Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770

Is this the direction of morality in England? Jesus, talk about losing your way. I guess some won't be happy till abortion is legal to high school. Anyway, enough of my dogma, shall we "progress" to killing those that have "less desirable" life expectancies than "able bodied" persons? Sounds very enlightened in a 1940's kind of way to me. What do you think?:no:

[CrossLOPER]

So, if a child is born so badly deformed that they will either be a vegtable or in severe pain their entire (possibly very short) lives and that their life will be a burden physically, emotionally, and economically on both them and their families the parents should not have a choice? Meanwhile in the US, assisted suicide or euthanasia is illegal but starving a person to death is OK? You have some severely misplaced moral notions.

[Devastatin Dave]

So, if a child is born so badly deformed that they will either be a vegtable or in severe pain their entire (possibly very short) lives and that their life will be a burden physically, emotionally, and economically on both them and their families the parents should not have a choice? Meanwhile in the US, assisted suicide or euthanasia is illegal but starving a person to death is OK? You have some severely misplaced moral notions.
Ah, but here lies the question.. Who makes the judgement that the child's life is indesirable to continue life? I live in a country where its perfectly legal to stick a pair of sissors in the back of a perfectly healthy baby's skull, vacuum out his/her's brains out and killed just before it exits its mother's birth canal. Will it be the decision of the parents? The doctors? I have a feeling that there will be a LOT of pure infantcide on children with treatable ailments for the sake of "ending the suffering" of said child. This is a very scary and sad precident. And for a "church" to endorse this latest sickness of the progressive mindset is unbelievable. :no:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.my914-6.com/hunter/index.htm

Not worth it.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.my914-6.com/hunter/index.htm

Not worth it.
Yup, you've convinced me. Let's kill it!!! It hurts my eyes to see such a beast. Kill it now!!!!:no:
Again, who would be the judge and executioner?

[Papewaio]

So, if a child is born ... and that their life will be a burden physically, emotionally, and economically on both them and their families the parents should not have a choice?

All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families. :idea2:

[Hepcat]

All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families.

My parents would agree with you.

[CrossLOPER]

Yup, you've convinced me. Let's kill it!!! It hurts my eyes to see such a beast. Kill it now!!!!:no:
Again, who would be the judge and executioner?
If the parents want to raise him, that's their perogative.


All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families. :idea2:
Thank you for intentionally misunderstanding misinterpreting my post. :stare: Moreover, perhaps you should not have children if you perceive them as a "burden".

[Scurvy]

Ah, but here lies the question.. Who makes the judgement that the child's life is indesirable to continue life? I have a feeling that there will be a LOT of pure infantcide on children with treatable ailments for the sake of "ending the suffering" of said child. This is a very scary and sad precident. And for a "church" to endorse this latest sickness of the progressive mindset is unbelievable. :no:

There are certain illness's where doctors know without doubt that the child will not live anything close to a life, in these cases they should be allowed to kill the baby.
If it does become legal there won't be inantcide on treatable ailments, because doctors know what can be treated and what can't - its importnant to note that the parents should have some say in the matter, if they really don't want their child to die, and are happy to take both the financial, and mental burden of the child.

[Xiahou]

Here's an excerpt from one of the more touching comments posted after the article:
There are so many normal children seeking loving kind homes and adoptive parents, this is surely a wiser course to take. Take notice of an animal birth, the runt always get thrown out to die.:inquisitive:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I really don't see why this bothers people.

kill the blind quadraplegic baby
+
have a new one

= everyone is happy. Who are you to say that baby #2 shouldn't be born? He has as much right to life as baby #1.

[Aenlic]

I'm most certainly not pro-abortion; but I certainly don't think such a difficult decision belongs in the hands of the local priest who has a rather disturbingly high probability to be abusing his young parishioners nor in his followers' hands nor in the hands of the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who who maxed out his probability to be having gay sex with a male prostitute and doing methamphetamines nor in his followers' hands either. All things considered, I believe that the decision more properly belongs in the hands of the parents with medical advice from their doctors. :wink:

[King Ragnar]

It should definately be an option for the parents i mean looking at that link that was posted is very sad but just look at the lad in the picture, can people really say he is even aware of what is going on around?

Im all for killing severely disabled children.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It should definately be an option for the parents i mean looking at that link that was posted is very sad but just look at the lad in the picture, can people really say he is even aware of what is going on around?

Im all for killing severely disabled children.

Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?

[sharrukin]

The value of human life and the quality of human life are much the same thing. That is, anybody having a serious disability is seriously diminished in the quality of life they can lead. Intense suffering devalues human life, and in so doing denies the human dignity that we all have a right to. True compassion is to alleviate the suffering of a person in pain by hastening their death. Even our animals when they are suffering seriously are frequently put down. Should we do less for human beings?

Human beings have the basic right of choice pertaining to their body, lifestyle, lifespan, birth control, etc and I think it is right that they should have the right to die with dignity as well. Should we deny the most vulnerable of our population, what we grant to adults? It does seem undesirable to society keep these unfortunates alive, and pointlessly cruel as well. Their continued existence burdens relatives, friends and the community, and often, themselves. If we choose to walk away from them because we are distressed at what we are faced with, we do it for ourselves, not them.

We should also embrace a new market-based, high-tech system where children can be what we have always wanted them to be. Why should we have to put up with children that are not everything we want them to be? We can run around in circles and wave our arms if we choose, but these things are already happening to a limited degree, and will only increase in frequency, and choice. Genetic modifications that manipulate the inheritable genes passed on to our children are the key, and the wave of the future. The state obviously has an interest in this, which is not something I can deny. Children, who are genetically predisposed to criminality, or illness, or other foreseeable misconducts, should be regulated. If we could abort a Jeffrey Dahmer before birth, don't we have a moral responsibility to do so?

