Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’

Originally posted by LostSailor

Wait a minute... Wasn't it you that pretty much began this debate with your inhuman comments I quoted here?

What does this comment have to do with the hysterical nature of some of the posts here?

N O T H I N G .

Originally posted by Bibliophile
Quality of life should always take precedence over quantity. Realistically, the severely handicapped are a drain on resources.

The Dutch are a progressive people. They think long-range and shape their policies accordingly. Their take on the value of human life and the importance of human dignity is not all that unusual for Europe, a scientifically advanced area of the world.

It is unfortunate that the US is still so mired in mysticism that it, proverbially, cannot see the forest for the trees.

Comment: The Dutch are in the middle of a banking empire, read NWO, they are not necessarily a progressive people at all. Since when is basic morality "mysticism," well I take it when agents of the NWO infiltrate Churches and radicalize them into inept statements. This happened for the Islamics hundreds of years ago with the introduction the British Agent Wahhab who disrupted the sweet and happy house that used to be Islam. You cannot trust anyone anymore because of these COINTELPRO operations. The tactics and long range Strategy is the boil the frog gradually method, one immoral step at a time. Baby Euthanasia is wrong, just as wrong as withholding pain medication from terminally ill patients, then introducing canned Euthanasia laws in Oregon, then transforming them into legally operating entities supported by the Supreme Court. Have a happy payday, all you Euthanasia supporters and posters, but remember in a few years how many more steps to immorality the NWO takes. Don't you feel warm and good inside?

Originally posted by SkipShipman

[1]Comment: The Dutch are in the middle of a banking empire, read NWO, they are not necessarily a progressive people at all. Since when is basic morality "mysticism," well I take it when agents of the NWO infiltrate Churches and radicalize them into inept statements. This happened for the Islamics hundreds of years ago with the introduction the British Agent Wahhab who disrupted the sweet and happy house that used to be Islam. You cannot trust anyone anymore because of these COINTELPRO operations. The tactics and long range Strategy is the boil the frog gradually method, one immoral step at a time. [2]Baby Euthanasia is wrong, just as wrong as withholding pain medication from terminally ill patients, then introducing canned Euthanasia laws in Oregon, then transforming them into legally operating entities supported by the Supreme Court. Have a happy payday, all you Euthanasia supporters and posters, but remember in a few years how many more steps to immorality the NWO takes. [3]Don't you feel warm and good inside?

1. I refuse to participate in and encourage your paranoia.

2. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine as well.

3. Yes, I feel fine. I have a progressive view of life, whereas, the same cannot be said of many of my fellow Americans.

There are a number of reasons the United States is reviled by the rest of the world. In this thread we are discussing one of those reasons - embarrassingly draconian attitudes.

The US will continue to decline in the eyes of other nations as long as it holds fast to archaic concepts. Saving life for the sake of life is absurd. The Dutch recognize this and the parents of the child in question were legally able to embrace a difficult but pragmatic decision because of it.

Allowing their child to die as dignified a death as possible was a noble act of compassion. Their decision was far more compassionate than allowing her to continue living in agony.

As I have repeatedly stated in previous posts, this is pure and simple S A D I S M -

The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.

There is nothing else you can call an act which demands a baby already doomed to die should suffer in this way.

[edit on 3/10/2006 by Bibliophile]

So, why would the NWO want to start eliminating people from our world?

overpopulation and the shortage of resources?

seems to me, that in the past another fine tool has been used to do this, namely WAR, simple random mass killing of people...the gifted and strong as well as the weak and not so well endowed. who should die, or who should live in such a set up is decided only by fate, or God or whatever you chose to. children, babies, men and women still die, but we mortal humans have little control over the who or the how......instead of babies dying peacebly in the arms of their loving parents, they are instead blown to bits along with their parents.

or there is another alternative, we could just let fate have her way from the beginning, the resources will dry up, those who hold the power will still be the greedy creeps that they are taking more than they deserve, and the weak will go without food, waste away, become living skeletons, and eventually die.

of course there is a third alternative, but for some reason religion has seemed strongly against it, that is a strong wordlwide educational policy of birth control education along with the empowerment of women to decide just what happens to her body....and no, I am not talking about abortion here, I am talking about what happens pre-conception. the abstinance only message is worthless to women in many third world nations since the women have no right to say no to the men in such regards.

my first preference would be the third alternative, allowing all women in the world to have the power to decide her own future, with a good solid education as to how to avoid pregnacy and why she should avoid it until ready to procreate, and then procreating only in limited numbers. and well, if I had my preference as to who should go it would be the greedy sob's who think they deserve so much more of everything than others! I would try to control their greed in some way, and make sure the resources were passed around in a more fair manner.

as far as the other three alternatives, there is no good choice amounst them and I disagree that any one is that much better to the others. But giving the option of having a child dying peacably in their mothers arms or being blown to bits in a stupid war well, which one sounds more pleasing to you?

