Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on December 01, 2004, 09:39:16 AM
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html
Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
Sounds a bit like nazi Germany, in search of the perfect race. Can’t have anybody that needs too much medical attention that might cost too much.
Conversion between to Dutch.
I got an idea lets kill them,
But wait we don’t like the death penalty for murders.
But their not murders their babies.
O okay then, that’s fine.
----------------------------------------------
and Europeans say we're the Neanderthals.
Your secular society is crumbling from with in.
Don't come calling 1-800-USA-HELP when you have collapsed.
-
I re-read the article and I'm even angrier then before, you barbaric pigs. :mad:
What’s more disturbing is the movement in our liberal courts to site European law as "world opinion” and applying it to our constitution i.e. death penalty.
-
Is english your first language?
You might get more replies if people could figure out what the hell you are talking about.
-
He doesn't know what he's talking about, hence the jibberish.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Is english your first language?
You might get more replies if people could figure out what the hell you are talking about.
thats why he included the link...
-
Your hat is on too tight there JBA.
-
Basically, it comes down to the idea that Doctors should be able to decide whether or not to kill those who can't mentally decide whether or not they want to euthanize themselves. I.E. Birth Defect babies, mentally retarded, people in a Coma...
I would read the article again for all those people it encompasses, but I get more pissed off each time I read it.
-
A billboard of Bush upsets you liberal pinheads, however, killing babies does not.
You must be so proud of yourselves.
-
The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.
Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.
I see nothing wrong with this. As a matter of fact, I would find it 'barbaric' to think of it otherwise. (to use your own words)
-
I'd make a coherent reply Rude, but I'm behind on my quota of killed babies today...
I'll talk to you later :)
-
I am proud of myself, a dead fetus is a lot on the black market these days.
-SW
-
"Slippery Slope, Slippery Slope."
What's next?:rolleyes: Who gets to expand/redefine the parameters that this sort of ruling applies to, I wonder. Because you know that over time the rules will change, and not for the better.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I'd make a coherent reply Rude, but I'm behind on my quota of killed babies today...
I'll talk to you later :)
Hiyas Urch!:)
-
Originally posted by JBA
I re-read the article and I'm even angrier then before, you barbaric pigs. :mad:
I agree:
However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.
Pigs indeed! I'd much rather it happend on the sly with out independant review.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
I agree:
However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.
Pigs indeed! I'd much rather it happend on the sly with out independant review.
The United States does nothing even close to what is happening in Europe....an empty accusation with no proof.
I'm waiting stone thrower.
-
I think that "euthanization" of "terminally ill" children to be at best barbaric, and at worst an attempt to play God. Who is to say these children will not recover, or that a cure will be found? Sounds to me that this is more of a state sponsored way to save money as opposed to caring for these poor souls.
for some reason the passage,"forgive them oh Lord, they know not what they do" is running through my head as I type...
Sad day indeed that any would consider the euthanization of any human being.
-
This must be that great socialized medicine everyone speaks about being so great....no wonder it's free.
-
(http://www.scifilm.org/images/soylent2.gif)
-
What do you morons care.. The are from europe.. Why, they might grow up to be terroist one day!
Funny how you righties whine so much.. But... but.. but.. its FOR the children!
I dont read any of you whining for the children killed in Iraqi?? Most of those prolly had 100% of their health too! Fuggin hypocrits!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
(http://www.scifilm.org/images/soylent2.gif)
Mickey D ?
-
Originally posted by Rude
The United States does nothing even close to what is happening in Europe....an empty accusation with no proof.
I'm waiting stone thrower.
Can you give us a proof too ?
2 proofs are better than 1 :D
-
Mickey D ?
Soilent Green! (it"s people)
-
Originally posted by Rude
The United States does nothing even close to what is happening in Europe....an empty accusation with no proof.
I'm waiting stone thrower.
"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."
More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.
-
This thread makes Jebus cry
I call the hypocrite card on you all! How many kittens have YOU made god kill today??
-
There is a significant difference between stopping "measures" sustaining life and "injecting a lethal dose".
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
I see nothing wrong with this. As a matter of fact, I would find it 'barbaric' to think of it otherwise. (to use your own words)
I agree completely
-
If you prefer the dont ask dont tell version of this Rude then say so.
But it sounds like you want a bunch of baby fetuses droped off on your door so that you are convinced it happens in your noble country.
You would much prefer that a baby born without 90% of its brain be fed through tubes forever or left to starve to death..
The world is just to complex for you I guess.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
You would much prefer that a baby born without 90% of its brain be fed through tubes forever or left to starve to death..
I've heard that people use less than 10% of their brains. Posts here have convinced me that we use much less.
-
a baby born without 90% of its brain be fed through tubes forever or left to starve to death.
====
if it has no brain why bother doing anything medically? just harvest the useful organs and throw whats left in the incinerator.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
What do you morons care.. The are from europe.. Why, they might grow up to be terroist one day!
Funny how you righties whine so much.. But... but.. but.. its FOR the children!
I dont read any of you whining for the children killed in Iraqi?? Most of those prolly had 100% of their health too! Fuggin hypocrits!
Are you trying to say something?
BTW....where do you reside?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Can you give us a proof too ?
2 proofs are better than 1 :D
I googled my little heart out and found nothing similar at all to what is happening in Europe....sorry.
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
Soilent Green! (it"s people)
I know :)
It's was named :"green sun" in France, it's his last good film IMO.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
If you prefer the dont ask dont tell version of this Rude then say so.
But it sounds like you want a bunch of baby fetuses droped off on your door so that you are convinced it happens in your noble country.
