It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UK Physicians Propose Euthanasia of Newborns

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:31 AM

Originally posted by btho5888
No the problem is abortion and the problem is irresponsible people. And the problem also is people like you who fail to see that. You see abortion as an answer to a problem. If we put as much time, money and effort into trying to solve the problem of irresponsible people then maybe abortion wouldnt have to seen as the only answer to this problem.

And to answer your question...I have...twice. And will again if I have too!

Abortion can not be a problem - it is nothing. Maybe the people are irresponsible, and the use of abortion demonstrates this - but the act of abortion isn't in and of itself a "problem", or rather, it isn't a problem that can be solved simply by making it illegal. It was illegal before, abortions were still done, and the only difference is that now it is in the open, we can at least mitigate some of the health problems associated with having an abortion done by a back ally doctor.

Although while you find it funny that this new consideration is not surprizing given the abortion issue. I find it funny that the same people that see no problem going to war or justifying killing their fellow man have issues with killing a unborn fetus. But I suppose it is different strokes for different folks huh?

This new thing is rather strange to say the least. While I understand the theory of doing it for the greater good - I worry(Like most here) that this could be merely the narrow edge of the wedge. In some cases, I guess I would be for it(If the child was going to be so physically impaired that pain and suffering is all that they will know - then I think there is a side of humanity to put them out of their misery. OTOH, who makes that desicion? Would it be the parents? The medical staff?

But, I do agree that this should be discussed and debated openly and honestly. Hopefully without the burdon of a 2000 year old novel. IMO.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Astygia
Maybe I misunderstood the concept of "active" euthenasia. So replace "someone else's child" with "your child" and the rest still applies.
granted, but some gamilies might not see it your way.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by prototism
this story is pretty damn disturbing, but, based on the way the article is written, i dont know if i necessarily disagree with the rationale.

however Stormrider, i have a bone to pick with your comments. while i agree there needs to be "guidelines", you mention the issue of the slippery slope. now is it just me, or did you already fall down the slippery slope, and then write the bolded sentence? (in other words, it seems to me that youre being a bit hypocritical)

Originally posted by Stormrider
So, we have finally come to the point as a species where we are actively looking to erase life because it is not pretty or completely healthy. What's next, the euthanasia of newborns with the "wrong" color eyes or hair? When you start down the slippery slope of "bio-ethics", it is important to have guidelines.

I fail to see how my statement is hypocritical; I condemned the use of euthanasia of newborns in the UK proposal and then pointed out that when you start down that slippery slope you are hard pressed to draw a line between "medical" issues and choices of vanity based on the desired traits that a parent might be looking for. Also, in case you missed it, the entire premise was laced liberally with sarcasm and irony; I did not say that euthanising the elderly, etc was a good thing, if you thought so, then, you were the only one as far as I can tell.

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Stormrider]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 02:04 AM
Hmmm. I don't have enough time to make a well thought out statement, but I will say that my entire family loves my cousin who has downes syndrome, and she lives a good, happy, healthy and well loved life.

Also, by killing a disabled infant, you may be killing the next Dr. Steven Hawkings, and think about all the child-genius' with autism.

This is a massive issue, who gets to decide who lives and who dies?

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 02:16 AM

Originally posted by DrBones666
Also, by killing a disabled infant, you may be killing the next Dr. Steven Hawkings,

Have you ever heard of MND? Read up, bring S.Hawking into the discussion shows somwone did not do their homework.

BTW, American Indians are among the Tribal groups of people that used to 'remove' the defective. It is a survival technique used probably by most all societies that live in a survival mode as hunter/gatherers. It takes a lot of effort to care for someone that could otherwise go toward the needs of the community.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 06:37 AM
This is eugenics,pure and simple.
Eugenics seems to be getting very fashionable in the "free world"
at the moment.
How long before children are killed at age 5 for being "too fat," or Ginger.

Master race anyone?
Bad when the Nazis did it,but hey its fine for us in the free world-we are responsible people after all.(yes its sarcasm)

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:45 AM
Killing babies because they aren't Perfect? What kind of sick, twisted thinking is this?

Wait, wasn't this one of Hittler's Ideas? Ok, so we sacraficed Thousands of lives in WW2 to bring an end to the genocidal ideas of the Third Rich, for what? So some sociopathic, freak could reinvent them 60+ years later?

I was raised to believe in the value of all human life, not just those who are super athletes or super smart, who do Calculas at age 6. I how someone has the sense to stop this BEFORE it starts. Come on, I thought the British were better than listening to this BS. They shouldn't even be willing to discuss this topic.

I find this extreemly disappointing! As someone who has a disability, I'm insulted that some people still think like this. Please tell me that both of my Grandfathers didn't put their lives on the line in World War 2 (fighting in Europe), so someone could come up with this 60+ years later


[edit on 7-11-2006 by Ghost01]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:54 AM
I was being sarcastic honestly.
I agree with you 100% about this being sick.
But as a Brit,I have to be prepared to discuss this in order to learn about whos doing this,and why.
Only then can we put a stop to it.
This seems just another salvo from those with fascistic tendencies to mold society into
a dystopian nightmare.
All life should be valued equally,but babies in particular should be protected from this sort of evil-as they have no voice themselves and are among the most vulnerable in our society.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:58 AM
First it will be 'allowed to kill' the severely defective. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' the simply defective. Then it will be 'mandatory to kill' the severely defective - for the good of the world situation or some such thing. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' for financial reasons. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' for _________ (fill in the blank).

