It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
good on them. about time doctors and society caught up with the 21st century. euthanasia for severly disabled babies *thumbs up* (anyways we already have euthanasia for babies, it's called 'abortion') it's just a shame they haven't got the same implemented for people on their death beds or have long term illnesses where a painful death is inevitable.

heck, we could get rid of those disabled toilets. those huge bathrooms dedicated to people with a bit of a limp, so they get a huge toilet to take a dump in and a big red bit of string to pull just incase they fall off the craper.

the only problem is that things wrong with babies during pregnancy can be found during ultra sound scans, and abortions/decisions can be made about having that baby. however, how could any woman actually have the baby, and then say 'yeah put it down, it's got a bit of a curved spine, go get me a healthy baby off ebay'.. so, i don't really see this idea working.




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormrider


Soficrow,
Actually, The proposal by the Royal College included the sugesstion that withholding of treatment, and withdrawal of life support be considered along with other options in the ending of newborn lives complicated by severe disabilities. This is not aimed at you as a slam, since we both share the same opinion on the subject; it is simply a clarification. I would also like to point out to everyone, that when the proposal uses the term "severe disability", it does not qualify that term in any way, except to offer an example, "severe spina bifida", a condition that is routinely corrected by surgery shortly after birth, many many times a year here in the US. My point is that since they do not define what constitutes a severe disability, it allows them to apply it to any disability that a physician/parent may wish. That is my most serious concern.

Also, as I posted earlier, this thread is concerned with the subject of euthanasia of newborns with disabilities, not children or adults who later develop debilitating illnesses or injuries. Let's please, try to keep our focus on the issue at hand; it is surely imprtant enough in it's own right to keep us on topic.

Thanks




[edit on 11/9/2006 by Stormrider]


Okay, I'm establishing for the reader, that ending a life because WE don't deem it liveable, is a serious issue involved in the determination process of such a proposal. Why is it serious? Because people as a general rule, want to live, regardless of the severity of their disabilities. The time in life this occurs is not relevant as a baby is just as likely to want to keep on breathing as anyone else. We assume because we don't remember our thoughts as infants and newborns, that we simply had none. This is patently false, but it is used as a reason to make decisions for babies, who are viewed as little blobs of fatty tissue with blank brains. Oy. They are the most helpless lifeforms on the planet. Human babies have even fewer survival skills than the majority of the animal kingdom, but they certainly are not dumb.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
to be honest, i can't stand this whole disability thing..

espeically them having their own parking spaces and toilets.. what's all that about? they strive and complain about not being equal and that they want to be treated equal.. well how about taking away their own little personal toilets and parking spaces!

meh, disabled people bring the rest of humanity down. hitler would have sorted them out..



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
lol Babies are smart.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
good on them. about time doctors and society caught up with the 21st century. euthanasia for severly disabled babies *thumbs up* (anyways we already have euthanasia for babies, it's called 'abortion') it's just a shame they haven't got the same implemented for people on their death beds or have long term illnesses where a painful death is inevitable.

heck, we could get rid of those disabled toilets. those huge bathrooms dedicated to people with a bit of a limp, so they get a huge toilet to take a dump in and a big red bit of string to pull just incase they fall off the craper.

the only problem is that things wrong with babies during pregnancy can be found during ultra sound scans, and abortions/decisions can be made about having that baby. however, how could any woman actually have the baby, and then say 'yeah put it down, it's got a bit of a curved spine, go get me a healthy baby off ebay'.. so, i don't really see this idea working.



Clearly, your logic states that a human life is worthless to you unless the person is "Perfect". This was the kind of thinking Adolf Hitler used to justify the murder of MILLIONS of people.

I hope I'm reading you wrong, because the logic you seem to be useing is on the edge of condoning Genocide if you think something is to be gained from it.

Shame on you for looking down on other people that way!!


Are you inplying that a human life has NO Value at All?

I'm sorry, but Never before in my Life have I seen ANYONE preach such IGNORANCE and INTOLERANCE of fellow human beings.

Tim

P.S. You do know Hitler was a sociopath, don't you? Here look the word up:Sociopath

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Ghost01]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Clearly, your logic states that a human life is worthless to you unless the person is "Perfect". This was the kind of thinking Adolf Hitler used to justify the murder of MILLIONS of people.


Lets take for example the animal kingdom, a baby animal born blind, with a limp leg, slightly unable to walk, would get picked off sooner or later. This is how survival of the fittest works and creates a very strong species and gene pool. Now, we're allowing babies born with all sorts of disabilties to live, these then grow older, they have kids, they have kids, and before you know it you've got so many disabled people that they've got their own toilets and parking spaces. This type of gene pool needs to be eradicated.