If one believes purely in the free market then someone like Britney Spears could of course make a fortune selling her genetic code on the open market to young mothers who want children just like her, except with superior intelligence. The problem is that if we allow this, then we are left with the possibility that sub-optimal human beings will also be chosen. The kind we are talking about removing to begin with. It is likely that some parents would go this route and the question we must ask is, should we allow this? Be it for religious reasons, or personal choice, should a parent have the right to burden society with sub-optimal offspring?

What cost will we be willing to pay for unattractive, overweight, alcoholic, criminal, or less intelligent offspring. Whose burden are they? The government cannot spend money endlessly, and choices must be made. Some of these unfortunates, will simply be too expensive to deliver and be cared for, will have to be involuntarily aborted. Irresponsible parents do not have the right to burden society with malformed or mentally incompetent children.

These are the questions we need to ask ourselves.

p.s. This is called the slippery slope.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, discussing the morals of killing babies. Delightful.


Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?

Come off it. Most of those agreeing with him probably don't share his politics.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ronin]

I say go ahead with it......

let´s be honest with ourselfs....People suck, there's too many of them, and they're easier to kill when they're foetuses/Small Kids than when they are grown up....


*man..I gonna stop posting first thing when I get to the office...my outlook is too grim at this hour :help: *

[BigTex]

Wow I don't know what to say. What are yall doing in the UK? I'm a stout and stubborn supporter for abortions up to late term (when the baby can survive on its own) but this is way to far. So what if the baby is severely mentally retarded, they deserve as a human the right to live and develop. Some of the greatest philosopher's are handicaped mentally and physically. Look at the brilliant Stephen Hawking, one of the smartest people in the world he is severly crippled. He'll probably die eventually from his disabilities. Should we have just given him mercy and taken a knife to his throat when the disability first started to develop?

Good lord, killing a baby becuase it's malformed is beyond me. Let us not forget Budha. So disformed was he that most refered to him as a cyclops. Yet look at what he accomplished. It would be one thing if the person had asked to be killed, but the baby has no say in the matter. The child is a human being, they deserve all the protections of the law and then some because they cannot defend themselves. They deserve to live even if their disabled, we shouldnt snuff out a life because they are handicaped or have severe disorders. This is a very, very slippery slope.

I guess the only thing else I could say is, not in Texas. I would invoke my 1st and 2nd amendment rights and have an armed protest outside the representatives house who proposed this idiocy.

[Spetulhu]

Killing may well be the more merciful thing. What's wrong with euthanasia for severely disabled babies? Is it somehow noble to let them suffer and torment their families with it too? :inquisitive:

Oh, how could I forget? The mighty sky pixie commands that people should suffer and die only at his pleasure. Even if it's in your power to help someone else die it's better to let them suffer. A suffering animal can be put down, but humans have SOULS that are purified by suffering. :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

All things considered, I believe that the decision more properly belongs in the hands of the parents with medical advice from their doctors. :wink:
That's fair enough- but the example in the article seems to be saying that the parents had to take their doctors to court to keep them from withholding treatment and allowing their baby to die against their will. That's outrageous.

[BDC]

This is because babies who once would have died (or been allowed to die) can or are now saved. Of course a lot die anyway soon, live short miserable lives, or have horrific brain damage. The case mentioned in the article is a bit weird really, never really worked out what was going on.

This isn't like "oh look, let's kill our newborn because they have webbed feet"...

Also, the Daily Mail should be ignored for any serious news articles.

[Aenlic]

That's fair enough- but the example in the article seems to be saying that the parents had to take their doctors to court to keep them from withholding treatment and allowing their baby to die against their will. That's outrageous.

Agreed. The decision should be the parents' not the doctors' and it's obscene that they had to take the doctors to court. Perhaps I should change parents to legal guardian. That's what annoyed me so much about the Terry Schiavo case. Her husband was the legal guardian, not the parents. They tried, and failed, in court to be made the legal guardians. At that point it was his decision and his alone - right or wrong. All those other groups got involved from both sides and not one of them should have been there. It wasn't their call. The court decided, which is the way it works in this country, that he was the legal guardian. At that point, the argument should have been over.

[BigTex]

Killing may well be the more merciful thing. What's wrong with euthanasia for severely disabled babies? Is it somehow noble to let them suffer and torment their families with it too? :inquisitive:

Oh, how could I forget? The mighty sky pixie commands that people should suffer and die only at his pleasure. Even if it's in your power to help someone else die it's better to let them suffer. A suffering animal can be put down, but humans have SOULS that are purified by suffering. :laugh4:

There is quite a distinct difference between animals and humans. Humans have the ability to question even their own existence, show me an animal that can do that. They should not be made to suffer, but the child has no say in this, so why should we murder them? I'm certain most of those children would never have wanted to have been murdered when they were born because of their deformities. Don't feed me that soul c##p that seems to come up in every abortion debate. This is not about abortion, this has nothing to even remotely do with abortion. The child has already been born, it is already a full human being, we cannot just murder them for the sake of comformaty. As a great philosopher once said "Struggle breeds greatness".

Each and every parent should take this into consideration when having a child that it could become malformed. But we cannot just kill them. Not only that but how can we bee 100% certain of the diagnosis? How can we be certain that within their lifetime that their will not be a treatment for their deformities? How can you be so certain of so many factors that they should be executed because of them? And if their executed shouldn't we execute any and all "unregular" babies? This is not Rome, this is not Carthage, the child is a human being, it should have a say in the matter of its own life.