You would much prefer that a baby born without 90% of its brain be fed through tubes forever or left to starve to death..
The world is just to complex for you I guess.
The choice in this country is the parents, not the government.
Are you saying to us all here that the US practices the same methods as does the netherlands and greater Europe?
-
Originally posted by Rude
I googled my little heart out and found nothing similar at all to what is happening in Europe....sorry.
Make a search only between USA and France for example.
France is also part of EU ,but the laws are different, it's a fallacie to extend what happen in Nederland to the whole EU.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Are you trying to say something?
BTW....where do you reside?
pretty sure i said it.. 8)
What part did you not understand? fuggin or hypocrite? lol
I reside near the free state of Winston county... lmao
Where do you be stay?
-
Rude, IIRC, Dude=Kappa.
As usual and as before, ad hominem is his best and almost only technique.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Rude, IIRC, Dude=Kappa.
As usual and as before, ad hominem is his best and almost only technique.
lol I thought this was very unusual for me.. I was just attempting to be like others here.. Not make any real comments.. Just offer argumentative statements..
But your perception is your reality I guess..
edit.. You whiner..
-
Originally posted by Toad
Rude, IIRC, Dude=Kappa.
As usual and as before, ad hominem is his best and almost only technique.
Ahhh....thank you.
-
Originally posted by Rude
The choice in this country is the parents, not the government.
Are you saying to us all here that the US practices the same methods as does the netherlands and greater Europe?
The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.
edit.. And yes.. I belive he was saying just that..
-
I heard they only did it if the babies head wasn't square enough.
lazs
-
so after they successfully 'Cull the herd' of all of the physical defects they'll be free to start working on mental and emotional issues, right?
what about this baby? she's pretty homely, got that one eye bigger than the other. she'll suffer her whole life, kids'll tease her on the playground (they can be so cruel). she'll probably die an old-maid. she could live that horible existance for 70, 80 years, we need to put her down for her own good. save her from a life of suffering, it'd be barbaric not too. :rolleyes:
not that you need to worry about a slippery slope here, this issue has already gone over the edge.
-
recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns
So what most of what you guys are proposing they should do is either:
a) drug these babies to eyeballs with painkillers so they are vegetables or
b) let the babies die a cruel, painful slow death
Is this correct?
-
What would Hitler have done?
-
Europe is old and wise.
-
Or what would Jesus do?
Surround a premature birth with as much technology as you can fit into a room, and keep it alive artificially... knowing that it will never get beyond where it is now. It doesn't, and hasn't, responded to any treatment since it's birth a few weeks ago.
So.... just... merely being kept alive, because science knows how to do that, at least.
The folks we're talking about are professionals. They're not a bunch of wired hooligans with free run of the hospital's 'good' stash and itching for something to euthanize.
They know when something just is not going to work. Prolly seen it a thousand times, at least.
Should people be forced to subject their children to an apparatus that allows them to maintain a heart beat, and nothing else, just because a heart beat (and nothing else) can be achieved with machines?
So what would Jesus do?
Live and let live. Die and let die. Just a guess. No matter what, everyone winds up in a better place - aint that what they say?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Or what would Jesus do?
The folks we're talking about are professionals. They're not a bunch of wired hooligans with free run of the hospital's 'good' stash and itching for something to euthanize.
LOL.
Hitler was a professional too.
-
Yeah but Hitler had free run of the 'good' stash of his entire country. And he even indulged, as it were.
Come on, don't compare doctors to Hitler.
-
Nash, the doctors are like any other human. Putting that power in their hands is crazy.
-
I guess all I was trying to say is that these docs are people.
And then.... these other people enter into that whole world, with sadly messed up situations.
Some weird **** does go down in hosptials... but it's between the families and the doctors, and it's touchingly human.
I know how easy it could be to read an article like this, and without having gone through anything like it, just start yelling OH DEAR LORD!
But ya know... In those rooms, it's not about political decisions having moral rammifications that ripple throughout the countyside. It's 2,3,4 people... sad and agonizing... trying to decide what they think is right in the face of tragedy. It's personal. The rest doesn't even factor in.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Or what would Jesus do?
Surround a premature birth with as much technology as you can fit into a room, and keep it alive artificially... knowing that it will never get beyond where it is now. It doesn't, and hasn't, responded to any treatment since it's birth a few weeks ago.
So.... just... merely being kept alive, because science knows how to do that, at least.
The folks we're talking about are professionals. They're not a bunch of wired hooligans with free run of the hospital's 'good' stash and itching for something to euthanize.
They know when something just is not going to work. Prolly seen it a thousand times, at least.
Should people be forced to subject their children to an apparatus that allows them to maintain a heart beat, and nothing else, just because a heart beat (and nothing else) can be achieved with machines?
So what would Jesus do?
Live and let live. Die and let die. Just a guess. No matter what, everyone winds up in a better place - aint that what they say?
My god I find myself in total agreement with Nash.
My opinion we play god by keeping by atrificial means the child alive and suffering when the affliction is beyond hope.
If we want God and God alone to play god then we leave it be and let God decide.
this entire aregument of "we're playing God is absurd"
Playing god works both ways.
-
Some children with severe birth defects will die. This blows, but is the truth. What I'm ****ing pissed off about is:
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
Don't bring up this "What would God" / "Don't play god" bull****. All life is precious. We have to help where we can.
However, we should never concede defeat until we are actually beaten. We don't pull that person in a coma off of life support because we feel he might not get better. That remote chance off in the distance is always there.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Some children with severe birth defects will die. This blows, but is the truth. What I'm ****ing pissed off about is:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yea and?