I hope I'm reading you wrong, because the logic you seem to be useing is on the edge of condoning Genocide if you think something is to be gained from it.


I'm not saying put people in camps, or kill people who are already disabled. Just stop those ones having even more messed up babies, and also to use euthanasia on the babies born retarded. What's wrong with that? This way we create a much stronger species.



Are you inplying that a human life has NO Value at All?


Not all human life, just some.



I'm sorry, but Never before in my Life have I seen ANYONE preach such IGNORANCE and INTOLERANCE of fellow human beings.


It's not ignorance. However, you're right, I am very intolerant of weaker human beings. So I appolgise for wanting the human race to be a stronger species.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Now, we're allowing babies born with all sorts of disabilties to live, these then grow older, they have kids, they have kids, and before you know it you've got so many disabled people that they've got their own toilets and parking spaces. This type of gene pool needs to be eradicated.


This is the ignorance I was referring to! For example, I have Cerebral Palsy (CP for short), I have had it since I was born. CP comes from nerve damage done before or during birth. It's not Genetic, my children can NOT get it from me. It will probably NEVER again occure in my family!

However, I'm an active scout learder, a college student, A classroom aid, and an Eagle Scout!

Are you telling me I'm worthless, and that I (and others like me) should Not Be here?




I'm not saying put people in camps, or kill people who are already disabled. Just stop those ones having even more messed up babies, and also to use euthanasia on the babies born retarded. What's wrong with that? This way we create a much stronger species.


Not all Disabilities are linked to Genes. As I pointed out with my CP. Oh, or how about Disabled Vetrans (people who served in war and were injured)? Is it wrong to let a vetran start a family when they come home from Serving their country, because they were Injured, and now have a disability?



It's not ignorance. However, you're right, I am very intolerant of weaker human beings. So I appolgise for wanting the human race to be a stronger species.
[edit on 9-11-2006 by shaunybaby]


Let's see:

* You assumed that All disabilities are gentetic and that not letting people with diasbilities have families would make the world stronger and heathier. ~ NOT True

* You Assume that someone with a Disability can't contribute anything worthwhile to society, and are therefore only makeing our speices weaker. ~Not True

* You Assume cutting out one type of diversity makes us stronger. ~Not True

That's three strikes! Please, for everone's sake, quit with the Hate!

Tim



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
This is the ignorance I was referring to! For example, I have Cerebral Palsy (CP for short), I have had it since I was born. CP comes from nerve damage done before or during birth. It's not Genetic, my children can NOT get it from me. It will probably NEVER again occure in my family!


The fact that you developed this at/before birth shows you're a weak link in our species.


Originally posted by Ghost01
However, I'm an active scout learder, a college student, A classroom aid, and an Eagle Scout!


What'd you want a medal? A medal for having a job, going to school and helping out in a classroom?


Originally posted by Ghost01
Are you telling me I'm worthless, and that I (and others like me) should Not Be here?


All disabilities taint society.


Originally posted by Ghost01
Not all Disabilities are linked to Genes. As I pointed out with my CP. Oh, or how about Disabled Vetrans (people who served in war and were injured)? Is it wrong to let a vetran start a family when they come home from Serving their country, because they were Injured, and now have a disability?


They bring down the rest of the population, putting a strain on the health care system and claiming disability allowences, but I'm willing somewhat to put up with that, afterall they fought in a war. Having one's arm blown off in a war would not affect your children. However, the fact that you have CP shows that you are in fact weaker, less kinks in our gene pool we have, the better.


Originally posted by Ghost01
Let's see:

* You assumed that All disabilities are gentetic and that not letting people with diasbilities have families would make the world stronger and heathier. ~ NOT True


No, but the ones that are genetic should be sorted out. Actually, yes it would indeed make the human race stronger.


Originally posted by Ghost01
* You Assume that someone with a Disability can't contribute anything worthwhile to society, and are therefore only makeing our speices weaker. ~Not True


They're just taking up space. I'm sure we wouldn't miss one less cub scout leader.


Originally posted by Ghost01
* You Assume cutting out one type of diversity makes us stronger. ~Not True

That's three strikes! Please, for everone's sake, quit with the Hate!


Cutting one type helps us on the way to a stronger species.

It's not hate. It's rationalism. The human race is deteriorating. We need to start thinking about the future, and stop letting every single soul breed and pass on retarded genes.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby


I am very intolerant of weaker human beings. So I appolgise for wanting the human race to be a stronger species.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by shaunybaby]


What a coincedence, me too. Would you care to debate this topic in the Debate Forum? I just LOVE to eat weaker human beings in this manner and you seem to be on the menu. Are YOU game? "GAME"? Get it?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
shaunybaby- You're an asshole, and a pretty stupid one to boot.