BTW .. whoever put 'proactive' as a tag at the bottom of this ...

Murder of newborns is not a 'proactive' thing .... it's a MURDER thing.

[edit on 11/7/2006 by FlyersFan]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I was being sarcastic honestly.
I agree with you 100% about this being sick.

Silcone Synapse,

For the Record, my comments were not aimed at you(or anyone else). I was simpally expressing my personal feeling on the Topic as posted.

I'm sorry if you though I was directing anything at you! That was Never my intent!


posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
First it will be 'allowed to kill' the severely defective. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' the simply defective. Then it will be 'mandatory to kill' the severely defective - for the good of the world situation or some such thing. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' for financial reasons. Then it will be 'allowed to kill' for _________ (fill in the blank).

BTW .. whoever put 'proactive' as a tag at the bottom of this ...

Murder of newborns is not a 'proactive' thing .... it's a MURDER thing.

Flyers,I think that "blank"may end up being people who believe "conspiracy theories"
or who say anything true/or"bad" about the NWO,ahem i mean Government.

Ghost01-No worries friend,just making sure(my sarcasm sometimes get me into trouble!)

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Silcone Synapse]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:15 AM
I wouldnt want to live if I was a vegetable so Im perfectly happy to have this done. The babies would probably only live a life of solitude mental torture.

Neither option is nice its crueller to allow them to live.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
if a child will never be able to function and has perminate brain damage, I think it should be considered. I know for a fact that if I were a quadripilegic I would want an assisted suicide possibly. If I weren't mentally capable to make the decision, then Id want it definately.

To me the most important things are independence, and to have that completely restricted, I would want an assisted suicide, yes. Should we do it to newborns? Well it depends on the sickness. If that baby is born with a heart defect, no, because that is definately something thats within grasps of curing. Perminate brain damage...thats non curable, so it should be considered.

You say if they were adult its different, but what if the disabled person is incapable of even being able to have the process of thinking about that. So mentally disabled they don't really have any conscious thoughts?

Great opinion Grim.

My concern with the program would be what they consider 'disabled' .. is it an extreme like complete brain failure or is it as low as something... ADD .. Which I would have been killed off years ago! lol

But really, it is the parents rights if they want to raise a deformed retarded child.. if they don't they should be given the option to dispose of it or hand it over to the state. I would much rather see it disposed then in the hands of the state where it would simply continue to drain the pockets of the nation.

No doubt though that the parents of retarded children have a deep emotional attachment to the child, but it really would run their lives, especially if it is a severely handicaped kid.. and then there is the emotional strain on the siblings..

Aside from all of that, it would not be in your place to cast judgement on someone who does not want to raise a retarded baby.. it is their choice, their life, their freedom to choose.. if you don't like it then you can send letters to the hostpitals to let them know your standing by to adopt all the retarded babies.
more power to you. If you are not willing to adopt all the retarded babies then don't complain.

EDIT: Shouldn't the doctors be able to tell that your child is morbidly deformed before birth, possibly early on enough for a abortion? ... And how late into life development (that is, after birth) do they consider killing the baby? .. I would be against any killing of a baby after a few hours if that..

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Rockpuck]

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:37 AM
I couldn’t morally take part in any such a thing, in the same way I don’t agree with abortion. Abortions are not being done in the way it was intended; it’s rather just a form of expensive birth control. Protesters shout it’s about a woman’s right to choose, BS!
I can guarantee you it’s not about choice, otherwise prostitution would be legal also if it were simply about a woman’s right to choose! I mean wouldn’t it stand to reason that if it were about choice… a woman should then be able to choose to be a whore if she wanted to. No, this is about population control.

I see where this will lead, and soon they will be killing anything that isn’t ideal in their sight. Maybe someday it will be my grandmother for having fallen and broken her hip? Maybe it will be the parents themselves, that are producing birth defected children? The sky is the limit, and this is truly heartbreaking to me. Yes it's equivalent to Hitler.

Don't attack my thoughts on this issue...I know they aren't your thoughts they are mine.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:51 AM
Its easier to kill a baby when its born since you are not attached to it yet. If you raise the child for couple of years and then get the urge of killing it, u cannot because then u would go to jail.

So parents are given a choice at the time of birth, because not every person is strong/passionate/patient/kind enough to raise a disabled child. Financial stability also comes into question. So, its easier to get 'rid of the problem' before it can grow up and then its too late to 'cure' it.

prevention is better than cure! literally.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:57 AM
This is getting way out of hand. Abortion should be made illegal, and this should be condemned.

Abortion is just wrong because its murder, and this pushes the envelope. I still can't believe that in this world, especially American society, people can decide that someone is not valuable enough to live. I am in shock, i just can't believe that people do this kind of thing and have no problem with it.