I will never understand why we euthanise animals to put them out of their misery and call it being "humane"
Yet we cant be "humane" and show the same mercy on people
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
quote:
Yea and?
I will never understand why we euthanise animals to put them out of their misery and call it being "humane"
Yet we cant be "humane" and show the same mercy on people
Yeah, if some old person has a bad hip, we should just off them like we would do an old dog. Put them out of their misery and all.
-
I find it funny that the "liberals" here are the ones in favor of offing babies.
I thought human life was more valued by the libs.
What about the American who put the Iraqi insurgent out of his misery? Why was that not an act of mercy?
Liberals are amazing in many ways.
-
Liberals? You conservatives...
If for x, then against y.
There black, here white.
Death penalty, abortion.
Anything not quite as stark, well.... just doesn't seem to compute with yer lot.
-
My lot?
You have no clue what I think.
-
Ok, the lot you attempt to represent here.
-
Nash, you are barking up the wrong tree. I have NEVER claimed to represent anyone other than myself.
I love the hypocricy of some people here. On the one hand, it's okay to let a doctor decide weather or not a baby will get a chance to live, yet the same people say that some dying Iraqi insurgent in a war zone should have the right to live.
And abortion...... liberals are the ones killing babies with no regard for life. It does not compute.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
-
Funny how some folks can't help themselves from taking an issue and framing it liberal vs conservative.
You don't know jack **** about it and all you ever want to do is argue for argument's sake. It's basically why you got booted.
From euthanasia to liberal/conservative to nuke/nash. blah.
laterz
-
There is a difference between terminaly ill and a bad knee. If you can't see that difference... :rolleyes:
PS: Driedock agrees with me? :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Funny how some folks can't help themselves from taking an issue and framing it liberal vs conservative.
You don't know jack **** about it and all you ever want to do is argue for argument's sake. It's basically why you got booted.
From euthanasia to liberal/conservative to nuke/nash. blah.
laterz
Liberals are for abortion and euthanasia, yet Liberals are the ones who claim to be for human rights.
And I got booted for making a personal attack against Gsholtz.
Nash, are you pro abortion? Are you Pro life?
I bet you can't answer those two questions honestly without looking like an idiot.
Ask me my views and I will tell you straight out.
-
"The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best."
Doing it without the parents concent is absolutely unconscionable.
NUKE
"Liberals are for abortion and euthanasia,"
What a rediculous sweeping generalisation. This liberal is not for unrestricted abortion, or euthanasia.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Liberals are for abortion and euthanasia, yet Liberals are the ones who claim to be for human rights.
and cons are pro-life but also pro death penalty. against gov't intervention in your life but against the right to choose to end your own. for a group who claims to want smaller less intrusive gov't, it seems odd that they fully encourage killing people if you can put enough red tape around it, but not in the case of a personal choice.
then there is the whole issue of the republicans big pro-states rights, while against the feds butting in, but then they are fighting like hell against state decisions to allow assisted suicide, and improved medical options for patients (read- medical pot, and the allowing these 'free-market' policies to apply to meds).
it's hilarious reading your implications that it's liberals who are so conflicted. why not both party's? the Conservatives make more sense? the parties are equally fluffied up.
on just about any issue I can think of they take opposing views.
think that one through for a second. . . . if you think the other guys views are inconsistent, and your side takes the opposite view of them on every issue, then by definition you are every bit as mixed up as he is.
-
(http://bluelemur.com/images/stories/thumbbill.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I think that "euthanization" of "terminally ill" children to be at best barbaric, and at worst an attempt to play God. Who is to say these children will not recover, or that a cure will be found? Sounds to me that this is more of a state sponsored way to save money as opposed to caring for these poor souls.
for some reason the passage,"forgive them oh Lord, they know not what they do" is running through my head as I type...
Sad day indeed that any would consider the euthanization of any human being.
I think keeping people in pain and unecessary suffering to assuage some sort of personal religious guilt trip or principle is the barbaric option.
As to "playing god" - I call hypocrite: any medical treatment that saves a life is as much "playing the gaseous vertebrate of astronomical heft" as euthanasia. Who is to say the people treated weren't meant to die?
Keeping some poor kid in agony on the "off chance" they may develop a cure (it takes about 10 years for a cure to get to the "can be used on patients" stage) is just cruel. The options are realisitically: should we kill the kid now or torture them for a while until they die?
It's always puzzled me how the right wingers on this board are all so gung ho about protecting the unwanted/disabled/terminally ill babies and unborn, although they don't seem to want to spend a penny on looking after them once they grow up. I'm not sure what the cut-off age is.
It's even more puzzling in light of their support of the Invasion of Iraq, with it's attendent slaughter of thousands of civilians and the US-led sanctions that supposedly led to death of thousands of Iraqi babies. Surely a bunch of people that justifies the killing of so many on such flimsy pretexts should be able to righteously rest easy over the thought of a few more babies killed for a good cause?
And in the end if Euthanasia requires the parent's consent, you can still implement the drawn out torture you desire for your loved ones, if when it actually happens you have the stomach for it.
I've seen the results, I've looked into one of my family's eye as he desperately wanted out, but the good Xians of the hospital and the government kept him alive in unfathomable agony for three long, awful days to salve their precious little consciences. That, my dear Bodhi, is barbarism.
There should always be options available, and they should all be out in the open. Because real life events never seem to fit those off-the-peg moralities and ethics.
