Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: Meanwhile, we slide towards "ethical" infanticide....

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692

    Meanwhile, we slide towards "ethical" infanticide....

    [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2437921,00.html[/url]

  2. #2
    i can't get it to come up - maybe later

    i did see this article however and think it has some merit

    [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6149464.stm?ls[/url]

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Of course you do Matt, you support killing babies. Born, unborn...whatever.

    This is atrocious.

    Remember the brutal murder of hanidcapped children whenever a liberal lectures you about sensitivity or compassion. I LAUGH at that and I LAUGH at anyone who supports this. It's f*cking disgusting.

  4. #4
    That article is really disturbing. What ever happened to "First do no harm"?

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,880
    HMMMM>......I had a post here a long time ago about this topic and everybody was saying I was overreacting.

    The secular (and more specifically Humanist) viewpoint would agree with this. Why keep kids alive that are going to be a burden on society? Why keep kids alive that are going to weaken the gene pool? Anyone read Mein Kampf? One heck of a great read when you are trying to build a perfectly pure race!!!

    Pete Singer is a great example of this philosophy. He is the founding member of the Great Ape Project which is fighting for equal legal rights for Non-Human apes, because apes deserve life, liberty and freedom from torture, yet the abortion, euthanasia, harvesting of body parts, beastality, all can be morally acceptable with consent.

    I can't wait to here from certain people on this topic now, especially those who told me I was being extremist with my example a few months back with child euthansia when discussing morality.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]HMMMM>......I had a post here a long time ago about this topic and everybody was saying I was overreacting.

    The secular (and more specifically Humanist) viewpoint would agree with this. Why keep kids alive that are going to be a burden on society? Why keep kids alive that are going to weaken the gene pool? Anyone read Mein Kampf? One heck of a great read when you are trying to build a perfectly pure race!!!

    Pete Singer is a great example of this philosophy. He is the founding member of the Great Ape Project which is fighting for equal legal rights for Non-Human apes, because apes deserve life, liberty and freedom from torture, yet the abortion, euthanasia, harvesting of body parts, beastality, all can be morally acceptable with consent.

    I can't wait to here from certain people on this topic now, especially those who told me I was being extremist with my example a few months back with child euthansia when discussing morality.[/QUOTE]


    I didn't see your view a few months back but my opinion on this topic... :barf:

    Peter Singer is an idiot.

    The only euthanasia I would be willing to support is for terminally ill patients that do not want to suffer.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    Discusting concept with a very slippery slope.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    one name....Barack Obama....

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Of course you do Matt, you support killing babies. Born, unborn...whatever.

    This is atrocious.

    Remember the brutal murder of hanidcapped children whenever a liberal lectures you about sensitivity or compassion. I LAUGH at that and I LAUGH at anyone who supports this. It's f*cking disgusting.[/QUOTE]

    the article made the case that trying to save extremely premature babies (22 weeks or less) actually sets these creatures up to a painful and short existance - science literally has no good treatement for these babies - and it's ridiculously expensive. Most end up needing so much surgery they die from that...

    ill ignore your insults because you are the opposite of me - you favor life in any form even if it's pure pain 24/7. Doesn't matter if it's a 4 week old crack addicted fetus 5ever thinks it should be part of society.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]the article made the case that trying to save extremely premature babies (22 weeks or less) actually sets these creatures up to a painful and short existance - science literally has no good treatement for these babies - and it's ridiculously expensive. Most end up needing so much surgery they die from that...

    ill ignore your insults because you are the opposite of me - you favor life in any form even if it's pure pain 24/7. Doesn't matter if it's a 4 week old crack addicted fetus 5ever thinks it should be part of society.[/QUOTE]

    Handicapped infants, Matt...c'mon...I thought even YOU would object to this.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Handicapped infants, Matt...c'mon...I thought even YOU would object to this.[/QUOTE]

    i didn't read the handicapped article it didn't come up - i was talking about an article about premature babies

  12. #12
    Holy hell. That's absurd.

    Both articles, btw. DNR'ing a 22 weeker? WITHOUT family consent, no less? wow . . .:steamin:

    But 5ever, don't confuse the position of these maniacs as being compatible with all positions that favor legal abortions. Hell, check out my abortion piece on the blog (don't think I've forgotten you promised an oil reply :D ), and it's pretty obvious why that couldn't fly under my logic. Not all such positions have the same slippery slope quotient.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Holy hell. That's absurd.