Oh, and I do support war, when its done for the "right" reasons(kind of dangerous wording, but...) in matters of self defense, etc. I am a religious person, so you can see why I'm against these things, they are completely moral issues, and for most, a lack thereof. I'll put it this way, War and Killing are justified when it is done to a "guilty" party, someone not innocent. So in war, by the simple fact that someone is trying to kill you, he is guilty, and his death is justified in order to save yours and others'. I'm not saying this is "okay", I'm saying that it is justified. This all ties in with those Christian Radicals blowing up abortion clinics, if abortion doctors were killed, I wouldn't think much of it. They are active murderers, so they get their come-upins. Murder and killing is not okay, it is justified however in many cases. It will never be okay, but in the case of killing an enemy combatant or a murderer, not out of vengeance but for the good of society, than you will be guilty of killing, but you will be far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far less culpable for it on the day of judgement.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:16 AM
I am sure lot of people under this situation would be thankful that they have options.

Pregnant by 'mistake' girls are thankful to abortion. Parents with disabled babies will be thankful for options because not everyone can deal with such situations esp. when financial problems are a concern.

I bet all of you condemning this 'option' would be singing a different tone if you were born with babies with life long disabilities or problems. Knowing full well that your baby would never have anormal life and you would end up taking care of it all its life.

Besies, if abortion was illegal, we would have lot more single young mothers struggling right now. You cannot young people from having sex and making mistakes. Sometimes ish happens even when you are careful. People should not have to suffer all their life because of this. Thus, they have option of abortion. As someone said, "lesser of two evils" way out.

People eat meat all around the world. In china, people eat dogs. But they wont cook and eat their own dogs because they are attached to it, but its easy for them to kill a dog that no one cares about and eat it. Obviously, someone could step forward and buy a dog and save it from getting cooked.

So why dont people who 'care so much' step forward and offer to raise the babies of unfortunate parents instead of forcing the parents to raise them? you see the point.

that is why i said, i can bet people would be singing a diferent tone if ...........

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:16 AM
When it comes to conspiracies and being anti-big brother, I hate the way many things are turning out... But I have to say that this might not be as bad as some would think.

No one is saying they are going to kill off babies with the wrong eye color. Sure, this might open the door to that, but it is the sound judgement and activism of concerned citizens that will keep such things from happening. If you aren't willing to stand up against THAT, then you have no right to run your mouth about the possible uses/ramifications of THIS.

This is a huge judgement call. Should we accept/keep all new life, even if it is secerely deformed or impared? Is all life to be cherished as a miracle, even if it is more abomination than miracle? If a farmer is breeding a new crop of corn, or some cows, and some turn up deformed or otherwise, don't they get rid of them? Now, of course, we are talking human lives here and not corn, but how far are we willing to press a family into dispare because of a malformed child until we say that we must consider not only the life of the child, but the lives of the family members? And, is it really fair to the child...a person who will grow up with (depending on the problem) sever pain, mental handicap, physical handicap and who knows what else.

Life is sacred, but what does that really mean? Does it mean we must preserve life at all costs? Do we prevent older humans from taking their own lives? What if they are crippled, in pain, costing many thousands of dollars to keep alive? Do we still consider life so 'sacred' that we hook those people up to a machine, keeping them 'alive' just for the sake of it, when in reality, their minds and souls could be very much dead? Are we doing this just so we appear humane, compassionate, wise? Is THIS what is supposed to separate us from other, lower forms of life?

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

Some might say that to advance as a race, to make the next step, we must be willing to accept all forms of life, no matter how mangled. Only then will we be the compassionate beings we must be to acheive such lofty goals as world peace, space travel, etc. But what if the next step isn't to preserve life at any cost, but to have the courage to say that sometimes, life takes a wrong turn, nature makes a mistake? And while we desperately want to protect all lives as being sacred, that might include protecting a life or a soul from an eternity of pain.

Take it or leave it.

When a child makes a mistake, the parent usually lets it slide. We might shrug it off, or even laugh if we find it cute. To grow as a person, however, that child must learn responsibility. It must be help accountable. It must learn to make the tough decisions, not avoid them. As a child grows, and makes more and more mistakes, the parents do not simply adjust their attitude to accept the mistakes. The parents adjust their attitudes to demand maturity from the child. We are a child race. We must take the next step. We must move out of our parents' house, live on our own, and realize we can not do everything, be everywhere. Sacrifices will always have to be made, that is the bitter, inescapable truth of existence. Until we accept that and learn to live with it, instead of bucking up against it, we can not grow into that responsible adult. We are still children. Grow up.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:30 AM

so do u support it or not? Can you speaketh englishe?

Just kidding. I got your point. Very good way of putting it forward.

People wanna 'appear' more humane even if they r not. Just because people wanna fit in, just like kids try to do in school. We are still kids when it comes to lot of issues.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by jensouth31
Don't attack my thoughts on this issue...I know they aren't your thoughts they are mine.

Jen -

I would never attack your thoughts as I agree 100% with everything you say. It is a sad thing, indeed, to think how easy it has become to rationalize the death of a newborn or the abortion of an unborn child; It is heartbreaking.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in