Yeah, that deserves a warn. I'll take one for the team, red flag an so on. Bring the pain mods, it's nothing personal.

shaunybaby, if you want the human race to live a mindless, feeling-less life because "it's better for the species".... wake up, you're living in something far more idiotic than the most sub-moronic pipe dream, and I've seen a lot of those.

Killing children, again, is killing children. It doesn't matter how "legal" it is, or if you are religious or not.

To cherish "the species" above the things which make us human, in fact make one sub-human. To be human is to embrace that which makes us what we are, not to find calculating ways to classify and forget these things.

But if you want to do that, it's cool. You'd have made a good Nazi, for that you have my disrespect. And on a side note, I'd love to see you back this up against Intrepid with something other than conjecture. The beauty is, it can't be done.




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
shaunybaby- You're an asshole, and a pretty stupid one to boot.


Pretty much the reaction I was waiting for.


Originally posted by Astygia
you're living in something far more idiotic than the most sub-moronic pipe dream, and I've seen a lot of those.


Dreams sometimes come true. Nothing wrong with being a dreamer.


Originally posted by Astygia
Killing children, again, is killing children. It doesn't matter how "legal" it is, or if you are religious or not.


Since when did religion enter the topic?

Also, not children.. 'babies'. I'm on about cultivation, farming, growing a human race that's fit and fighting, and not one that's gonna be taking up the rear in a wheel chair.


Originally posted by Astygia
But if you want to do that, it's cool. You'd have made a good Nazi, for that you have my disrespect.


Yeah I noticed your disrespect earlier in your post.

But hey, I guess I'm being disrespectful to disabled people, right?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Well shauny, just how much are you actually doing for the human race? At least Ghost is doing a good deed for society. He's helping build teamwork, discipline, and tolerance for some youth who may just as well be hanging out in the streets wasting their lives with drugs and crime. for that I congradulate him, and feel that he is helping make the human race stronger by building strong characteristics in developing youths.

In fact many people with dissabilities tend to end up dedicating themselves to helping others. What have you done shauny to help make the human race stronger?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
We need to start thinking about the future, and stop letting every single soul breed and pass on retarded genes.


You're strengthening that point with Every post you make in this thread, though not in the manner you intend.

Proof positive that disabilities can far exceed physical limitations, and that those relating to certain mentalities acquired post-birth can often result in more profound limitations than the most horrible of physical ailments.

I guess if the "shoes" had been on your feet then you'd have preferred to be put down. (?) :shk:



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Pretty much the reaction I was waiting for.


Glad I made your day. Honesty is, after all, the best policy.


Dreams sometimes come true. Nothing wrong with being a dreamer.


So...you actually dream of a "perfect" species? Seriously, is that even a notion worth valuable fantasy time? How shallow.



Originally posted by Astygia
Killing children, again, is killing children. It doesn't matter how "legal" it is, or if you are religious or not.


Since when did religion enter the topic?


About fives pages ago, if not on page one. Interesting dodge though, I notice you've got no witty (feigned intelligent) comeback for the point. Killing children.


Also, not children.. 'babies'. I'm on about cultivation, farming, growing a human race that's fit and fighting, and not one that's gonna be taking up the rear in a wheel chair.


Oh, that's right. For some reason, you seem to think that people are vegetables to be reaped and sown until the time when they magically become "children".

Again, shallow fantasies. Hollow, even. Seriously.


Originally posted by Astygia
Yeah I noticed your disrespect earlier in your post.


Glad to see you're not completely out of touch with reality.


But hey, I guess I'm being disrespectful to disabled people, right?


That's two logical and reasonable statements in the same week.


One more, you win the t-shirt with a crutch on it.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
This is where we are


Dutch Euthanasia Doctor Admits to Killing 4 Newborns With Lethal Injections

Verhagen, who works at Groningen University Medical Centre, is one of a group of doctors who has proposed what is being called the Groningen Protocol to decide how much a child has to be suffering to be considered worthy of being killed by lethal injection. In a recent interview on National Public Radio Verhagen said, "We felt that in these children the most humane course of action would be to allow the child to die, and even actively assist them in their death….And in extreme cases, the best way to protect life is to sometimes assist a little bit in death."