[edit on 10-3-2006 by dawnstar]

dawnstar -

That was an excellent post. Your point about war is particularly relevant at this time.

Bibliophile

Originally posted by Bibliophile

Originally posted by SkipShipman

[1]Comment: The Dutch are in the middle of a banking empire, read NWO, they are not necessarily a progressive people at all. Since when is basic morality "mysticism," well I take it when agents of the NWO infiltrate Churches and radicalize them into inept statements. This happened for the Islamics hundreds of years ago with the introduction the British Agent Wahhab who disrupted the sweet and happy house that used to be Islam. You cannot trust anyone anymore because of these COINTELPRO operations. The tactics and long range Strategy is the boil the frog gradually method, one immoral step at a time. [2]Baby Euthanasia is wrong, just as wrong as withholding pain medication from terminally ill patients, then introducing canned Euthanasia laws in Oregon, then transforming them into legally operating entities supported by the Supreme Court. Have a happy payday, all you Euthanasia supporters and posters, but remember in a few years how many more steps to immorality the NWO takes. [3]Don't you feel warm and good inside?

1. I refuse to participate in and encourage your paranoia.

2. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine as well.

3. Yes, I feel fine. I have a progressive view of life, whereas, the same cannot be said of many of my fellow Americans.

Comment: Everything in 1.) as you list is can be proved with a simple Google search, weeding out nutter butter web sites of course. But on another score take Prince Philip saying "In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." If you think the Royals are powerless, think again because they own the very tabloids that criticize them. I think they are much more powerful and avoid "conspicuous consumption," keeping a low profile. Ad Hominem sayings as "paranoia," which actually means "meglomania," not fearsome ranting, cannot erase facts. Please do more research Wahhab is extensively documented. On 2. agreed. On 3.) how wonderful.

It is strange that abortions which science is proving to cause considerable pain to the budding infant, are a forte for progressives. Do your own Google, if you will. At the same time one is contemplating a living infant as having some incurable and painful disease, when medical science is advancing daily. Pain control is possible, so what is the argument?

So medical science one day fixes the problem, what then? Is euphemized infanticide such a good thing? You can call me the boogie man, or the paranoid cowboy, or whatever you want. After all it's a free country isn't it? Nothing changes the hard data.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by SkipShipman]

I love the fact that today's "evidence" is synonymous with "Google".

So, you ask, WHAT is the ULTIMATE miracle? Well, as you may have surmised, I do not believe in nor do I accept the claim anyone has or can perform a Miracle. All the more so a dead person. We heard how Isaiah lighted an alter fire on wood that had been soaked in water. We heard how Joshua had his warriors blow the ram’s horn and the city walls of Jericho collapsed. We have heard how Moses lifted his walking stick and the Red Sea opened for the Israelites to cross on dry land. But in our heart of hearts, we know those were fanciful stories. A tradition. “My father can whip your father.” 4th-5th grade playground machismo. Tall tales told around a campfire at night. Finally, someone wrote the stories down and another person says, “Hey, that’s how it happened!” Religion was born.

So what’s the ULTIMATE miracle?

The restoration of a missing limb.

Never claimed in the Holy Writ. Never claimed in all the miracles of Lourdes, Guadalupe or Fatima. Raise the dead? Yes. Restore sight to the blind? Yes. Make cripples walk? Yes. Cast out demons, into pigs? Yes.

But put back - restore - a limb? NEVER.