    Both articles, btw. DNR'ing a 22 weeker? WITHOUT family consent, no less? wow . . .:steamin:

    But 5ever, don't confuse the position of these maniacs as being compatible with all positions that favor legal abortions. Hell, check out my abortion piece on the blog (don't think I've forgotten you promised an oil reply :D ), and it's pretty obvious why that couldn't fly under my logic. Not all such positions have the same slippery slope quotient.[/QUOTE]

    I see nothing wrong with DNR'ing anyone with a terminal illness or severely debilitating illness that will lead to premature death and a life of suffering whether that individual is 90 years old or 22 weeks...so long as consent is obtained from the legal guardian.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]I see nothing wrong with DNR'ing anyone with a terminal illness or severely debilitating illness that will lead to premature death and a life of suffering whether that individual is 90 years old or 22 weeks...so long as consent is obtained from the legal guardian.[/QUOTE]

    I see something very wrong with medical guidelines suggesting that a 22 weeker [b]should[/b] be DNR'd, particularly given that there are cases of 22 weekers living and living good, healthy lives. In the case of an infant, I also have a problem with parents agreeing to a DNR out of a selfish desire not to be forced to care for the child; at the very least, the child should have a disinterested court appointed guardian to make that determination. I have no problem with an adult making a decision to DNR when they have the capacity to do so; where it's a child, and the adults making the decision have a serious conflict, there need to be safeguards.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]I see something very wrong with medical guidelines suggesting that a 22 weeker [b]should[/b] be DNR'd, particularly given that there are cases of 22 weekers living and living good, healthy lives. In the case of an infant, I also have a problem with parents agreeing to a DNR out of a selfish desire not to be forced to care for the child; at the very least, the child should have a disinterested court appointed guardian to make that determination. I have no problem with an adult making a decision to DNR when they have the capacity to do so; where it's a child, and the adults making the decision have a serious conflict, there need to be safeguards.[/QUOTE]

    Most adults that are faced with the DNR issue often do not have capacity to make that decision. They are often demented or have severe organic dysfunction that has left them in a severe delerious state. They ususally rely on a spouse or other family member who is legally appointed to making that decision. Making someone DNR doesnt mean do not treat. It simply states that if the patient goes into cardiopulmonary arrest they will not be resuscitated using CPR, shocks or mechanical ventilation. In the case of seriously/permanently ill patients this makes good sense. Considering that CPR works in less than 25% of arrests (less than 3 % of critically ill patients who have cardiac arrest and require CPR/ACLS ever make it out the hospital door)and if successful usually leads to serious permanent brain damage, why would you do this to someone already severely debilitated. They are only going to have a worse outcome.

    You talk about 22 week old infants who have survived and lead normal lives. This is partially true. At 22 weeks gestation, the chance of surviving to discharge is less than 1%. At 23 weeks this increases to about 24%. Big difference between a 22 weeker and a 23 weeker. Ive seen end stage cancer patients outlive expectations by 1-2 years. This is incredibly rare and should not be used to give false hope to patients with similar illness and certainly not to make decisions like dnr based on rare cases.

    Most people do NOT choose DNR out of selfishness. This is a very difficult decision that causes serious angst among those deciding. Its often a decision that haunts people for life, its not easy. And to make a statement such as "people chosing DNR out of selfishness b/c they dont want to be forced to care for the child" shows how little understanding you have of this serious matter

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Most adults that are faced with the DNR issue often do not have capacity to make that decision. They are often demented or have severe organic dysfunction that has left them in a severe delerious state. They ususally rely on a spouse or other family member who is legally appointed to making that decision. Making someone DNR doesnt mean do not treat. It simply states that if the patient goes into cardiopulmonary arrest they will not be resuscitated using CPR, shocks or mechanical ventilation. In the case of seriously/permanently ill patients this makes good sense. Considering that CPR works in less than 25% of arrests (less than 3 % of critically ill patients who have cardiac arrest and require CPR/ACLS ever make it out the hospital door)and if successful usually leads to serious permanent brain damage, why would you do this to someone already severely debilitated. They are only going to have a worse outcome.

    You talk about 22 week old infants who have survived and lead normal lives. This is partially true. At 22 weeks gestation, the chance of surviving to discharge is less than 1%. At 23 weeks this increases to about 24%. Big difference between a 22 weeker and a 23 weeker. Ive seen end stage cancer patients outlive expectations by 1-2 years. This is incredibly rare and should not be used to give false hope to patients with similar illness and certainly not to make decisions like dnr based on rare cases.

    Most people do NOT choose DNR out of selfishness. This is a very difficult decision that causes serious angst among those deciding. Its often a decision that haunts people for life, its not easy. And to make a statement such as "people chosing DNR out of selfishness b/c they dont want to be forced to care for the child" shows how little understanding you have of this serious matter[/QUOTE]

    Kenny, I'm very aware of it. But their are two crucial points you aren't considering. The first is that in the case of adults without capacity, there's a very good chance that they've made their wishes known on the subject at some point (and even people with dementia can be lucid enough to do that, at points).