Peter Singer, the notorious Chair of Bioethics at prestigious Princeton University is famous for having advocated infanticide. Singer's seminal book, Practical Ethics, laid out a scheme where human beings must earn their 'personhood' and can lose it if they are disabled, elderly or otherwise 'useless' or incapacitated. In traditional ethics, a 'person' is a living human being. But the new 'bioethics' is opening the medical establishment to the idea, based on a philosophy called Utilitarianism, that human beings are merely disposable biological machines.

In Bioethics, the utilitarian principle that suffering is the worst possible evil, is being fully realized in Holland where legalized euthanasia has many afraid to go to hospitals. Rumours and more reliable first-hand reports have been common for years of Dutch people carrying cards that ask hospital staff not to kill them. Some report that they prefer to go to Germany or Belgium for medical treatment.
Full Story



Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University since 1999, is all too aware of this tendency. His controversial views on the nature of personhood and disability have earned their fair share of criticism. “I use the term ‘person’ in a way that goes back, philosophically, for hundreds of years,” he says. “John Locke used it in the seventeenth century to refer to a being with self-awareness and a sense of their own existence, over time. Essentially, a person is someone who can understand that they are a being who exists with a past and who may have a future. I guess I also argue that having this capacity to be aware of your existence over time is significant in terms of the wrongness of killing a being, because, only if a being is aware of having a future, can they have desires for that future. Only in that sense can ending that being’s life be something that’s contrary to his or her wishes, desires or preferences. So I think that puts the killing of such a being in a different category,” he explains.

“In my view, a newborn infant is not a person, whether they’re disabled or not. I think that there should be options for making life and death decisions for newborn infants, which do not exist for later beings who have become persons. In addition, there may be some people with severe cognitive disabilities who never become persons. In that case, the question about ending the life of someone with that kind of disability is like the question of ending the life of a newborn infant, I think different from ending the life of someone who is a person.” Full Story


Given that more and more "Bio-Eticists" are joining Singers camp, what does that say about where we might be tomorrow? Fifty years ago, stories like this would win prizes for Science Fiction, today, like many other things, it's a reality.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Let's Try Not To Euthanize The Topic

Obviously this is a very touchy subject, which is literally a matter of life and death.

It is very easy to develop strong opinions about other members based on their views on this issue, and with them, condemnations.

However, allowing the discussion to devolve into finger-pointing and name-calling only serves to distract from what is actually important: the topic.

It is possible for good people to disagree, even on issues like this, but it is impossible for good people to discuss their differences if the thread is derailed by personal attacks.

So please, let's try to take a few deep breaths, be calm, respect the rights of other members to have differing opinions and explain our points of view in accordance with the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use.

The life of this topic depends on it.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Thanks Majic:

I echo your sentiments and encourage all posters to remember that we don't want to lose sight of our own humanity by bashing the humanity of our fellow members. Having said that, though, I don't want to give people the idea that they should not be as passionate in their arguments as they feel necessary. The idea is not to kill this thread, only to stop the invective. This is still a very timely and very important subject, so, let's keep up the debate.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
BUT

aren't some of the sentiments being stated on this thread (in particular by shaunybaby), the very topic at hand? And, if that's true, why isn't at least stating - OH MY GAWD THAT'S DISGUSTING - not on topic? Because it is the very idea of one person or group of persons deciding who is worthy of living and who is not that fuels this discussion.

And then as a follow up I'd like to state - I find shaunybaby's position repulsive and nauseating. It would be real nice if I could say that statement has nothing to do with the member, but they decided to take that position, so...I'm starting to think my hands are tied on the issue.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
shaunybaby-

As another representative of the handicapped I only want to euthanize one baby. Shaunybaby. Nobody would care. You see your handicapped. You have an abnormal brain. Why not save the gene pool and take yourself out of the equation. At least get neutered.

I may not be your physical equal but I'm an avid hunter. I can take your eye out at 300 yards without a problem. If a Kodiak Brown could not get the better of me you don't have a chance. I have a 45 (legally as I'm not insane like you are) in a holster mounted under my desk to even up the playing field. A good mind is way more powerful than your perfect physique. My Grandmother could have taken you without a breaking a sweat.

Are you a member of the Aryan Nation or the Nazi Party?

If you ever find yourself the victim of a handicap, feel free to do away with yourself. OK?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
THIS IS ATSNN ... NOT SLUGFEST, FOLKS

There have been several attempts here to dissuade attacks on fellow members, yet obviously to no avail

If you wish to post in opposition to the Source article or another's response Please do so, but DO NOT POST if your sole intent and purpose is to attack a fellow member's character or person directly!

Emotions may be running high but patience is wearing thin with regards to the personal attacks and verbal assaults.

Thank you for your time, and now back to the topic of discussion.

UK Physicians Propose Euthanasia of Newborns

[edit on 11/9/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join