Originally posted by The time lord
I know Jesus was pro-life . . He revived a dead person . . put new eyes in another person . . If they believe put God to a test . . maybe you should ask God . . why He did that? . . keep the child alive . . something new in medicine could come . . maybe something positive is coming by making us aware of this issue. [Edited by Don W]

Speculation, T/L, well intended, but pure speculation. Coupled with avoidance. I call that denial. I you don’t want to be the one who pulls the “trigger” or the plug, then at least stay out of it. Let those who appreciate the consequences do their duty. Humanely.

Mod Edit: Fixed BB Code.


[edit on 13/3/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by FredT
As noted above, the inital intent of this law is being twisted into some sort of NAZI era eugenics theme where if the slightest thing is not perfect, the child is going to be put down. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. We are talking about infants with incurable / terminal diseases and are basicaly living a life where they know nothing but pain. THAT is what they are discussing......

But along those lines, Fred, we have to consider the reality of such rammifications of allowing infant euthanasia. We have to consider we are deciding to allow people to choose to end another's life. So along those lines I do not think it is hysterical for some to suppose or to ask where such acts, thoughts and processes could, might, or may lead eventually.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone we are all born terminal.

Now I realize in this particular case it wasn't just about a terminal disease but the pain associated with it, but then is that going to be the qualifier in infant euthanasia , the pain factor? If we think a baby is in too much pain then we nip it's life in the bud? ANd then what is too much pain? And then what happenes when it includes the psychological pain of beging deformed and doomed to a life of ridicule...yes, I am stretching things but it becomes a logical thought process of where this could easily go if it becomes a legal, acceptable solution to less than perfect babies doomed to less than perfect lives.

Take for example babies born with EB (Epidermolysis Bullosa). First off it is a terminal disease, next it is not only incurable but nearly untreatable and most importanly it dooms the baby and child and person if they live that long to a life of pain.

I will describe briefly what it is. It is when the skin lacks the natural fiber of anchors to stay intact. A baby is slathered in petroleum jelly and wrapped in gauze just to keep it's skin on and minimize the open sores that are a reality no matter what percautions are taken. The best thing to safeguard the baby's skin is to not hold it.

As the baby begins to crawl the open sores, like second degree burn blisters that are a reality of it's little life of pain already, turn into flesh eating monsters as the babies knees become bloody messes of open sores and infection, and it's hands- as well as the elbows a determined baby will crawl with when it's palmes and backs of it's hands have disintegrated into raw bloody bony messes.

As the child grows it knows a life of pain, and even fear sometimes as to be in crowds leads to the bumping and rubbing that will sheer off skin opening sores and cause new ones. The child for this reason doesn't attend school nor can it run jump and play as other kids as any such actions lead to opening sores and possibility of terrible damaging skinnings.

Sometime in childhood they usually end up with mere stumps for hands and even the most diligent and mild cases only lead to a life span of 30 years-most die much sooner.

The skin on the inside of the body suffers too, sores on the espohagus lead to scarring and any kids have to have surgery to open their scarred throats to be able to eat. a process which is painful due to the open wounds, blisters and sores of the mouth, tongue and espaphagus, making even a liquid diet painful because of the act of swollowing. To touch the tongue to the roof of the mouth hurts.

Anyway, though a rare disease, knowing the pain and the degenerative and terminal outcome, if infant euthanasia becomes an acceptable pracitce and option presented to parents, the facts of this disease presented to a mother or father that is being told "you can't hold your baby because" and the terrible life of pain of their baby described, who wouldn't opt for the easy way out?

But people with EB do live up to their fullest potential and if you asked them if their quality of life would make them wish they were dead of killed at birth, they would be horrified. I know a woman of 28 now, who lost a borther at 19 to EB, and who knows she may not live a long life much longer, and who has known nothing but a life of physical pain as the norm for her, has had the surgery on her esphagus at 6, wraps her body in gauze still and avoids crowds...who has stumps for hands and a scarred mouth...but still sings with the voice of an angel, and records music which to benefit suffereres of EB-namely children to encourage them in their difficult lives.

The fact is, if it (infant euthanaisa) were readily available and accepted, many many of these children would never live and contribute as wonderfully as they do to the world, and most importantly live up to THEIR fullest potential. Maybe not the fullest potential others would like to gauge the quality of ones' life by, but their very own fullest potential and we do not have the right to decide what that is for them at birth.

It is reasonable to understand that even taking into consideration this one particular case of infant euthanasia raises issues and warning flags of where it could lead.

