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: 8
5
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by HereticHulk






The evidence shows that modern medicine and modern industry create most, if not ALL so-called "genetic defects."





[edit on 11-11-2006 by soficrow]


exactly my point!

if by modern industry your implying the pollution created by?

pollution created to sustain our ever growing population.

name me one animal in the wild that would care for and expect their herd, pack etc. to help care for a lame born animal. no, they would leave it to die and it would get eaten by scavengers.

now that is a brutal way to go out but thats generally how it goes in wild kingdom.

what humans need to do is figure out the health of the fetus before 49 days after conception. you see, thats when the new soul enters the body through the pineal gland. so we can abort before the soul enters.


[edit on 11-11-2006 by HereticHulk]




posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HereticHulk

what humans need to do is figure out the health of the fetus before 49 days after conception. you see, thats when the new soul enters the body through the pineal gland. so we can abort before the soul enters.


[edit on 11-11-2006 by HereticHulk]


You're kidding, right? 49 days after conception?The pineal gland? Tell me, how did you arrive at this conclusion? You must have access to secret wisdom and knowledge that the rest of us mere mortals are not privy to. Or perhaps you're just goofing and trying to "get a reaction", like Shaunybaby. Either way, I think I'll pass on accepting your word for it. Thanks anyway.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Actually, we don't need to create pollution to sustain our population. We just need to stop creating pollution creating devices.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HereticHulk
name me one animal in the wild that would care for and expect their herd, pack etc. to help care for a lame born animal. no, they would leave it to die and it would get eaten by scavengers.


I was watching a program, I'm certain it was in Africa, and they were following a pack of wild dogs. They did this 2 or 3 years prior, and then came back and filmed the same pack again. To their astonishment one dog was still around, it was a dog with a broken front leg. It was still getting around, still following the pack, after all those years. It didn't have to hunt either, the others in the pack gave food it.

However, I could also show you examples of wild animals having babies, or even domesticated animals having babies and their mothers rejecting them for numerous reasons.


Originally posted by HereticHulk
what humans need to do is figure out the health of the fetus before 49 days after conception. you see, thats when the new soul enters the body through the pineal gland. so we can abort before the soul enters.


It's wierd that you'd be so up for abortion, yet only after a certain numbers of days because the SOUL enters after that period and hence only then does it become a moral dilema.

I don't think over population is acceptance to kill new borns. We've seen this already tried and tested in China. It's sick. Mainly because if they have over one child, they have to pay for it or something. Also when the man of the house wanted a son, If they had a female baby.. In to the river it goes. And they still have over a billion people there, so we can see that baby killing does not in any way affect population.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
FYI RE: The Nuffield Council's report, "Critical Care Decisions in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine."



The Working Party took the view that, provided treatments using sedatives and analgesics are guided by the best interests of the baby, and have been agreed upon by means of a joint decision-making process, potentially life-shortening but pain-relieving treatments are morally acceptable.




...The euthanasia backdoor - medically approved fatal "pain relief."

Really, this is SO hard. I see there is a need - but a HUGE potential for abuse.

And it's personal. This is how my father died - he was in hospital due to dehydration, but family members manipulated the system, grabbed a visiting doctor to approve pain meds 'at need' - and killed him because they were tired of it all. Dad would eventually have wanted it, but they did it before he was ready. Still hurts bad.


.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
FYI RE: The Nuffield Council's report, "Critical Care Decisions in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine."



The Working Party took the view that, provided treatments using sedatives and analgesics are guided by the best interests of the baby, and have been agreed upon by means of a joint decision-making process, potentially life-shortening but pain-relieving treatments are morally acceptable.




...The euthanasia backdoor - medically approved fatal "pain relief."

Really, this is SO hard. I see there is a need - but a HUGE potential for abuse.

And it's personal. This is how my father died - he was in hospital due to dehydration, but family members manipulated the system, grabbed a visiting doctor to approve pain meds 'at need' - and killed him because they were tired of it all. Dad would eventually have wanted it, but they did it before he was ready. Still hurts bad.


.


Sofi,

What a heartfelt and poignant example of why the entire euthanasia movement is really just nazism in disguise.



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join