-
I wonder if any of those posting here about this 'barbirism' are the same people aspiring to keep the US out of Iraq or other dictatorships such that people like Saddam could've continued on. Wouldn't that be ironic... ie jump up and down about a Doctor letting a terminally ill child in massive pain die peacefully versus lets let a dictator who gasses his own people go on unimpeded.
-
Great post, Dead.
To all the 'I have morals when it suits my agenda'.... a vibrant <>.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Great post, Dead.
Agreed, it was spot on.
-
Awesome Cpt. Apathy and Dead! My thoughts exactly but you guys write it ohhhh so much more eloquently.
-
probly if they can't survive on their own then they should be allowed to die if that is the parents wish.... or.... euathanized if their heads aren't square enough.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
My lot?
You have no clue what I think.
After reading some of your posts on the matter and to mine in particular. On this matter Im not entirely positive you "think" at all
But to respond to your post.
IF said persons hip couldnt be repaired/replaced and leaving them that way would leave them in nothing but excruciating pain for the rest of their lives, then my answer would be,
Yes. if thats what they wanted.
But we're not talking about things that can be cured or repaired. We are talking about the hopeless.
This whole "Playing God" routine is nothing more then rhetoric.
We "play God" every day by artifically keeping people alive and suffering no matter how hopeless the situation that "God" would otherwise let die.
If we didnt "play god" we wouldnt do anything one way or the other.
and lets be real honest for a second here.
We dont keep these people alive for them. It isnt about them at all
We do it for ourselves. Because WE cant bear the thought of letting go of these people even if it is hopeless and no matter how badly they may be suffering.
We make these decisions for animals because they cant make it for themselves.
But we dont show the same mercy, the same...Humanity to humans when they cant make that decision for themselves.
-
it's just abortion taken to the next step..
just a "choice" right??
not murder or anything ..... just a "choice"
-
If the law only allows it to be done in extreme cases, then it seems like a fine system to me.
I wouldn't wish to see my child suffer for the whole life, which could be at the best couple of years, while unable to do or realise anything.
It'd be like torturing to keep the child in life support or other extreme devices, which doesn't help the child to live any longer or better.
-
Just for the record. lest anyone try pinning one of these moronic conservative or liberal lables on me
Im pro mercy, on this subject.
Im Pro Iraq
Pro Death penalty in cases where guilt is undenyable
And I wouldnt say I am pro abortion but I would say I am pro choice.
That is leaving it up for each individual to decide even though for myself personally I wouldnt advise someone else to do it.
Im also for keeping the word "under god" in the pledge and on our money.
Im against affermative action but for fair and equal treatment for all reguardless of race.
Im against political correctness and for free speach
Im against obscene TV programming during prime time hours but for free speach and beleive pornography falls under that catagory
As someone sle mentioned, Nothng is ever black and white. this or that.
What is needed is common freaking sence which is the least common of the sences I ever see used
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it's just abortion taken to the next step..
just a "choice" right??
not murder or anything ..... just a "choice"
right its a "choce" between mercy and sadism
-
Originally posted by Nash
Or what would Jesus do?
Is that a serious question? Jesus healed many. He certainly never told anyone they would be better off dead. Well, except for those that would harm a child.
-
What would John Wayne do?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
What would John Wayne do?
-SW
there ya go!
NOW your talk'n LOL
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
What would John Wayne do?
-SW
He'd ask something along the lines of..
[johnwayne]Well, is that a paraplegic on life-support I see before me, or is it?[/johnwayne]
Then he'd waste no time and smoke that retard!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Is that a serious question? Jesus healed many. He certainly never told anyone they would be better off dead. Well, except for those that would harm a child.
He said no such thing. Quote the scripture brother iron!
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
He said no such thing. Quote the scripture brother iron!
Ask and ye shall receive.
"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believed in me, it were better for him that millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6
-
I have a great idea....
Once anyone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, just put them down like an animal. Why risk having them suffer needlessly while racking up the healthcare costs for others? makes sense to me.
Say you have a ten year old son and he is diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor with no chance of survival. Well, maybe the doctors can just put him out of his misery for you.
Make no mistake about it though....only doctors can decide because they went to medical school and everything.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Ask and ye shall receive.
"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believed in me, it were better for him that millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6
Well, I'll be brutha Iron! Quoted straight from king james himself..
As I recall this is in the context of the man with a heart like a child. I dont think Jebus was singling out children..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Well, I'll be brutha Iron! Quoted straight from king james himself..
As I recall this is in the context of the man with a heart like a child. I dont think Jebus was singling out children..
Maybe you should read a bit more for context then. Jesus said this when he was with some children.
Bu what you said may apply also.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have a great idea....
Once anyone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, just put them down like an animal. Why risk having them suffer needlessly while racking up the healthcare costs for others? makes sense to me.
Say you have a ten year old son and he is diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor with no chance of survival. Well, maybe the doctors can just put him out of his misery for you.
Make no mistake about it though....only doctors can decide because they went to medical school and everything.
Excellent idea Nuke!
How about this one..
Lets start DNA testing early age children and attempt to ascertain the odds of them contracting some type disease later in life. If they have a chance of contracting some type illness, lets just 'medically' save them at an early age! Could be the best chance the human race has at wiping out disease.. We simply remove the host bodies!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe you should read a bit more for context then. Jesus said this when he was with some children.
Bu what you said may apply also.
humm I suppose you could be right.. Dunno.. guess its all how you look at it.. Heres abit of what I found:
1 At that time the disciples 2 approached Jesus and said, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2
He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3
and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, 3 you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4
Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5
4 And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
hehe that wonderful bible! Woe unto you whomever forget this:
8
If your hand or foot causes you to sin, 7 cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.
