just thought... "they'll never live up to their full potential as a human" or "They will never have a quality of life like this" thought they saw such suffering in their eyes and poisoned them, or took a pillow to their head while sleeping to suffocate them and send them into the saviors arms...ok, different scenereo than medical eathanaisa, but still the same principle of determining what is ones potential or defining quality of life by our own subjectivity and playing god to end another life.

I don't care how it's done or why it's justified, to me, to speak religiously, it's murder.

Although maybe sometimes it's justifiable murder-not to confuse anyone.




edits because my typos and spelling are atrocious! geez!


[edit on 10-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
"Ok, first, since you are inviting the religious perspective I will endeavor to give you my spiritual perspective, from the "religious" view I hold...and first and foremeost within that view, I will tell you straight up it is not for you, or anyone to say what is or is not reaching one's full potential of being human. "

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

okay, fair enough.....but I think we can both agree that living breifly on this planet in constant pain is very, very far away from what the potential of many of those handicapped individuals that many claim this law would seek to eliminate from the earth....most of these handicapped individuals are capable of experiencing joy, love, hope ect, as well as expressing it. and they do contribute something to society, even if it's a hug giving to their caretakers after a hard day!!

and, I am not implying that my veiws should be considered in making any decisions, unless of course, they are connected to my life. ahhh, yes, the right to life ventures into many avenues.....including my right to leave when I deem it to be the right time. doesn't it.

but, if terri taught me anything it is that there is a feeling among some that not only shouldn't we be helping death along.....something that I am not sure I don't agree with you about, but also, well, we should be doing all in our power to prevent it from arriving. so, giving the all encompassing power that the right to lifers seems to want, I need to ask you, just who's to decide just when is the right time to allow death to come? to me, the answer would be a mutual agreement with between doctors, who are the best to evaluate the condition and prognosis of each case, and the person, if capable or the family if they aren't....who are the most likely to act with the best interest of the patient.

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

"Some even subscribe to the idea, before coming here to Earth and recieving our physical bodies, we know-are presented with- what we may have to endure-physically, mentally, emotionall, spiritually, and know the amount of anguish and pain we will be faced with, and agree, for our own progression to come and attempt to endure such and progress. "

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

and some might subscribe to something different. personally, I see it differently. to me, we pump enough crap into our air, our waters, and our food that well, more than likely some of the problems are a result of man's actions. and well, I also don't believe that God goes nuts going out of his way to protect us from our actions....it just doesn't serve as a good learning experience, does it? so, in order for us to learn that we shouldn't pollute the creation God gave us to live in, it seems to me, that the effects would have to be rather random, you might or might not be affected, and not preordained at birth...

one could also suscribe to the belief that creation is in perfect balance, so therefore, if one is suffering from starvation, then somewhere, someplace, one must be enjoying a bountiful plenty to compensate. and well, if one is to spend an entire life in suffering, albeit a short live, then it must stand to reason that somewhere, someone is experiencing a live of bliss to compensate...

our goal, as humans would be to bring a balance within our own lives, denying the overabundance while making sure that the deprived experience greater joy. in this pretext, one could conceive that it is beneficial to some, for a baby to experience such a hopeless, painful life since then, they can kind of serve as the balance to creation....

but like I said before, not much of what either of us is posting could be validate or invalidated or even proven to be more worthy of acceptance as the other...

which leads us back to what the scientists, and the medical professional say....and the desires of those who would the most logical people to hold the best intentions to the baby...

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

"There have been mother's that killed their young a mother awhile back that thought it best her children never know the pain and confusion of the world and of mental illness as she knew, and drowned her 4 beautiful children in the family bathtub and turned herself in. Another bashed in her two sons heads with a large rock. They didn't feel they were doing anything that bad because they knew they'd be fine, accepted into the saviors arms, and she ended any suffering they may have to go through in this life."

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

ahh yes, a very sad testament at just how uncompassionate this world could be....just one question. I've heard all the crap said about these mothers. what about the dads, where were they? why did they leave such mentally unstable people alone with their children? where was society, that they couldn't offer the assistance that might have at least put these children in a situation where there was a little more supervision of the care their mentally ill parents were given them....was child care offered to these women? any services of the like?

but, well, what chances do you think that these women could have gotten a commitee of doctors to go along with their idea? which is what the euthanasia is requiring happen. the doctors can't do anything without the parents consent, the parents can't do anything (legally) without the doctors consent...science and technology has to agree with compassion and love. seems to be a better solution that politicians in washington writing laws in hopes that they will bring bigger contributions for their next reelection campaign.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis

Originally posted by Bibliophile

Originally posted by thermopolis

...This is a horrid concept...


On the contrary, it is realistic for this day and age. Mankind stands at 6.5 billion and counting. Resources are not unlimited. Our planet is being taxed to its limits by overpopulation. We must face the fact that not everyone can or should be saved.

Survival of the fittest has historically prevailed via either Mother Nature or the hand of man himself. Nothing is going to change that. Holland is simply the vanguard in this particular issue.


So based on "too many" humans we should start the german gas chambers up again? Jews were deemed "sub-human" AFTER the murder of the handicapped and retarded in Germany.

So if I think say "paris" has too many residents it is OK to kill off a few thousand? By that logic China and India are screwing up the planet for the rest of us, so perhaps they should "nuke" each other for the betterment of th planet.

Complete lunacy isn't it?

Suposedly back in the good old 60's the max world popluation was 5 billion, or we would all starve to death. At 6.5 billion now that was kinda stupid...........



no your above statements are lunacy.
im not saying that i totally agree with mercy killings but what you were ranting about was way off in left field.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by plague]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by plague
no your above statements are lunacy.
im not saying that i totally agree with mercy killings but what you were ranting about was way off in left field.


Um... Don't mean any offense... But you have two people quoted above. Just curious which one was out in left field?



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Sieg Heil! (Think Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove!) Euthanasia is alive and well, now we can just up the age and get rid of anyone, call it a delayed abortion or something. Let's think, who are the "useless eaters anyway?" Oh who drains the most from the most people? Not these babies, be assurred.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I cannot believe the unabashed hysterical extrapolations in this thread. Some of you have taken one case and exponentially leapt to mass murder.

This is absolutely ridiculous. We are discussing one case - a seriously ill baby with no hope of survival.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bibliophile
On the contrary, it is realistic for this day and age. Mankind stands at 6.5 billion and counting. Resources are not unlimited. Our planet is being taxed to its limits by overpopulation. We must face the fact that not everyone can or should be saved.

Survival of the fittest has historically prevailed via either Mother Nature or the hand of man himself. Nothing is going to change that. Holland is simply the vanguard in this particular issue.


Wait a minute... Wasn't it you that pretty much began this debate with your inhuman comments I quoted here?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join