Since you support mercy killing. Do you also support honor killings, ceremonial suicide, human sacrifice?

Anyways in this case the parents want their child to live. Having the doctors hold the child hostage to murder it is outrageous. In UK courts is that considered murder or is it even criminal?

[Spetulhu]

Each and every parent should take this into consideration when having a child that it could become malformed. But we cannot just kill them. Not only that but how can we bee 100% certain of the diagnosis? How can we be certain that within their lifetime that their will not be a treatment for their deformities?

There are birth defects that will kill the child in just a few days or months of painful life. If there's research into treatment it would have to be in the last stages of testing in order to give them any hope. Keeping them alive as long as possible just because you can is cruelty. Mercy killing is kindness.


Since you support mercy killing. Do you also support honor killings, ceremonial suicide, human sacrifice

Honour killing is a tribal practice that should be abandoned. Killing your daughter because she was raped? Killing a child that wants to marry the wrong kind of people? Barbaric.

Ceremonial suicide is different from regular suicide how, exactly? Killing yourself in some religious ceremony? That sounds like someone who needs treatment for mental illness.

Human sacrifice? :inquisitive:

[Aenlic]

Humans have the ability to question even their own existence, show me an animal that can do that.

I'm reasonably certain my dog questions my existence whenever I try to feed him cheap dog food. His look plainly says "WTF? Are you insane? I'm not eating that crap! Were you replaced by an alien? Where's the friggin' green pod! I want a lawyer!" He just can't say it in words.

[macsen rufus]

With some of the heroic medical interventions possible, at both ends of life, what we end up with under the guise of "extending life" is actually "extending death". Making people die more slowly, extending their suffering. It's a highly emotive subject, for different people have different wishes for themselves, and are happy to extend that to others. I know I have a limit of suffering, a prognosis beyond which I wouldn't want to endure. It's one thing to endure suffering on the road to recovery, but when that road is a purely downhill cul-de-sac, it's a very different matter.

Some of these parents seem to be satisfying their own emotional needs rather than considering the suffering the child will endure in its inevitably brief and pain-ridden life. From the original Mail article:


In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.

The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.

Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after. (sic) ... her.


Are we really saying that what has happened here was in the child's best interests? She is now physically and mentally severely impaired and institutionalised, because her oh-so-loving-parents-who-know-what's-best-for-her dragged the medics through the courts. I assume on legal aid, and that the institution that now cares for her is a state run one.

I'm amazed that some of the conservatives here who'll happily argue that the unemployed should starve rather than be a burden on the tax payer, seem to think this outcome is best for the girl in question in the article. If you want to cut one "non-contributing burden" from the bosom of the state, why not another?


There is quite a distinct difference between animals and humans.

.... yeah, hubris.

[Adrian II]

Wow I don't know what to say. What are yall doing in the UK? I'm a stout and stubborn supporter for abortions up to late term (when the baby can survive on its own) but this is way to far.Same here, I am staunchly pro-choice and a non-Christian, but that Bishop of Southwark scared the bejeezus out of me.

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.Is that man a Christian?
http://www.my914-6.com/hunter/index.htmSasaki, there are counter-examples of parents and doctors prolonging untold suffering in new-born children for reasons of religiosity, medical hubris, etcetera.

Anecdotal evidence and moral absolutes are useless in practice, i.e. when you are faced with a dilemma without knowing the outcome of your decisions. With 20/20 hindsight, some parents will be satisfied with their decision to intervene in certain ways, others will not. And in this regard, non-intervention is a choice just like any other. This boy Hunter that you refer to may have lived for six years in relative comfort and happiness. Other Hunters die horribly after six years of constant pain and misery.

The only question we can legitimately address is who should decide and on what grounds. Your suggestion (as per Hunter's example) that parental love and deviotion will always prevail over pain, misery and death is, to say the least, naive.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Killing may well be the more merciful thing. What's wrong with euthanasia for severely disabled babies? Is it somehow noble to let them suffer and torment their families with it too? :inquisitive:

Oh, how could I forget? The mighty sky pixie commands that people should suffer and die only at his pleasure. Even if it's in your power to help someone else die it's better to let them suffer. A suffering animal can be put down, but humans have SOULS that are purified by suffering. :laugh4:

Paragraph 1 asks a very pertinent moral question.

Paragraph 2 then turns snide and insulting. Your question would have stood well enough on its own. Instead you had to trivialize, at least implicitly, my religious beliefs and mock me for holding such a view. This was beyond what was called for in this discussion, to say the least.

Yes, I belong to a Church that teaches that life -- and imbuement with an immortal soul -- begins at conception. To take action to end life at any time after that moment would obviously be a wrong, at least on some level. For me, this makes the larger topic question rather easy to answer. You need not agree, but a decent respect for the opinions of others -- and you can no more disprove my belief than I could yours -- suggests that some modicum of restraint would have been more appropriate.

[Adrian II]

Paragraph 1 asks a very pertinent moral question.

Paragraph 2 then turns snide and insulting. Your question would have stood well enough on its own. Instead you had to trivialize, at least implicitly, my religious beliefs and mock me for holding such a view. This was beyond what was called for in this discussion, to say the least.