9
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.
10
8 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, 9 for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
humm I suppose you could be right.. Dunno.. guess its all how you look at it.. Heres abit of what I found:
1 At that time the disciples 2 approached Jesus and said, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2
He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3
and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, 3 you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4
Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5
4 And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
hehe that wonderful bible! Woe unto you whomever forget this:
8
If your hand or foot causes you to sin, 7 cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.
9
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.
10
8 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, 9 for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.
Any of this make it's way into your heart or is it just a google thing?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Any of this make it's way into your heart or is it just a google thing?
My heart has been down the blind devotion road.. I even have some pictures.
breathe like it's rolling like a cold front
thunder is thundering and lightening in tow
and your tiny little life gets
even smaller
as you heed the heaven's mighty show
and I don't mean heaven
like god-like
the animal in me knows very well
nature is our teacher, our leader, and our lover
and god is just another story that we tell
Christianity could not possibly be the right and only road..
btw Rude, you got all your feet and hands? Did any of that make it into your heart?? Or, are you man without sin?
-
There is nothing about me that is righteous....I have my faith and it is mine.
-
Originally posted by Rude
There is nothing about me that is righteous....I have my faith and it is mine.
that is well said.
stoped me in my tracks. quote of the day for sure.
-
Originally posted by Rude
There is nothing about me that is righteous....I have my faith and it is mine.
That's fine, but when you force it on everyone else, you become righteous
-
Originally posted by Rude
The choice in this country is the parents, not the government.
Are you saying to us all here that the US practices the same methods as does the netherlands and greater Europe?
That is fine, as long as you know that you are asking your doctors to commit a crime if the parents ask. That is what your saying. The netherlands..those mean old baby killers..are just trying to clarify that if doctors have to do this..like they have to all over the world..they will not be criminals.
Its your choice I guess. But it sounds like your acknoledging that this does happen in the US, in numbers probably identical to Europe..and that you condone it but - want to keep it illegal..
is that right?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Ask and ye shall receive.
"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believed in me, it were better for him that millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6
Wow, we got Ned Flanders in here.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
But we're not talking about things that can be cured or repaired. We are talking about the hopeless.
This whole "Playing God" routine is nothing more then rhetoric.
We "play God" every day by artifically keeping people alive and suffering no matter how hopeless the situation that "God" would otherwise let die.
If we didnt "play god" we wouldnt do anything one way or the other.
and lets be real honest for a second here.
We dont keep these people alive for them. It isnt about them at all
We do it for ourselves. Because WE cant bear the thought of letting go of these people even if it is hopeless and no matter how badly they may be suffering.
We make these decisions for animals because they cant make it for themselves.
But we dont show the same mercy, the same...Humanity to humans when they cant make that decision for themselves.
The voice of reason. TY.
The rest is just BS bias religion driven, and what will make you feel better about yourselves, while making the suffering, suffer for your skewed beliefs.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Say you have a ten year old son and he is diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor with no chance of survival. Well, maybe the doctors can just put him out of his misery for you.
Make no mistake about it though....only doctors can decide because they went to medical school and everything.
Have you ever watched a child die from a brain tumor? There comes a point at which it is senseless to force the child to continue to suffer. For example, when they are paralyzed, unable to eat, and in constant pain despite continuous narcotics. Or when the only time they come out of a coma is to have a seizure.
Nobody is arguing for euthanizing someone when they still have a good quality of life or based only on the doctor’s decision, against the patient’s or guardian’s wishes – those strawdogs won’t hunt. But at some point it becomes clear that the patient will soon die regardless of any intervention. The only choice is how much they will be forced to suffer until this happens.
-
Jesus healed the dying, technology only prolongs the suffering of the dying.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Pongo
That is fine, as long as you know that you are asking your doctors to commit a crime if the parents ask. That is what your saying. The netherlands..those mean old baby killers..are just trying to clarify that if doctors have to do this..like they have to all over the world..they will not be criminals.
Its your choice I guess. But it sounds like your acknoledging that this does happen in the US, in numbers probably identical to Europe..and that you condone it but - want to keep it illegal..
is that right?
Again, you do not understand.
Killing anything out of convenience or for fiscally motivated reasons is wrong.
In this country, we unplug machines at the behest of family, allowing nature to take it's course....that's a big difference from a Kavorkian styled injection which kills the patient.
-
Nash brought Jesus into this. Jesus would not pull the plug or inject the poison but rather make people whole. He did it then and I believe he still does it today.
-
fk the dutch
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
eurotards
let us us decide ur politics
stupid woodenclump walkin cheese heads
holland really really suks
:mad: :mad:
-
"Again, you do not understand.
Killing anything out of convenience or for fiscally motivated reasons is wrong.
In this country, we unplug machines at the behest of family, allowing nature to take it's course....that's a big difference from a Kavorkian styled injection which kills the patient."
again. I understand perfectly. Can a family in the US force thier insurer to pay 600 000 per year for life to keep a baby alive that is born with out most of its brain? Do your medical plans cover that?
I would doubt that they can.
You think its more humane to allow such a baby to starve to death by not feeding it then to kill it with an injection of some sort.
You deny apperently that such a thing would happen in the US. It happens. Either that or there are 100s or babys pluged into machines for life.
Basically you dont know what your talking about. You make it sound like the Euros are evil because they are being humane, like they are evil for clarifying for thier medical practitioners what the guidlines are so they dont have to play god.