Originally posted by dawnstar
okay, fair enough.....but I think we can both agree that living breifly on this planet in constant pain is very, very far away from what the potential of many of those handicapped individuals that many claim this law would seek to eliminate from the earth....most of these handicapped individuals are capable of experiencing joy, love, hope ect, as well as expressing it. and they do contribute something to society, even if it's a hug giving to their caretakers after a hard day!!

I understand what you are saying, but consider my post about EB, even children doomed to a life of pain, doomed to die an early death, can live up to their potential and have a quality of life they cherish, and be inspiring to mankind. Those otherwise physically handicapped without physical pain, who can give hugs to contribute doesn't men those in pain cannot contribute!

So if both can contribute to society, and know love and joy and sadness and pain-physical and emotional distress...why is it a matter of being humane to kill one and equally humane to let the other one live? Because it is up to us to decide what is acceptable to live with...and what is acceptable to kill because of?

It was once not acceptable to kill babies, now that line is blurred, it is reasonable to expect the more shades of grey to progress infant euathanasia to be abused in one way or another. It is just a logical reality to me.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and, I am not implying that my veiws should be considered in making any decisions, unless of course, they are connected to my life. ahhh, yes, the right to life ventures into many avenues.....including my right to leave when I deem it to be the right time. doesn't it.

Well I am considering your views as pertinent to the topic at hand as you are basically agreeing that we can be determine a baby's right to live- or our right to kill it -deciding their fate depending on their projected quality of life.

Originally posted by dawnstar
but, if terri taught me anything it is that there is a feeling among some that not only shouldn't we be helping death along.....something that I am not sure I don't agree with you about, but also, well, we should be doing all in our power to prevent it from arriving.

Well, I do not know if I agree with that. I do believe we should do what is necessary in many cases, but other times I do not see the necessity of medical invervention in all things. Ah-ha...see, I'm not inhumane people-fact is, I do care about suffering and quality of life and future potential.

Originally posted by dawnstar
so, giving the all encompassing power that the right to lifers seems to want, I need to ask you, just who's to decide just when is the right time to allow death to come? to me, the answer would be a mutual agreement with between doctors, who are the best to evaluate the condition and prognosis of each case, and the person, if capable or the family if they aren't....who are the most likely to act with the best interest of the patient.

Well, I believe in choice and I believe in life. I am "pro-choice for life." but I don't know what "all those pro-lifers want" But I will say, in MHO who is to decide when life or death comes is God, the universe, nature. That is not to say I will not do what is necessary to save my child's life if possible, nor does it mean I would not let my grandmother slip blissfully into eternal rest rather than keep her incapacatated body alive on machines. So indeed if it was within my power, and my responsibility to have to make choices for another I would do what was reasonable to me, with the exception I think of deliberate torture on one hand or euthanaisia on the other.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and some might subscribe to something different.

Ah yes, I do not speak for all religions or religious people, but I did say I would offer you my personal religious POV since you brought up taking religious views into consideration

Originally posted by dawnstar
personally, I see it differently. to me, we pump enough crap into our air, our waters, and our food that well, more than likely some of the problems are a result of man's actions. and well, I also don't believe that God goes nuts going out of his way to protect us from our actions....it just doesn't serve as a good learning experience, does it? so, in order for us to learn that we shouldn't pollute the creation God gave us to live in, it seems to me, that the effects would have to be rather random, you might or might not be affected, and not preordained at birth...

I did not say these babies are pre-ordained for specific diseases at birth....though who knows if some are not? I stated however, that some subscribe to the idea we were presented in a pre-existance of our lives on Earth, with various possibilities that we indeed may or may not have been personally pre-ordained for, however may eno#er regardless, including: diseases, lives of pain, and/or physical struggles, deformatities etc.

We may have been told what we may specifically encounter as far as disabling disease or life of pain without knowing, or being preordained for the specific cause or disease etc. before coming here. So indeed, it could be from a mother's agency to be promiscousity leading to STD's that harm the fetus, or it could be to environmental factors, or due to genetics, etc...but it doesn't mean that the creator of life didn't have forknowledge of such to present it to us-as a group or individuals- what specifics we may go through, be they trials of poverty, disfiguration, handicaps, physical pain, mental anguish and illness etc.

