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.



page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:44 PM
I was wondering if people have seen this story about eugenics happening today.
Its a crying shame that this is going on right under our noses. Killing babys that are ill. Killing anyone that they need to reach the govt targets? Killing for money? Any way decide for your selves here is the link to the story.

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:41 PM
It looks to me like post-birth abortion. I see no reason why we won't have it in the US in the next 5-7 years. I remember the "Health Panels" which are supposed to decide what treatments are financially and medically efficient, and not allow government policies to cover the rest.

The parents will be told that their child will have difficulties through life. How many parents will say "I don't care, save her anyway you can?" They will be told that government insurance won't cover that kind of care. The other parents, who are willing to walk away will simply be told "Sign here," and that's the end for the child.

Now that they're going after newborns, to match the push for euthanasia and lack of coverage for the elderly, what ages will ever be safe?

It will be done to "save money," "lower the cost of health care," "insure equal treatment for everyone," but we know what it really is.

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:34 PM
Ok, I went and checked the searche engine to be sure this bass been covered on ATS before, and it has quite extensively (I searched for 'Liverpool care pathway'.) However, I swear to God I have read this exact same article you link to before several weeks or months ago. EXACT same. I double checked your link and it was posted on today's date. This just gave me the heebeejeebees!

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by charles1952

They like to use the `` common purpose`` excuse to cover their tracks. Dosnt matter what they say, killing people is murder which ever way you look at it. If I ever get to old to look after myself or my family can not do it. Then I would take do it myself, before I would let them murder me.
What a world we have created for our selves.

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by illuminnaughty

When my father suffered a massive stroke, my mother called the paramedics, who applied emergency measures and rushed him to ER, where he was put on life support and moved to ICU.

Within a few hours, doctors notified us that he had registered a legal "Do Not Resuscitate" order with the hospital. We were given some private time with him, before they took him off life support and moved him to "Hospice."

It took 5 days for him to die, but they did comfort him with a morphine drip and fluids, no nutrition though.

That being said, I think starving and / or dehydrating an infant or anyone, for that matter, who is destined to die is inhumane.

There are, here in the USA, Hospice facilities that do treat infants that are destine to die, and their parents, with respect and compassion.

As prenatal testing becomes increasingly routine, more parents are learning devastating news before their babies are born. In too many places, the ability to diagnose has raced ahead of the ability to care for these families and their babies. But in a beautiful and practical response, 150 pioneering hospitals, hospices, and clinics in the U.S. and around the world are now providing perinatal hospice/palliative care for families who wish to continue their pregnancies with babies who likely will die before or shortly after birth.

A perinatal hospice approach walks with these families on their journey through pregnancy, birth, and death, honoring the baby as well as the baby's family. Perinatal hospice is not a place; it is more a frame of mind. It is a way of caring for the pregnant mother, the baby, the father, and all involved with dignity and love. Even in areas without a formal program, parents can create a loving experience for themselves and their baby, and health professionals and family and friends can offer support in the spirit of hospice

But no woman should be forced, coerced or lied to about her or her future baby's medical condition, thus being unprepared both emotionally and financially.

Legislating Lies: Kansas and Other States Pass Laws Permitting Doctors to Lie to Pregnant Patients About Prenatal Diagnoses
The ongoing war on reproductive rights in the United States is so sweeping that I’m constantly uncovering a new facet of it, appalling in its grossness and determination to strip pregnant people of all individual freedom and autonomy. Odd, coming from conservatives who claim to want smaller government; evidently tight governmental controls are perfectly acceptable when it comes to people who can get pregnant, who will clearly run into trouble if allowed to make their own medical decisions.

Or, it turns out, receive factually correct information about their diagnoses. In Kansas, there’s a clause buried in an anti-choice bill that would absolve doctors of legal liability if they lie to patients about prenatal diagnoses. That means that an anti-abortion doctor could receive test results and decide not to pass them on, or lie about their nature, which means that pregnant patients might not find out about fetal abnormalities until they become dangerously ill late in pregnancy, or until delivery, when they learn that the baby has significant health problems' iagnoses/

edit on 29-11-2012 by windword because: spelling

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by illuminnaughty


The lead up to death, experienced by what are still sentient beings, is absolutely inhumane. I'm not against the death of those that really are better off dead, just the manner in which it's achieved. A quick humane death should be a basic human right.

Man, that article got me so angry.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:24 PM
Now this is an unpopular opinion, don't flame me too much, but I just need to say that babies with severe malformations should be allowed to die because why would you condemn a child like that to a life where all they do is just lie there in a wheelchair or a bed, making the occasional grunt or whine for attention?

Granted, I am lenient to higher functioning handi-capable people who can actually contribute to society, but when someone has to provide all their time, energy and money into caring for a person who has the mentality of a newborn when they are adults, this is where a line needs to be drawn.

Take a look at this case study:

Abstract This paper considers the financial burden of parents caring for severely disabled children. A model to predict parents' out-of-pocket expenses and caregiving time demands is described..

IN THE UNITED STATES, an estimated 10-15 percent of all children have a chronic illness, and 1-2
percent have a severe chronic illness (1). Because
the care of these children is often demanding and
expensive, many families face financial difficulties....children limited in their activities use
more medical services than other children, especially hospital-based services and nonphysician
health services, and that out-of-pocket expenses
were two to three times higher.] Financial and Time costs to parents of severely disabled children

There's more info and graphs provided in the link than what I've posted as a preview, but it shows how long term care is financially draining, despite programs like Medicaid.

May I also allow you to visit the case of Ashley X as well?:

The Ashley Treatment refers to a controversial set of medical procedures undergone by a Seattle child, "Ashley X". Ashley, born in 1997, has severe developmental disabilities due to static encephalopathy of unknown etiology; she is assumed to be at an infant level mentally and physically. The treatment included growth attenuation via estrogen therapy; hysterectomy, bilateral breast bud removal, and appendectomy.[1] The principal purpose of the treatment was to improve Ashley's quality of life by limiting her growth in size, eliminating menstrual cramps and bleeding, and preventing discomfort from large breasts. The combination of the surgery and the estrogen therapy attracted much public comment and ethical analysis in early 2007, both supportive and condemning.[2] The hospital later admitted that the surgery was illegal and should only have been performed after a court order,[3] a position that is disagreed upon by the attorney of Ashley's family. Ashley's parents granted their first interview (in writing) to CNN Health in March 2008.[4]

Ashley Treatment

Pillow Angel- Ashley X case

What is more humane now? Allowing a severely disabled infant to pass away, or let said infant live and deal with crushing costs and unethical surgeries?

I also believe that instead of the dehydration/starving bit, there should be a more quicker and painless death for parents who want to spare their child from a life of invalidity because how do you explain to them that they can't do anything like other children?

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:36 PM
To add to my above post, for those who want to get all preachy on me and say that these children are a "gift from God"

Why would God, or any other higher being, give you a child who can barely lift their head, or with deformed and atrophied limbs? Wouldn't they have given you a healthy child that could run, walk, play, talk, grow up and live happily ever after?

I'm apologise for throwing my two cents in on this touchy subject, but I do not understand people who are so desperate for children that they literally "take what they can get".

I understand it takes time and patience to care for them, but why would you do this to yourself?

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:52 PM
The grotesqueness of the procedure could be avoided with humane euthanasia.

We allow our pets to die with dignity. Why not ourselves?

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:59 PM
Just remembered something:

eu·gen·ics [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA noun, ( used with a singular verb ) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

Letting severely disabled children who probably won't live past infancy to die with consent of the parents does not count as eugenics. It's sparing them a long and torturous life.

top topics


log in