Rude, babys are born with uncurable ailments that will start to kill them the second the conection to the mother is cut. Its not a huge number but it is incurrable and not a quick death. They can breath and their nervous system works but they have no moter control or language or sight- they just exist. They are born that way in every country to every people of every religios faith and every political party.
And all those groups deal with it the only way they can. You dont let the child starve to death over several weeks. You end its life.
You have to grow up and accept this and that it happens in your country and god fearing republican doctors do it for god fearing republican patients. You would do it. The doctor is not a murderer. A policy that acknoledges that is not evil.
If the parents in the States were so selfish as to want thier child to stay alive in such a circumstance or would prefer they slowly starved to death then they would be able to do that if they could pay the bill. I am sure that in the Netherlands the same is true.
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.
All this hate for Euros is just hillarios.
-
I tend towards allowing the end of needless suffering but the slippery slope admonition is appropriate. It was observed long ago that "what parents allow in moderation their children will do in excess".
-
Life is amazing. It's amazing how it works. Just how awesome it is is taken for granted by most people because they have it.
IMO, I'd be willing to go through years of pain, just to have life at the end. But that's just me.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I tend towards allowing the end of needless suffering but the slippery slope admonition is appropriate. It was observed long ago that "what parents allow in moderation their children will do in excess".
I've never heard that but it does tend to make sense and is also a good point. However, like most things it is not simply black and white. I have to believe that in most cases human morality would stop the slide into situations such as the extremeties addressed in this thread. But still a good point..
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Life is amazing. It's amazing how it works. Just how awesome it is is taken for granted by most people because they have it.
IMO, I'd be willing to go through years of pain, just to have life at the end. But that's just me.
I'm curious.. Life at the end of what?
What is discussed here are terminal illnesses..
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it's just abortion taken to the next step..
just a "choice" right??
not murder or anything ..... just a "choice"
Dohhh ....
In no way it's related to abortion, how come a newborn can be a newborn if it's was "aborted" ?
Originally posted by Rude
I googled my little heart out and found nothing similar at all to what is happening in Europe....sorry.
I'm still waiting Rude.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"Again, you do not understand.
Killing anything out of convenience or for fiscally motivated reasons is wrong.
In this country, we unplug machines at the behest of family, allowing nature to take it's course....that's a big difference from a Kavorkian styled injection which kills the patient."
again. I understand perfectly. Can a family in the US force thier insurer to pay 600 000 per year for life to keep a baby alive that is born with out most of its brain? Do your medical plans cover that?
I would doubt that they can.
You think its more humane to allow such a baby to starve to death by not feeding it then to kill it with an injection of some sort.
You deny apperently that such a thing would happen in the US. It happens. Either that or there are 100s or babys pluged into machines for life.
Basically you dont know what your talking about. You make it sound like the Euros are evil because they are being humane, like they are evil for clarifying for thier medical practitioners what the guidlines are so they dont have to play god.
Rude, babys are born with uncurable ailments that will start to kill them the second the conection to the mother is cut. Its not a huge number but it is incurrable and not a quick death. They can breath and their nervous system works but they have no moter control or language or sight- they just exist. They are born that way in every country to every people of every religios faith and every political party.
And all those groups deal with it the only way they can. You dont let the child starve to death over several weeks. You end its life.
You have to grow up and accept this and that it happens in your country and god fearing republican doctors do it for god fearing republican patients. You would do it. The doctor is not a murderer. A policy that acknoledges that is not evil.
If the parents in the States were so selfish as to want thier child to stay alive in such a circumstance or would prefer they slowly starved to death then they would be able to do that if they could pay the bill. I am sure that in the Netherlands the same is true.
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.
All this hate for Euros is just hillarios.
Interesting how you would lecture me on the real world....you know nothing of me or my life experiences....I've experience more death than you will ever know, so you can save your crap for someone else.
Life is tough....things happen everyday out of our control....you want to put your child down like you would a dog, knock yourself out.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that in most cases, the vast majority of incurable illnesses which lead to death cause the human body to turn itself off prior to death....the sufferring you imagine is rare and pain management is not the same as terminating by injection, someone who is sick.
I don't hate anyone....especially you. My country has given liberally to most of the world....I wish we would stop. The return on that investment has been poor as evidenced by yours and others postings on this BBS.
Done.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Dohhh ....
In no way it's related to abortion, how come a newborn can be a newborn if it's was "aborted" ?
I'm still waiting Rude.
Waiting for what?
-
Rude
What has this got to do with your countries "great" sacrifices for the world? What kind of a wierd desperate twist is that.
The human body might behave like you say. Convienent for you if it always does. But it doenst always. and what do you do then?
I will take this total change of tract from defending your position to whining about how the US isnt loved enougth as admition of the hollowness of your view.
-
In the USA there is a kind of random abortion
it's called
"The right to own and carry a weapon"
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
In the USA there is a kind of random abortion
it's called
"The right to own and carry a weapon"
lmao
-
Originally posted by Rude
Waiting for what?
A conclusive proof of the horrible behaviour of the European as a whole
Like you wrote here :
Originally posted by Rude
The United States does nothing even close to what is happening in Europe....an empty accusation with no proof.
I'm waiting stone thrower.
We are not one nation under god.
-
Originally posted by Rude
In this country, we unplug machines at the behest of family, allowing nature to take it's course....that's a big difference from a Kavorkian styled injection which kills the patient.
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?
-
so it's all about "Suffering"?
no one should "suffer" eh?
ever?
who draws this line on "suffering"?