Originally posted by dawnstar
one could also suscribe to the belief that creation is in perfect balance, so therefore, if one is suffering from starvation, then somewhere, someplace, one must be enjoying a bountiful plenty to compensate. and well, if one is to spend an entire life in suffering, albeit a short live, then it must stand to reason that somewhere, someone is experiencing a live of bliss to compensate...

our goal, as humans would be to bring a balance within our own lives, denying the overabundance while making sure that the deprived experience greater joy. in this pretext, one could conceive that it is beneficial to some, for a baby to experience such a hopeless, painful life since then, they can kind of serve as the balance to creation....

Well, I understand that thought process, though I would not personally like to subscribe to such as the sole reason to allow one's suffering being to allow for another's joy. Instead, because I do believe in a balanced universe, and laws, I believe thus there must be sorrow to know joy, but I've thought of it more personally, that the balance being within one's self to know sorrow and likewise appreciate joy.

Though I also believe in being subject to the consequences of breaking universal law, or subject to the agency of others, so I guess within that, I can see, it is often through the oppression of other's joy that some take their own joy, and likewise, because of that suffering those who suffer are promised to be avenged and know joy as well...but in this life? Ah...I do not know if it all balances out in this life except for within oursleves.

Originally posted by dawnstar
but like I said before, not much of what either of us is posting could be validate or invalidated or even proven to be more worthy of acceptance as the other...

which leads us back to what the scientists, and the medical professional say....and the desires of those who would the most logical people to hold the best intentions to the baby...

Well, of course neither of our philosophies or religious views can be validated as more worthy of acceptance, but likewise, just because it is within the hands of the medical professionals, and within the knowledge of the scientists to determine likley outcomes of diseases, and solutions of euthanasia, does not make their views the most worthy of acceptance either. We all have our specific biases of why it is wrong or right, but the fact is, what I take issue with in this case, is what will euthanizing babies who are deemed terminal, or in pain, or who's lives value is being determined ahead of time, by their supposed quality of life, or pigeonholed potential, as a prescedence lead to in the long run?

Originally posted by dawnstar
ahh yes, a very sad testament at just how uncompassionate this world could be....just one question. I've heard all the crap said about these mothers. what about the dads, where were they? why did they leave such mentally unstable people alone with their children? where was society, that they couldn't offer the assistance that might have at least put these children in a situation where there was a little more supervision of the care their mentally ill parents were given them....was child care offered to these women? any services of the like?

Well, I bring these issues up not to speak of the mental illness of these ladies or cast blame on society or spouses for not intervening, but because they have something in commmon with both those that believe in euthanizing and in comparison to the pro-life type Christians you speculte fear death, as these do not fear death, but did not treasure life either. They thought they were doing a good thing...ending the suffering they supposed their children would know in life, to send them to a blissful paradise with God.

Now, isn't that what parents who euthanize do we can speculate? The difference of course being obvious that the babies were terminally ill with physical diseases, I do understand that point let me assure everyone, but my point is when you have people who do not value imperffect life, and who do not fear death, then from both sides, medical and religious, acceptable and irrational, we can conclude, available euthanasia would eventually be abused as it becomes personally subjective as to what "qulaity of life" is, and what a persona's "potential" is etc.

Originally posted by dawnstar
but, well, what chances do you think that these women could have gotten a commitee of doctors to go along with their idea? which is what the euthanasia is requiring happen.

That is what is required...for now...and I can assure you there is always doctors willing to bend to the will of parents, especially the docotros that do not value life, or as we see, her have the frame of mind that quality is better than quantity when it comes to life.

Originally posted by dawnstar
the doctors can't do anything without the parents consent, the parents can't do anything (legally) without the doctors consent...science and technology has to agree with compassion and love.

Agree, or dictate what is compasionate in the name of love?

I appreciate your points, thank you for the discussion.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Wait a minute... Wasn't it you that pretty much began this debate with your inhuman comments I quoted here?

Originally posted by Bibliophile
What does this comment have to do with the hysterical nature of some of the posts here?

N O T H I N G .

Bibliophile Not to get into a conflict or add drama, but LostSailor is correct and it has EVERYTHING to do with the subject at hand, which I've really seen no one getting hysterical about. (but maybe I missed something)

Being passionate about one's view doesn't constitute hysteria unless you want to consider even your own post here as some paranoid, defensive hysteria.