Yes, I belong to a Church that teaches that life -- and imbuement with an immortal soul -- begins at conception. To take action to end life at any time after that moment would obviously be a wrong, at least on some level. For me, this makes the larger topic question rather easy to answer. You need not agree, but a decent respect for the opinions of others -- and you can no more disprove my belief than I could yours -- suggests that some modicum of restraint would have been more appropriate.Seamus, I disagree with your views on the issue, but this post proves once more that you are Senior Member material. Palms will have to be greased, files lifted and the occasional reputation destroyed in the process, but it shouldn't be long before you can access KukriKhan's beer stash.
:bow:

[Spetulhu]

Paragraph 1 asks a very pertinent moral question.

Paragraph 2 then turns snide and insulting. Your question would have stood well enough on its own. Instead you had to trivialize, at least implicitly, my religious beliefs and mock me for holding such a view. This was beyond what was called for in this discussion, to say the least.

I'm sorry for making you feel bad, less so for mocking certain religions. The "life is always sacred" POV causes suffering in many ways. The terminally ill should just grin and bear it even when they can no longer think coherently because of the painkillers. Babies that - at best - will never be more than vegetables must still be taken care of. Since condoms could prevent unwanted pregnancy they are forbidden, HIV be damned.

But let us return to paragraph 1. Why should people be made to suffer if there are alternatives?

[Vladimir]

Oh, how could I forget? The mighty sky pixie commands that people should suffer and die only at his pleasure. Even if it's in your power to help someone else die it's better to let them suffer. A suffering animal can be put down, but humans have SOULS that are purified by suffering.

...

Honour killing is a tribal practice that should be abandoned. Killing your daughter because she was raped? Killing a child that wants to marry the wrong kind of people? Barbaric.



You say that humans are no better than animals and yet you criticize others as barbaric? :inquisitive:

Let's follow your strange logic:

Humans are animals, animals are food, let's eat people! Oh wait that would be barbaric; you must be a vegan.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Wow I don't know what to say. What are yall doing in the UK? I'm a stout and stubborn supporter for abortions up to late term (when the baby can survive on its own) but this is way to far. So what if the baby is severely mentally retarded, they deserve as a human the right to live and develop. Some of the greatest philosopher's are handicaped mentally and physically. Look at the brilliant Stephen Hawking, one of the smartest people in the world he is severly crippled. He'll probably die eventually from his disabilities. Should we have just given him mercy and taken a knife to his throat when the disability first started to develop?

Good lord, killing a baby becuase it's malformed is beyond me. Let us not forget Budha. So disformed was he that most refered to him as a cyclops. Yet look at what he accomplished. It would be one thing if the person had asked to be killed, but the baby has no say in the matter. The child is a human being, they deserve all the protections of the law and then some because they cannot defend themselves. They deserve to live even if their disabled, we shouldnt snuff out a life because they are handicaped or have severe disorders. This is a very, very slippery slope.

I guess the only thing else I could say is, not in Texas. I would invoke my 1st and 2nd amendment rights and have an armed protest outside the representatives house who proposed this idiocy.


Those are Rare Cases Big Tex :whip: ,

I think, if the Kid just will be born, Blind or Deaf, and say, that is it, No then. One little Ploblem like Blindness or Deafness don't casues that many ploblems. But When a Kid, a Baby I should say, will be in so much pain, and have to live with several ploblems in his/her life, then I say let them go and have a new one..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus, I disagree with your views on the issue, but this post proves once more that you are Senior Member material. Palms will have to be greased, files lifted and the occasional reputation destroyed in the process, but it shouldn't be long before you can access KukriKhan's beer stash.
:bow:

Kind of you to say, sir, though not necessary. Hmmm...Beer stash...:2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sasaki, there are counter-examples of parents and doctors prolonging untold suffering in new-born children for reasons of religiosity, medical hubris, etcetera.

Anecdotal evidence and moral absolutes are useless in practice, i.e. when you are faced with a dilemma without knowing the outcome of your decisions. With 20/20 hindsight, some parents will be satisfied with their decision to intervene in certain ways, others will not. And in this regard, non-intervention is a choice just like any other. This boy Hunter that you refer to may have lived for six years in relative comfort and happiness. Other Hunters die horribly after six years of constant pain and misery.

The only question we can legitimately address is who should decide and on what grounds. Your suggestion (as per Hunter's example) that parental love and deviotion will always prevail over pain, misery and death is, to say the least, naive.

I posted that as an example of why keeping them alive was "not worth it". I guess it could easily have sounded like I was saying killing them was not worth it. I think it's a prime example of the parents getting satisfaction from being martyrs.

[Don Corleone]

I missed this thread. I understand the mercy killing argument, but the argument put forward by the Royal College of Surgeons and apparently the Church of England is the cost to treat the child being 'worth it' and whether the 'worth it' decision belongs solely to the physician. I know universal health care is expensive, but this is full blown eugenics, folks. :no:

[King Ragnar]

Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?

Well they are wasting resources, time, money and energy, its sad to say it but they are a waste of energy, in those pictures that kid looked the same as if he was just a dummy, no emotion on his face, yes he may be a human being but his life just looks terrible.

This doesn't even have anything to do with politics its common sense.

[Don Corleone]

Ragnar,
Stephen Hawking couldn't justify his existence using your criteria. Would you recommend snuffing him as not contributing to society?

[King Ragnar]

im talking about very very severly disable people, here have you looked at the link with the pictures, stephen hawkings is at least aware of what is happening around him and can perform simple tasks, i doubt that child in the link can, and still that is only one example..

[GoreBag]

Dave, have you ever heard of Harlequin Icthyosis?

[King Ragnar]

Ive just looked into that and it looks awful, but i bet some people here would agree to keep that child alive though it clearly looks in pain....