    Second, here are some quotes from the article:
    [QUOTE] Babies born at or before 22 weeks [b]should not[/b] be resuscitated [b]or given intensive care[/b], a report says.


    The recommendation is being put forward by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which considers ethical questions raised by advances in medical research. [b]For those born after 23 weeks, the recommendation is that doctors should review the situation with the parents and take their wishes into account[/b]. [/QUOTE]

    in other words: 1) it's not just talking about DNR; and 2) it's explicitly suggesting that doctors not take the parents' wishes into account with babies born younger than 22 weeks.

    As for the selfishness issue, here's the reason for the article 5ever cited's reccomendation:

    [QUOTE]The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies. [/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    This is merely an extension of the very same logic that pro-abortionists use to justify killing an unborn child. What does it matter to you if the child is born or unborn? Kenny has no respect for [I]either[/I] child, he merely respects the whims of some third party whom he, in his infinite wisdom, has decided should possess the power of determining whose lives are worthless and whose aren't. So, in the womb, outside the womb...whatever. Hell, in Britain, late-term abortions have been authorized if the child has such a "debilitating handicap" as a cleft lip! Certainly that child is better off dead, no? Kenny is a guy who has literally claimed that unborn children are not even human. I mean, he finally admitted that they are, in fact, alilve...but they're not human and even if they are human, they're not people. And hell, even if they are alive and human and born (!!), it's okay to kill them because we, in our infinite wisdom, have determined that their lives are horrible and also, you know, it's not like the decision isn't tough for the parents. I mean, parents suffer too...they (gasp!) may feel guilty about it. Seems fair - a defenselss child is destroyed and a parent feels remorse while they go on living. Sounds fair to me. You know, some parents don't kill their handicapped children, some actually raise them and devote their lives to making their child's life as good as possible. What selfish a-holes, don't they know of the great devotion, love and sacrifice endured by those parents who barvely murder their children and then (gasp!!) feel badly about it afterwards? Such brave, brave souls, they....

    And you wonder why I stopped taking you seriously over a year ago....

    Yes Doggin, I know I owe you an oil response on your blog....put it on the list! :D
    Last edited by jets5ever; 11-16-2006 at 06:22 PM.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]This is merely an extension of the very same logic that pro-abortionists use to justify killing an unborn child. What does it matter to you if the child is born or unborn? Kenny has no respect for [I]either[/I] child, he merely respects the whims of some third party whom he, in his infinite wisdom, has decided should possess the power of determining whose lives are worthless and whose aren't. So, in the womb, outside the womb...whatever. Hell, in Britain, late-term abortions have been authorized if the child has such a "debilitating handicap" as a cleft lip! Certainly that child is better off dead, no? Kenny is a guy who has literally claimed that unborn children are not even human. I mean, he finally admitted that they are, in fact, alilve...but they're not human and even if they are human, they're not people. And hell, even if they are alive and human and born (!!), it's okay to kill them because we, in our infinite wisdom, have determined that their lives are horrible and also, you know, it's not like the decision isn't tough for the parents. I mean, parents suffer too...they (gasp!) may feel guilty about it. Seems fair - a defenselss child is destroyed and a parent feels remorse while they go on living. Sounds fair to me. You know, some parents don't kill their handicapped children, some actually raise them and devote their lives to making their child's life as good as possible. What selfish a-holes, don't they know of the great devotion, love and sacrifice endured by those parents who barvely murder their children and then (gasp!!) feel badly about it afterwards? Such brave, brave souls, they....

    And you wonder why I stopped taking you seriously over a year ago....

    Yes Doggin, I know I owe you an oil response on your blog....put it on the list! :D[/QUOTE]


    Im still waiting for J5E to answer:

    If you heard crying from a burning fertility clinic and had a chance to save only one: a screaming/crying 9 mos old or a case full of cryopreserved embryos that were to be used in IVF which would you save?

    When you answer this, maybe we can then talk seriously

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,880
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Im still waiting for J5E to answer:

    If you heard crying from a burning fertility clinic and had a chance to save only one: a screaming/crying 9 mos old or a case full of cryopreserved embryos that were to be used in IVF which would you save?

    When you answer this, maybe we can then talk seriously[/QUOTE]


    please, that isn't even relevant to what he is talking about.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,880
    [QUOTE=finlee17]I didn't see your view a few months back but my opinion on this topic... :barf:

    Peter Singer is an idiot.

    The only euthanasia I would be willing to support is for terminally ill patients that do not want to suffer.[/QUOTE]


    It was some time ago I brought this up.

    I just wrote an column piece about Pete Singer. Was expecting some slack from it (since it is for our VERY secular University of Western Ontario) but nothing.
    Yeah, can't believe this guy is a tenured prof who the NY times said was one of the most influencial philosophers of the modern era....if being a quack gives you this title, then there must be a lot of influential philosophers...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us