From the begining you presented your view that quality is better than quantity, and say euthanaisa of infants is a progressive act which you support as it is seen by you as a logical and beneficial necessity considering the overpopulation of the world and the drain on resources the ill and handicaped are.

To have others disagree, even passionately does not make them hysterical. I wholeheartedly disagree with your thinking, and as a human I am offended by your insensitivites and lack of value for human life, however I am not hysterical about it.

I cannot say I agree with everyone's views who are against euthanaisia, but I can and have appreciated LostSailors views and his cry for people to step back, even from their medically informed, and scientifically biased, and sometimes psuedo-superior intellectual thinking, and think a bit more outside of their usual box, a bot more abstract, and see his perspective of life and it's value ...which I and many others can do.

LostSailor I can see what you are saying 100%. I do not feel as though I am just an animal either, nor that our young should be eaten or trampled at will. Indeed *something* sets us apart. For me I would say it's our eternal nature and spirits...I once thought it was our "humanity" ironically, what a deceptive term that tends to be.

I've enjoyed your posts, perspective and passion.

eternal nature and spirits

The same eternal nature and spirits that drive us to preemptive war, create biological and chemical weapons, murder, steal, cheat, abuse others, hurt pets, become drug and alocohol addicts, create the atomic bomb and guns?

Yeah, we're much better than other animals...

~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Yeah, we're much better than other animals...

Yes, ignoring your sarcasm I will agree that some of us are indeed better than "other animals" but all have the potential to be. Though many I see fail to live up to that potential.

Nonetheless I still believe they too have the right to live out their natural mortal existance even if they never see their eternal potential fullfilled in their mortal lives. Or even if their potential never helps them to grasp the reality of their eternal nature.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
The same eternal nature and spirits that drive us to preemptive war, create biological and chemical weapons, murder, steal, cheat, abuse others, hurt pets, become drug and alocohol addicts, create the atomic bomb and guns?

Now, in answer to your question: No, our eternal nature and spirtis do not drive us to those acts, but it is our mortal nature, that denies our eternal one and it's goodness, that supposes intellect void of spirit is preferable, that drives some to be led by greed, power and all manners of abominable acts.

Our nature as eternal beings is essentially good, it is the nature of mortal man and the men wise of the world, but not in the spirit, that is essentially the cause for many to forget their enternal nature and live more animalistically.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by think2much]

[edit on 13-3-2006 by think2much]

[edit on 13-3-2006 by think2much]

Originally posted by think2much

[1] ...LostSailor is correct and it has EVERYTHING to do with the subject at hand, which I've really seen no one getting hysterical about. (but maybe I missed something)

Being passionate about one's view doesn't constitute hysteria unless you want to consider even your own post here as some paranoid, defensive hysteria...

To have others disagree, even passionately does not make them hysterical. I wholeheartedly disagree with your thinking, and as a human I am offended by your insensitivites and lack of value for human life, however I am not hysterical about it.

[2] I cannot say I agree with everyone's views who are against euthanaisia, but I can and have appreciated LostSailors views and his cry for people to step back, even from their medically informed, and scientifically biased, and sometimes psuedo-superior intellectual thinking, and think a bit more outside of their usual box, a bot more abstract, and see his perspective of life and it's value ...which I and many others can do.

1. By stating that LS's opinion is the correct one you are invalidating my right to an opinion. Agree if you must, but remember an opinion is neither right nor wrong whether you agree with it or not.

2. The hysteria here that amazes me is that people seem to feel that one case will lead to mass murder in the future. Please read all the posts in this thread more carefully. I think you may have missed my point entirely.

If you wish to insult me by labelling my viewpoint as "psuedo-superior intellectual thinking", do it outright and take your lumps. I have refrained from personalizing in this discussion. I would appreciate the same respect. I have done nothing to merit your personal attack.

Insulting people because they approach an issue logically instead emotionally is pointless. Everyone is different. We all have our reasons for how we think, feel, and live our lives.

I accept that you disagree with my viewpoint. I accept that you find it offensive. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I am entitled to mine as well. In this case, my opinion is that the extrapolation of one case of infant euthanasia to mass selection based on sex, eye color, genetic defect, ethnicity, et al, is an unreasonable position. In my opinion, this is a hysterical assumption based on the facts of the case as we know them.