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

As distasteful as some people may find the money argument for this sort of thing, it does have to be considered. Intensive neo-natal care is very expensive, and the NHS doesn't have an unlimited budget. Every pound being spent on prolonging the life of a premature baby who is probably going to die, or have severe disabilities, is money that then can't be spent on other less emotive-but no less necessary-things. I'm not saying that I agree exactly with what's being proposed, but I don't think you can completely remove cost from the equation.

[yesdachi]

As distasteful as some people may find the money argument for this sort of thing, it does have to be considered. Intensive neo-natal care is very expensive, and the NHS doesn't have an unlimited budget. Every pound being spent on prolonging the life of a premature baby who is probably going to die, or have severe disabilities, is money that then can't be spent on other less emotive-but no less necessary-things. I'm not saying that I agree exactly with what's being proposed, but I don't think you can completely remove cost from the equation.
Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.

[Tribesman]

Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.
So a sound reason without that blanket health care would be that the doctors can end the childs life because the parents cannot afford the costs themselves .
Or do you mean something entirely different on this topic ?

[Scurvy]

Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.

So its okay for those who can afford neo-natal care to have their babies live, while others who can't afford to pay have to watch their child die?

[yesdachi]

I would prefer an option to choose a health care plan that fits my desires rather than the same one that every different shaped peg is forced into. My current health care plan has layers and options, I get to pick and pay accordingly and if I choose a plan that offers more I pay more.

My motivations are not so sinister as to deprive babies of care, but to allow choices that represent coverage to the recipients.

[Don Corleone]

So its okay for those who can afford neo-natal care to have their babies live, while others who can't afford to pay have to watch their child die?

It is better than if in the interest of fairness, we kill all marginal babies, even those who have parents that can afford to and want to save them. I've heard of making sacrafices at the altar of political correctness, but this is ridiculous. You're going to force people into a one-payer system, then tell them that the government won't pay for their child's care, and in the interest of fairness to others, you won't let them pay for it either. Yeah, that's... uhm, an interesting approach.

While we're at it, are we going to take food and clothes away from middle class and wealthy children too? ~:rolleyes:

[Scurvy]

It is better than if in the interest of fairness, we kill all marginal babies, even those who have parents that can afford to and want to save them. You're going to force people into a one-payer system, then tell them that the government won't pay for their child's care, and in the interest of fairness to others, you won't let them pay for it either. Yeah, that's... uhm, an interesting approach.

i can see where your coming from,

but in that case, would those who can afford it be willing to pay for all of that type of care? last time i checked they didn't like paying more tax. Its wrong to say that "when i need it" im willing to pay for the nhs, but "when i don't need it", im not willing to pay. Again the more wealthy would be very happy to pay for private care for their own child, but the state is unable to provide the same care for those who can't afford it.

Very simply, if those families that can afford the care deserve to have thier children live, but so do those that don't. The ideal scenario is for all of them to recieve that care, and the only way thats going to happen is if those who can afford the care are willing to give more money to the nhs.

[Don Corleone]

i can see where your coming from,

but in that case, would those who can afford it be willing to pay for all of that type of care? last time i checked they didn't like paying more tax. Its wrong to say that "when i need it" im willing to pay for the nhs, but "when i don't need it", im not willing to pay. Again the more wealthy would be very happy to pay for private care for their own child, but the state is unable to provide the same care for those who can't afford it.

Very simply, if those families that can afford the care deserve to have thier children live, but so do those that don't. The ideal scenario is for all of them to recieve that care, and the only way thats going to happen is if those who can afford the care are willing to give more money to the nhs.

I think you sat down and went through my tax records for the past few years, you'd find that I'm a rather charitable person. But I simply see no basis for this argument that NHS is the only fair system. It's Marxism for healthcare, plain and simple, with everything that includes, including rationing, corruption and favoritism of the political elite (trust me, Ms. Taylor's or Mr. Brown's seriously disabled children would receive ANY care their parents desired for them).

I think a combination type system, such as what the Germans or the Japanese have is a much more fair system. British health care is scary. It's oppressive, it's poor and it doesn't serve it's intended function. That's not a slam on you guys, you do many things well. But personally, I would be terrified, absolutely terrified to get seriously ill while in the UK on assignment. When I found out I had a tumor that needed to be operated on in 6 months, but the government office came back with a 4 year estimate and I would be forbidden from returning to the US for medical treatment, I imagine you'd see me in the press, quite soon and quite dramatically.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Socialized aka one government provider medicine runs into a catch-22 here.

It is impossible to provide all care options to everyone without prohibitive expense. The government is torn between providing the best care available and minimizing costs -- and the two do not always cohere. So to be able provide good care you deny care.

Sad really.

[Redleg]

To put it simply - its a parents decision with information and possible courses of actions from the doctors. Courts get involved to determine after the fact.

Laws that expressily allow it - do not sit well with me. Allowing a judge to determine that the parents and the doctor did not commit a crime if the death of the child was necessary, seems an acceptable course of action to me.

But a blanket law that allows it - does not provide for review.

[yesdachi]

It’s easy to be a socialist until you are on the receiving end of mediocre benefits. :thumbsdown:

I can understand the desire to give everyone some kind of basic coverage but to give everyone the same choice is insulting. Some people have more or are willing to give more and others are not as willing to give as much or don’t use as much, health care is definitely an area that should have choices and options.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

When I found out I had a tumor that needed to be operated on in 6 months, but the government office came back with a 4 year estimate and I would be forbidden from returning to the US for medical treatment, I imagine you'd see me in the press, quite soon and quite dramatically.

I'm not quite sure I understand this example. If you have a life-threatening tumour, and you need surgery, you will get it very quickly.

Also-you are aware that you can get private health insurance if you want it in this country, right?