I always thought suffering was part of life ... all part of your karma journey
-
Originally posted by myelo
Why is this “letting nature take it’s course” while the first example isn’t?
Just a wild guess here, but I'll take a shot.
Because the baby in question is NOT terminally ill and is a fully viable life if given "standard" nutritional child care?
How'd I do?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just a wild guess here, but I'll take a shot.
Because the baby in question is NOT terminally ill and is a fully viable life if given "standard" nutritional child care?
How'd I do?
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?
-
How soon would you euros pull the plug on Steven Hawkins, or Chris Reeves?
The article also states "retarded" so how about downs syndrome, or autism.
You secularist have gotten yourselves into this "it's not convenient" trap how soon before you start offing the elderly, because they wet themselves and can't feed them selves?
-
Originally posted by JBA
How soon would you euros pull the plug on Steven Hawkins, or Chris Reeves?
The article also states "retarded" so how about downs syndrome, or autism.
You secularist have gotten yourselves into this "it's not convenient" trap how soon before you start offing the elderly, because they wet themselves and can't feed them selves?
Maybe right after we start offing folk with silly black hats?? lmao joking...
-
Originally posted by JBA
How soon would you euros pull the plug on Steven Hawkins, or Chris Reeves?
The article also states "retarded" so how about downs syndrome, or autism.
You secularist have gotten yourselves into this "it's not convenient" trap how soon before you start offing the elderly, because they wet themselves and can't feed them selves?
FYI Reeves is already dead.
Both Hawkins and Reeves are not newborn.
It's not "retarded" but " the severely mentally retarded"
elderly <> newborn.
-
What is scary is that you will see people agrue for this yet be against the death penalty.... :eek:
-
Its shameful how some people here use such tragic arguments only as an euro-bash opportunity.
Its enough to make one sick
:mad:
-
The anti-European sentiment from the same whingers who whine about anti-Americanism is there for all to see in this thread.
What a bunch of hypocritical bananas.
-
Originally posted by straffo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rude
Waiting for what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conclusive proof of the horrible behavior of the European as a whole
Like you wrote here :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rude
The United States does nothing even close to what is happening in Europe....an empty accusation with no proof.
I'm waiting stone thrower.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not one nation under god.
where is he euro bashing, where did he speak of the behavior of the Europeans as a whole (as you accuse)?
people made the accusation this is also happening in America. he asked for proof of that accusation. and said we have nothing going on close to what is going on in Europe.
did he say all of Europe? things done by every citizen of every European country?
no, he said "........going on in Europe". the Netherlands is in Europe, right?
so, anything that is done in the Netherlands, even something that only happens there, only happened once, and only was done by one person, still is something that happens in Europe.
frogs have thin skins, don't get your panties in a bunch.
-
Originally posted by myelo
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." ?
In the case of the newborn, you have a viable, functioning body that merely needs nutrition. I further assume you are dealing here with a life that has not reached "the age of reason", one which can't think rationally for itself prior to the situation.
In the case of the terminally ill patient, you do NOT have a viable functioning body and there is no "solution" to the problem. The patient is going to die regardless of treatment.
The road begins to fork here. Is this patient of the age of reason? Did this patient utilize a living will? Has the patient made his/her desires known?
Or is the patient younger than the age of reason?
Who decides when there is no hope? Who decides when to give in? Some terminal diseases take quite a while to kill; when is it "ok" to allow the patient to pull his own plug? The first day you know there's no hope, or sometime later?
In short, I see no "pat" answers.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so it's all about "Suffering"?
no one should "suffer" eh?
ever?
who draws this line on "suffering"?
I always thought suffering was part of life ... all part of your karma journey
Suffering is a part of life.
But no one should be forced to suffer needlessly when the outcome is certain
Then again. Maybe your right
Let em suffer :rolleyes:
(http://b0g.org/wsnm/uploads/deformed1.jpg)
(http://b0g.org/wsnm/uploads/deformed2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so it's all about "Suffering"?
no one should "suffer" eh?
ever?
who draws this line on "suffering"?
I always thought suffering was part of life ... all part of your karma journey
so no matter what. according to you no matter how bad the pain, no matter how much the suffering.
anyone should be made to endure that pain and suffering without hope, artifically if need be
And you think THAT is not playing God?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
who draws this line on "suffering"?
The family, not the government
-
Originally posted by soda72
What is scary is that you will see people agrue for this yet be against the death penalty.... :eek:
I know, that's what i said in the first post.
-
Originally posted by soda72
What is scary is that you will see people agrue for this yet be against the death penalty.... :eek:
What is scary is that you equate it with the death penalty.
-
Infant mortality rates in the Netherlands is 4.2/1000, in the US it's 6.7/1000, something doesn't jive.
Heck, DC has a higher rate of infant mortality than Havana.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
where is he euro bashing, where did he speak of the behavior of the Europeans as a whole (as you accuse)?
people made the accusation this is also happening in America. he asked for proof of that accusation. and said we have nothing going on close to what is going on in Europe.
did he say all of Europe? things done by every citizen of every European country?
no, he said "........going on in Europe". the Netherlands is in Europe, right?
so, anything that is done in the Netherlands, even something that only happens there, only happened once, and only was done by one person, still is something that happens in Europe.
frogs have thin skins, don't get your panties in a bunch.
I'm pretty sure when Rude posted about Europe he was including Belgium England France etc.
It's still a logical fallacious argument to extend what happen in one country to a continent
Can I post about america when something happen in Chilli ? my guess is : no.