[edit on 3/13/2006 by Bibliophile]

Originally posted by Bibliophile
1. By stating that LS's opinion is the correct one you are invalidating my right to an opinion. Agree if you must, but remember an opinion is neither right nor wrong whether you agree with it or not.

1.=I didn't realize that you would so easily feel invalidated by my mere choice of wording. It certainly wasn't my intention. I think the fact it was merely my opinion would be implied and understood by you and anyone and everyone who read this since I am not, nor do I claim to be, a subject matter expert, nor a moderator, supermoderator or admin or anyone with authority but have from the begining been giving MHO and nothing more, unlike some who both say and imply much more.

However, since I see I've so easily offended your sensitivities, I appologize and state again-it wasn't my intention to invalidate anything about you or your rights to your opinion, it was merely a comment to validate LostSailor, whom I respect greatly, and his opinion, and to point out he too has a right to his opinions which you were invalidating by saying they had "N-O-T-H-I-N-G" to do with the matters at hand, when in fact he was pointing out why many of us would think contrary to you, and where you call it hysteria, others might call it passion, and in it all, you've invited, baited, debated and encouraged it from your opening posts and consistantly throughout.

Indeed, FTR now, I meant to say I strongly agree with LostSailor, his opinions and examples on this thread on all matters-euthanasia and intellectual trolling- and now more than ever.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
2. The hysteria here that amazes me is that people seem to feel that one case will lead to mass murder in the future. Please read all the posts in this thread more carefully. I think you may have missed my point entirely.

2.=Well, I re-read the thread, but I have not missed your point. I understand where you see the passionate as hysterical, but I do not agree with it being hysterical or not being pertinent to this case, this thread etc. I would think you of all people, baiting with the idea that this case could be key to the answer of quality over quantity, leading to the views of those who would oppose infantacide, or would fear the rammifications of acceptable euthanasia leading to selective life at best, and population control at worst. I can see that as a posible reality, and I'm not hysterical.

You may think/say it isn't a logical way of thinking, but then what are you saying, that Hitler was logical? (well maybe he was but that proves logical doesn't not mean sane). It is logical to assume something illogical, or insane or evil could arise out of such a situation as making euthanasia widely accepted and practiced and realize it could reasonably be eventually twisted and misused in this evil world.

Yes, I mentioned Hitler, does it make me hysterical? No. I assure you I am anything but hysterical.

It is hard for me to understand to whom you were addressing with your "hysterical" statement exclusively though anyway, because in MHO, you come across to me, as an intellectual troll. A person more apt to bait for debate, but then as your main resource, attack someone's form of writing, or attempts at expression, or split hairs about semantics and negate their opinions on those merits alone instead of allowing both sides of the issue to be considered and discussed openly despite the various ways people express themselves.

If everyone could express themselves purely intellectually, with no passion, purely logically, without emotion, we'd still disagree on the basic facts of our beliefs. If everyone could express themselves perfectly intellectually, and debate with perfect semantic form, well one side just wouldn't be needed, as one intellectual class of logical people could sit back and within about 4 posts state the obvious views of both sides without ever even having to state their personal opinon. Then we'd need not a thread, board or forumn as large and diverse as ATS for that. So why waste time attacking those who feel, think, and express themselves differently than you.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
If you wish to insult me by labelling my viewpoint as "psuedo-superior intellectual thinking", do it outright and take your lumps.

I do not wish to insult you or anyone. I cannot help if you indentify yourself, or your viewpoint with that description and take offense.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
Insulting people because they approach an issue logically instead emotionally is pointless. Everyone is different. We all have our reasons for how we think, feel, and live our lives.

I agree with that. I do not feel I have attempted to insult anyone, nor have I attempted to invalidate anyone for their logical approach. I do see however where people are often invalidated for their emotional, spiritual, or passionate approaches because they are NOT logical enough, or their logic isn't validated as reasonable enough because it is biased with emotion.