[Tribesman]

I would prefer an option to choose a health care plan that fits my desires rather than the same one that every different shaped peg is forced into. My current health care plan has layers and options, I get to pick and pay accordingly and if I choose a plan that offers more I pay more.

Well surprisingly we also have that option here , just as people in the UK have that option .
Didn't you know ?

Don doesn't ..........
I think a combination type system, such as what the Germans or the Japanese have is a much more fair system. British health care is scary.
There are lots of private doctors and hospitals , there are lots of options you can choose for your health care , or you can get an employer who provides it as part of your package :yes:

[Don Corleone]

Thank you BKS & Tribesman for the correction. I must have the UK & Australia confused. There was one of the Commonwealth states (perhaps even Canada) that outlawed seeking private medical treatment, and I had thought it was UK.

So, in the UK, you pay for the NHS, which doesn't work all that well, then, with whatever money you have left you can use towards treatment in the private sphere, that you yourself would be obligated to pay for (even though that NHS tax was supposed to cover you in the first place).

As I said, interesting system you have there. Not sure I'd care to play at that craps table, when the House gets such an advantage. I'm not saying the American system is perfect (Lord knows it isn't), but there are middle grounds of reasonable compromise (ala my aforementioned Germany & Japan examples).

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

So, in the UK, you pay for the NHS, which doesn't work all that well

In terms of the amount we pay for our health system, it does very well indeed. According to the WHO, the US actually spends more on health as a percentage of total government spending than we do, and you also have far more private spending than we do-in total, you spend almost double the percentage of GDP than we do on health. Yet we still do better than the US in a whole bunch of health indicators, including infant mortality-somewhat ironic, concerning the thread topic-absolute life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, and so on. So we must be doing something right.

[Don Corleone]

Our numbers are ridiculously inflated by lawsuits, malpractice insurance and excessive forms and documentation to defend oneself against said legal harrassment. I really can't express to an outsider just how tick-ridden this particular dog is (the US Health Care system). It's devestating, and they're only multiplying. If you look at real health care spending (the amount spent on actual care) the US system is actually relative competetive. But that's sort of like saying "if you ignore the fact that I have stage 4 liver cancer, I'm the picture of health!". I'm not offering our system as a postive alternative, but I am quite enamored of hybrid systems, such as Germany's.

[GoreBag]

There was one of the Commonwealth states (perhaps even Canada) that outlawed seeking private medical treatment, and I had thought it was UK.

Nah, wasn't here.

[Papewaio]

Thank you for intentionally misunderstanding misinterpreting my post. :stare: Moreover, perhaps you should not have children if you perceive them as a "burden".

Personal attacks on myself or others particularly them being parents is not warranted. Trolling of this level is 'unacceptable'. Removal of my steel cap from your %^$& will now require a surgical procedure and long term physiotherapy. ie talk to the admins. :furious3:

Of course children are burdens, and one I am willing to take. Those who waft through life thinking that raising a child is easy are fooling only themselves. Then to make an arguement that a child should be killed because they are a burden is invalid because all children do take up ones resources. Time flies out the window, they want your constant attention, reading is childrens books, there needs come first. It is a burden, and like a lot of things that are worth doing it takes resources, being a burden does not make it not worthwhile. The 'ROI' to use economic terms is wonderful. And as a parent I am very protective of my child and put him first. I am also like most parents likely to rip the arm off and beat them around the head of anyone who says I should not be the person looking after that wonderful person.

[Adrian II]

I posted that as an example of why keeping them alive was "not worth it". I guess it could easily have sounded like I was saying killing them was not worth it. I think it's a prime example of the parents getting satisfaction from being martyrs.Fair enough, I got that impression too, though it is not for me to judge so I abstained from saying so. And there is also anecdotal evidence about the very successful and rewarding 'martyrdom' of parents who refused to accept a doctor's judgment and raised the child regardless.

No medical prognosis is infallible, nor is any parental decision. Absolutes have little or no relevance in these cases, where the outcome depends on unknown variables and there is usually only a small margin of intervention, consisting of a dire choice between different kinds of misery.

[Claudius the God]

for these sorts of severe deformities, I think that Euthanasia should be an option for the parents to consider. If it were possible to cure such horrors then I would recommend trying that first, but Euthanasia should be an option and not be illegal.


If I was suffering terribly and being nothing but a huge burden on those around me with little or no hope of improvement, I too would want to die quickly and peacefully.

I'm not saying that deformed or handicapped infants should all be euthanised, but I'm saying that it should be a legal option to consider.

[Kralizec]

If a child is so badly deformed that he/she has no realistic chance of living anyway, I think treatment should be stopped. But that's about it.

If a born chid is severely deformed but will probably live through if given the chance, you should let him/her be raised by a state clinical institution and waive your parentship. Or deal with it. Proponents of euthanesia in such cases would say that it would be doing the child a favour, but I wonder if some of them just can't stand that a malformed creature of their own flesh and blood is out there.

[Beirut]

Of course children are burdens, and one I am willing to take. Those who waft through life thinking that raising a child is easy are fooling only themselves.


Children are a burden. That doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort, but anyone who thinks raising kids is all peaches and cream doesn't have children.

When it's -20 and I feel like crap and I have to make the kids breakfast and walk them down the hill to the bus stop, wait with them until the schoolbus picks them up, then trudge back up the hill home, then do all my stuff, then leave for work, well, sometimes it's a burden. If you think it's all smiles and games just because they're small and cute, you're dreaming.