You missed this :
Originally posted by Rude
I googled my little heart out and found nothing similar at all to what is happening in Europe....sorry.
-
Originally posted by JBA
How soon would you euros pull the plug on Steven Hawkins, or Chris Reeves?
The article also states "retarded" so how about downs syndrome, or autism.
You secularist have gotten yourselves into this "it's not convenient" trap how soon before you start offing the elderly, because they wet themselves and can't feed them selves?
Maybe because Reeves and Hawkins had/have a fully functioning brain and weren't/aren't willing to die.
Try again.
Another proof that blind religious faith and logic don't mix well.
-
"In the USA there is a kind of random abortion
it's called
The right to own and carry a weapon"
wow... so now guns are causing abortions? What kinda gun does that? Or is it just an accessory you can buy for guns? would really increase sales of firearms if it were any good.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Seeing how "with no free will" and "severely mentally retarded" were among the qualifiers, I can understand how this frightens the extreme right-wing Americans. ;)
lmao gs! Thats damn funny!
-
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
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'm pretty sure when Rude posted about Europe he was including Belgium England France etc.
It's still a logical fallacious argument to extend what happen in one country to a continent
Can I post about america when something happen in Chilli ? my guess is : no.
You missed this :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rude
I googled my little heart out and found nothing similar at all to what is happening in Europe....sorry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no I didn't miss that quote. again, the Netherlands is in Europe, right?
I know you're pretty sure that he meant it to include all those other countries, I just curious if he actually said this or are you just imagining the insults. do you actually have a quote that backs up your feeling?
what would you think of a guy from Chilli who gets offended if you complain about Americas involvement in Iraq? "I'm from Chilli, it's in the America's, we had nothing to do with Iraq"
Rude and I don't agree on every topic, but he's a fairly direct fellow. I'm pretty sure if he'd have intended to insult your country he'd have listed it specifically.
for the record and to avoid any future confusion- when I get frustrated with the people I share this planet with and mention how fluffied up the world has become, I don't mean that as a specific insult to any little tiny country in some corner of the world I've never been too. it's only meant to refer to the people or places we are discussing at the time it comes up.
-
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..... :rolleyes:
-
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.
:eek:
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.
-
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....
-
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..... :rolleyes:
Burden on society I believe is your made up criteria. I failed to see that mentioned in the sited article..
-
only a putz like gshmoltz could compare infants born with tragic and terminal birth defects to islamic terrorist insurgents in iraq.
-
Yeager are you a christian?
-
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.
-
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?
-
"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
-
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.
-
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 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."
-
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..
-
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
-
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.
-
okie dokie.... personaly... I lean toward letting the parents decide on life support or not.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rude
You seriously cannot tell the difference between your two examples?
The difference between killing a patient by withholding food and water and killing a patient at their request by an overdose of anesthetic ?
Yeah, I can tell the difference. The first is acceptable right now and the second is not.
One other difference is that one is more humane than the other. Guess which one?
-
Originally posted by Rude
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.
It's the patient who decides, or the patient's family depending on the circumstances. At least that's how I would want it.
Originally posted by Rude
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.
Fair enough. Of course the problem is because of imposition of the moral and religious beliefs of others, neither I nor my family could carry out a humane euthanasia in the event that became necessary. But life’s not fair, so who says death has to be.
Just in case you don’t already have these, make sure you have a living will AND advances directive that describes your wishes regarding advance life support.
-
murder (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4091991.stm)
-
How so would you have killed this child?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=28372
-
Originally posted by JBA
How so would you have killed this child?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=28372
I see that definition of "terminally ill" escapes you...
-
Originally posted by JBA
How so would you have killed this child?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=28372
Ya know in a world where some people abort perfectly healthy babies by the thousands every year.
And then you see something like this and it really makes you thankfull.
These two parents are some of the bravest heroic people i have ever seen to them.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Is english your first language?
You might get more replies if people could figure out what the hell you are talking about.
:lol :rofl
So, Urchin, tell us what you really feel
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Sad day indeed that any would consider the euthanization of any human being.
Kinda like shooting an injured Iraqi teenager that is too far gone to be saved..grow up you wussies....:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What is needed is common freaking sence which is the least common of the sences I ever see used
...well, don't go looking for common sense here, you freaking neo-con liberal....:D
-
red bottom.... nope... not much like one teenager from one sides army shooting another teenager from the oppossing side.
so do they use a tool to check if the heads are square enough or is it just a judgement call?
lazs
-
GScholz, yes it is happening to Terri, and look at how much press, candlelight vigils, other demonstrations, and court proceedings the issue causes.
They having any of that in the Nederlands?
The ball is in your court.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
I see nothing wrong with this. As a matter of fact, I would find it 'barbaric' to think of it otherwise. (to use your own words)
Baaaad Baaad christian you are :D
-
These two parents are some of the bravest heroic people i have ever seen to them.
They effectively condemned thier child to a lifelong misery and suffering.
Already 14 painful operations with no option to live a normal life, ever. Worst part is that her brain is normal so she will suffer just like any other person would with this horrible defect.
She'll be mocked and avoided at school. Adults will stare, other kids will tease her. She'll most likely never end up in a romantic relationship. Her life will be filled with shame and misery, cast out from society. Most people with defects such as that never leave thier homes when they become adults. The pressure of the outside world gets too hard on them.
Many commit suicide later (if they're lucky enough to have ability to do so.)
If my child would be diagnosed with something like that during pregnancy, I'd want to abort it for sure. No question about it.
If the baby grows old enough to be born, it's a horrific tragedy to all parties, mostly to the child itself.