Author Topic: Netherlands Euthanizes Babies (Read 4272 times)

soda72 · « **Reply #135 on:** December 03, 2004, 11:55:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
What is scary is that you equate it with the death penalty.

So it's ok to kill a baby because "it's a burden to society" but not ok to kill a sociopath with no hope of reform which is also "a burden to society".

yep makes sense to me.....

scout · « **Reply #136 on:** December 03, 2004, 12:02:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo

Hell in the red states you can get tired of having girl kids and have one of them sex changed into a boy as soon as shes born..anything is possible if you have the money.

This happens. It happens in the states, It happens everywhere. The altenative is un acceptable. Welcome to the real world where horrible stuff happens and hard decisions have to be made.

Thats ... weird ... and wrong ... and evil... and hard to believe.

Do you actually have a reference to that ?

Just noting, its not possible. Phenologically, yes, definitely, easy even.

But the brain is already set on birth and cannot be changed. You'll get one confused and pissed off child, who gets really angry at about 12.

Some fraction of a percent, maybe even one percent, born ambiguous and surgically assigned 'wrong', thats different from the parents 'ordering' a specific gender.

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #137 on:** December 03, 2004, 12:49:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
yep that really is a knee slapper laughing boy dude.... I guess the left is now escalating from merely sneering and looking down on those they feel are not as bright as they are to actually just doing em in at birth.

lazs

With folk like you running around, how could one expect anything different? After all, what could be worse than an infant growing to meet your fine example of ignorant intolerance....

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #138 on:** December 03, 2004, 12:54:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by soda72
So it's ok to kill a baby because "it's a burden to society" but not ok to kill a sociopath with no hope of reform which is also "a burden to society".

yep makes sense to me.....

Burden on society I believe is your made up criteria. I failed to see that mentioned in the sited article..

Yeager · « **Reply #139 on:** December 03, 2004, 12:57:21 PM »

only a putz like gshmoltz could compare infants born with tragic and terminal birth defects to islamic terrorist insurgents in iraq.

deSelys · « **Reply #140 on:** December 03, 2004, 02:18:22 PM »

Yeager are you a christian?

Rude · « **Reply #141 on:** December 03, 2004, 02:30:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
A conclusive proof of the horrible behaviour of the European as a whole
Like you wrote here :

We are not one nation under god.

I did not say or mean Europe in it's entirety....apology for lumping all of that land mass together with such behavior.

Rude · « **Reply #142 on:** December 03, 2004, 02:32:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by myelo
Different how? The result is the same, the patient dies.

Consider this:
A mother decides she no longer wants her 6-week-old baby. So she stops feeding it. Unable to feed his self, the infant soon dies. Is this murder?

Dang right it is. Her actions directly led to the death of the baby.

Now … consider a terminally ill patient, unable to move, eat or drink. The family refuses any further treatment, including feeding and hydration. So we pull out the tubes and the patient dies within a week from dehydration.

Why is this “letting nature take it’s course” while the first example isn’t?

The only difference is semantics and how we feel. By letting a terminally ill patient die from dehydration, we can pass the buck. We can nod our head solemnly and say “it’s in God’s (or mother nature’s) hands now.” Of course the reality is that our action will directly cause the patient’s death just as sure as if we had administered an overdose of anesthetic.

If a person with a terminally ill dog let the dog die from dehydration and malnutrition, they could be charged with animal cruelty. Where’s the moral outrage when we do this to people?

You seriously cannot tell the difference between your two examples?

lazs2 · « **Reply #143 on:** December 03, 2004, 02:38:14 PM »

"With folk like you running around, how could one expect anything different? After all, what could be worse than an infant growing to meet your fine example of ignorant intolerance....

__________________
dude "

I see.... so now what qualifies for a death sentance at birth is the fear that they may not grow up to be a good liberal like yourself?

lazs

straffo · « **Reply #144 on:** December 03, 2004, 02:40:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
I did not say or mean Europe in it's entirety....apology for lumping all of that land mass together with such behavior.

Ok ,accept my apologies also ,in fact I'm a bit on your side on this case.

I find this idea rather disturbing, knowing a guy who live a spina bifida he could have been "aborted" but there was no possibilty to make diagnosis during his mother pregnancy...

Would have he be killed or not today ?
I dunno but he is fine and a nice friend to have.

Rude · « **Reply #145 on:** December 03, 2004, 02:48:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by myelo
Thanks for the reply

Extend that logic to the terminally ill patient. Why is it wrong then to provide a lethal injection to a patient that doesn't have a "fully viable life." ?

But it's OK to withold food and water?

Do you see why I'm having problems understanding the consistency here?

I understand your thinking, I just do not see it the same as you do. No one is withholding food or water....the patient would eat if not ill....natural death is prefferable in our society rather than a Kavorkian style society where we become the judge over who lives and who dies.

Death is innevitable. When I die, I have instructions to my family for no artificial means of life support...I will die naturally.

You probably disagree....which is you're right.

Yeager · « **Reply #146 on:** December 03, 2004, 03:13:54 PM »

Yeager are you a christian?
====
No. But I am sympathetic to the values of Christians and consider them my friends and spiritual advisors.

"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved."

soda72 · « **Reply #147 on:** December 03, 2004, 03:32:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Burden on society I believe is your made up criteria. I failed to see that mentioned in the sited article..

"Burden to society" pretty much sums up the process of "killing terminally ill newborns".

Using the term "mercy kill" is a political correct way of hiding the real issue that they are saving
the cost of having to take care of the baby until it dies... "Mercy kill" sounds so much better then arguing
"look how much money we saved".

However going back to my previous post, I find it odd for *someone* to argue that the above is a good idea yet be against the idea of a "mercy kill" for a convicted serial killer... We save money doing this too..

lazs2 · « **Reply #148 on:** December 03, 2004, 04:48:36 PM »

dude... seriously... how is my allowing retarded children to live and well.... alowing people like myself to live...... How is that in any way a defenition of "intolerance"?

lazs

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #149 on:** December 03, 2004, 05:08:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
dude... seriously... how is my allowing retarded children to live and well.... alowing people like myself to live...... How is that in any way a defenition of "intolerance"?

lazs

Consider it a joke Lazs.. I should have put a joke or smiley on it and it prolly would have been outta line still.

But I dont believe anyone is actually considering terminating mentally retarded children. That was never the bases of the article sited.