Exhibit A:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/kids1snowsmall.jpg

When you have to get up at 6 for a busy day but you're awoken at 2 by a crying kid who just barfed dinner all over her bed, and I change the bed while my woman puts the kid in the bath, well, that's a burden too. You just deal with it and try to get everyone back to bed ASAP.

There is an art to raising children, and the biggest part is finding a level of patience you never knew you had or could have. It ain't easy, but like Pape, I know it's worth it. As for "if you think children are a burden then you shouldn't have any" comments, those are the words of someone who quite simply has no grasp of the reality of the situation.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

If a child is so badly deformed that he/she has no realistic chance of living anyway, I think treatment should be stopped. But that's about it.

But surely this is exactly the same as giving them a big shot of morphine, in terms of results? Except they die more slowly.

[Adrian II]

When you have to get up at 6 for a busy day but you're awoken at 2 by a crying kid who just barfed dinner all over her bed, and I change the bed while my woman puts the kid in the bath, well, that's a burden too.Oh sure. And then the kid barfs a second time, not just all over his abominable self, but also all over his kid brother who is lying next to him. Guaranteed to keep you up till 4 a.m. runing baths, changing bedsheets, disposing of puke in the most unlikely corners, and generally comforting and getting glasses of water and singing soothing songs and *yawns vicariously* ... God knows I have been there.

But the knowledge that they are healthy and happy, that they'll live and laugh another day and probably stand on their own two feet in the future is such a comfort in those situations. Parents of severely handicapped or deficient children don't have that comfort. Some literally succumb to it, physically. Others just give up on their own lives and bide their time on earth, and it shows.

Some issues are easy to judge, but nearly impossible to decide.

[Beirut]

Oh sure. And then the kid barfs a second time, not just all over his abominable self, but also all over his kid brother who is lying next to him. Guaranteed to keep you up till 4 a.m. runing baths, changing bedsheets, disposing of puke in the most unlikely corners, and generally comforting and getting glasses of water and singing soothing songs and *yawns vicariously* ... God knows I have been there.

Best I've seen is when my younger one barfs (several times) all over the bed big time. Then my woman, who's cleaning it up starts to gag and runs to the can and blows into the toilet. Meanwhile, me, who was never queasy about these things until that moment, starts to gag too, so I'm running outside and hurling over the balcony while my woman is spewing in the can and the kid is still barfing it in her bed.

Meanwhile, my older one is in the top bunk laughing herself silly. Good lord.


Parents of severely handicapped or deficient children don't have that comfort. Some literally succumb to it, physically. Others just give up on their own lives and bide their time on earth, and it shows.


My nephew is autistic and requires 100% attention. Fortunatelly my sister has the attention to give. But I have friends who do not have a lot of time (or money) to deal with their kids speacial needs and the stress is horrible. My woman's friend has a four year old who is constantly one seizure/crisis/asthma attack away from death and the doctors still have no idea what's wrong with the kid. I don't know how she deals with it. This has been going on for two years.

[Don Corleone]

Oh sure. And then the kid barfs a second time, not just all over his abominable self, but also all over his kid brother who is lying next to him. Guaranteed to keep you up till 4 a.m. runing baths, changing bedsheets, disposing of puke in the most unlikely corners, and generally comforting and getting glasses of water and singing soothing songs and *yawns vicariously* ... God knows I have been there.

But the knowledge that they are healthy and happy, that they'll live and laugh another day and probably stand on their own two feet in the future is such a comfort in those situations. Parents of severely handicapped or deficient children don't have that comfort. Some literally succumb to it, physically. Others just give up on their own lives and bide their time on earth, and it shows.

Some issues are easy to judge, but nearly impossible to decide.

So THAT'S the secret!!! I thought it was a test of character to just sit there and try to keep the fatigue and exhaustion at bay. All kidding aside, I could not begin to tell a parent, any parent that truly has their child's best interest at heart, what to do in a situation where their child is living in an agonized existence. I would always counsel to choose life, but I pray to God daily I'll never have any clue what these poor people are going through.

My argument is with the Church of England and the Royal Academy of Physicians issuing a statement that even if the child might survive with treatment, if it's too expensive, you have to let them die. :furious3: :furious3: This dyed in the wool capitalist would give his last nickel to help (and I frequently do). If you need to manage care, and control cost, quit giving cable TV and conjugal visits to rapists and murderers. Put them on a chain gang and force them to raise money for the state to pay for their upkeep. But don't starve handicapped kids to death 'for the good of society'. Have we really lost that much of our humanity?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

That sounds good, until the breast cancer sufferers start asking why the government isn't giving them carte blanche as well...

[Don Corleone]

That sounds good, until the breast cancer sufferers start asking why the government isn't giving them carte blanche as well...

I'm not sure how it goes in the UK, but as it's one of the most treatable forms of cancer, here in the US, breast cancer gets a lion's share of research and treatment money.

[Spetulhu]

You say that humans are no better than animals and yet you criticize others as barbaric? :inquisitive:

No, I say that humans give suffering animals the mercy of death out of kindness. Yet some would want to deny their fellow humans that same kindness because it's bad. :dizzy2:

[BDC]

The woman they interviewed on the news this morning about it seemed to imply that it was mainly aimed at not resuscitating very very underdeveloped babies. Around the 20-24 week stage, where only 1% survive even given every help in the world, and even then usually with a lot of serious issues. Apparently resusciting babies this young is rather unpleasant, particularly for the baby.

[Don Corleone]

BDC, I think what bothers me most about the statements issued are two things:

-First, the Church of England taking a stance that in making life-saving/life-ending decisions, cost of treatment should be an important consideration. There's plenty of barristers and businessmen around to make the business case. One would expect that what passes for ecclesiastical authorities in England would limit their considerations to moral concerns. It's funny, Americans, especially Republicans are supposed to have cash registers for hearts, but in England even your churchmen talk about killing babies to save money.