I find that hyppocritically biased of the logical who think they are the only reasonable ones. I see hairs being split on issues pertaining to semantics and expression as if readers are not able to get the gist of what the poster was saying, as in some cases of LostSailor's posts-I understood the gist of what he was saying even when he could not find the words to express it as clearly as he wished , or as intellectually clear as you or other's wished, and instead his words and his view were twisted and rediculed and his point then masked. I got his point clearly however despite the efforts of others to twist or misrepresent it.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
I accept that you disagree with my viewpoint. I accept that you find it offensive. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Yes, I am entitled to my viewpoint and opinions, and while I don't need your acceptance, I appreciate it it. Thank you for your validation.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
I am entitled to mine as well. In this case, my opinion is that the extrapolation of one case of infant euthanasia to mass selection based on sex, eye color, genetic defect, ethnicity, et al, is an unreasonable position. In my opinion, this is a hysterical assumption based on the facts of the case as we know them.

The facts of the case as we know it is about infant euthanasia for reasons of terminal illness. At first it would be a debate about was this a moral and ethical decision, was it humane or inhumane in this case? Not about mass selection-agreed.

However threads often go a step further and suppose the more global rammifications of such a prescedence over time-that is both logical and reasonable.

Furthermore, within that context, in this issue some may indeed say, what if it led to mass selection on eye color etc? As we already know gender selection in utero has led to selective abortions, and in China and in the history of the world, infantacide based on gender has occured, so it is both a logical and reasonable view, not a hysterical one, to see how this one effort, knwoing the nature of man and history of the world, could lead to an easier way to implement those travisties in the future.

One one final note, for all your objections on progressing this thread beyond the one isolated case mentioned, to supposing where it might eventually lead as "hysteria" as you call it, I must point out, when a person starts calling this one act "progressive" as part of a view of "quality over quantity" in an "overpopulated" world, do you honestly not see where such a view might logically be opposed by others?

So if we are to think of it as progressive, shouldn't we speculate where euthanasia might progress to in the future then? Progress to in the wrong hands, or for the wrong purposes even? It's only a logical reaction, and I would think you of all people would know that-even that well ahead of time.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by think2much]

originally posted by Bibliophile - Realistically, the severely handicapped are a drain on resources.

Bibliophile - You’re doing a dance around your original assertion (see the quote). Would you say that this should apply equally to your family, your children, your parents, your friends???
This is a hard conversation for me to enter into without emotion as I’m who you are talking about. It’s me that you want dead. It's me you are calling a "drain on resources". What about severely handicapped adults? Should we all be euthanized. Could you administer the lethal dose to an infant as you held it in your arms? Your statements are very similar to ones made by Hitler. The Aryan Nation agrees with you and your opinion. Are you also in line with their other beliefs?? I can not see you as anything other than evil. Did you torture animals when you were young?

Now, in answer to your question: No, our eternal nature and spirtis do not drive us to those acts, but it is our mortal nature, that denies our eternal one and it's goodness, that supposes intellect void of spirit is preferable, that drives some to be led by greed, power and all manners of abominable acts.

This is at the heart of the issue, think2much (or lack thereof). We are speaking two different languages, one of hard, provable evidence (my side), and the other of religion, faith, and eternal spirits (you and LostSailor).

I'm not at all knocking your side. I'm just showing you that the people you and LostSailor seem to be demonising and criticising most likely disagree with you because you are taking a religious stance and some of us (including myself) are just not religious. I see no reason to believe one faith and not another. They teach the same basic values: don't kill, don't steal, in general, don't be an ass. There are obviously vast differences in technical details of the religions, but all in all, they seem to be telling the same moral values to socities.

To get back on track, try to think outside of religion for once. I can completely understand the religious side of this argument. However, you don't seem to be able to understand the non-religious side. I think this is an issue that is too complex and personal to be left up to a federal mandate as to whether it is or isn't allowed. The same goes with abortion. You can't just make a blanket statement saying it's right or wrong. Life is full of gray areas and
"what if"s.

~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Life is full of gray areas and
"what if"s.

~MFP

Ahh no......Life is Black OR white, grey areas are created by man to try to cloud the truth. To quiet one's "id" and deny guilt.

Murdering babies is wrong anywhere. But the fact that so called doctors are providing the means and excuse is horrid.

Medicine was created to sustain life not end it. Any MORON can take life, very few can save it. Saving life is a gift not to be wasted on what primative man learned to do thousands of years ago.

Again, grey areas of life were created by the guilty to try to deny reality.

Congrats on an entire post of semi-witty one-liners. Anything else to add?