-Second is the lack of any definition or guideline in terms of viability or when the measure should be considered. Let's say I'm an OB/GYN, and I have a personal conviction that children with Down's Syndrome don't lead a life of sufficient quality and only serve to drain the system of its resources. Do I have the right to withold medical treatment, even warming lights, upon delivery? According to the Royal College of Surgeons, and shockingly, the Church of England, yes I do as they made a blanket acceptance with no limitation.

I'm also think it's terrible that parents get no say, that whatever the doctor says goes. But hey, this is a British legal issue, and if you think want to cede the decision making authority of your life and your death to your physician and remove yourself from the decision making process, it is certainly your right.

[Avicenna]

Personally, I'd prefer to be put down if I was living in england and had those conditions. From what I've heard from people who go to school at england, that seems like the surest way for a life of hell.

[Fragony]

No, I say that humans give suffering animals the mercy of death out of kindness. Yet some would want to deny their fellow humans that same kindness because it's bad. :dizzy2:

You are not religious (I think), if you consider a child a being with a soul and a gift of god then it becomes an intirely different discussion. From a christian's point of view it's denying someone his life, in whatever form it may come.

If you see it like that it's not cruel, sucks to be the baby though.

[BDC]

BDC, I think what bothers me most about the statements issued are two things:

-First, the Church of England taking a stance that in making life-saving/life-ending decisions, cost of treatment should be an important consideration. There's plenty of barristers and businessmen around to make the business case. One would expect that what passes for ecclesiastical authorities in England would limit their considerations to moral concerns. It's funny, Americans, especially Republicans are supposed to have cash registers for hearts, but in England even your churchmen talk about killing babies to save money.

-Second is the lack of any definition or guideline in terms of viability or when the measure should be considered. Let's say I'm an OB/GYN, and I have a personal conviction that children with Down's Syndrome don't lead a life of sufficient quality and only serve to drain the system of its resources. Do I have the right to withold medical treatment, even warming lights, upon delivery? According to the Royal College of Surgeons, and shockingly, the Church of England, yes I do as they made a blanket acceptance with no limitation.

I'm also think it's terrible that parents get no say, that whatever the doctor says goes. But hey, this is a British legal issue, and if you think want to cede the decision making authority of your life and your death to your physician and remove yourself from the decision making process, it is certainly your right.
I don't know enough about all this to really answer properly.

People who go into these parts of medicine do it because they care about babies though. They're hardly going to use it as an excuse to kill every other baby. I was also under the impression it was merely witholding treatment, not killing them. I doubt anyone would agree with that.

Church of England confuses everyone. That's practically it's job. There are plenty of religious fanatics in the world, it's at the exact opposite end of the scale.

Ok, I found the actual report conclusions:


Born before 22 weeks: No intensive care
22-23 weeks: No intensive care, unless parents request it after a thorough discussion of the risks and doctors agree
23-24 weeks: Parents, after a thorough discussion with the healthcare team, should have the final say
24-25 weeks: Give intensive care, unless the parents and the doctors agree there is no hope of survival, or the level of suffering is too high
Above 25 weeks: Intensive care as standard


So hardly killing babies. There probably isn't a baby anywhere who survived being born before 22 weeks anyway. It's not that long ago that babies born well past this stage would be certain to die in any case. Plus the report points out that everything needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis anyway.

[yesdachi]

Well surprisingly we also have that option here , just as people in the UK have that option .
Didn't you know ?
I thought we were discussing a hypothetical land, my bad if we weren’t. :bow:


I am a little disappointed that you have quoted me and not used laugh4 anywhere in your response. :smartass2:

[Tribesman]

Ok, I found the actual report conclusions:

So this has been a topic over a non story really .

But it has been an interesting one .


That sounds good, until the breast cancer sufferers start asking why the government isn't giving them carte blanche as well...
I thought they were already campaigning very widely for that .
Something about individual health authorities not providing certain treatments due to disputes about effectiveness and costs of those treatments .

[GoreBag]

Have we really lost that much of our humanity?

It sounds pretty human to me.

[BDC]

Pretty good summary here (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10577&feedId=online-news_rss20).

So the committee basically recommend to continue as things are, which is about equal to the US's stance, but not as extreme as the Netherlands (where babies may be euthanised apparently).

[Tribesman]

Hey BDC , with your posting some of the expected study which actually says what it says and not something else entirely , isn't it a real demonstration that your first response in this topic to a starter like this.........


Is this the direction of morality in England? Jesus, talk about losing your way. I guess some won't be happy till abortion is legal to high school.
....was actually spot on .
The key part of your first post being.......

the Daily Mail should be ignored for any serious news articles.
......:yes: :2thumbsup:

[macsen rufus]

So this has been a topic over a non story really .


well, we knew that in the very first line :laugh4: :


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

[Don Corleone]

You know, I get really sick and tired of this bullcrap that if it doesn't come out of a lefty leaning newspaper, it can't possibly be true. The NY Times has been caught outright lying on multiple occassions in the past few years, and you guys would still treat it as gospel. But an esteemed paper like the Wall Street Journal, because it has a right leaning editorial stance, is a piece of trash and you just dismiss it out of hand, without bothering to address stories listed there. Or Foxnews, or the Daily Mail, or any other media outlet that doesn't proclaim the glories of socialism and the evils of Bush and fit neatly into your limited world view.

Well, this time, you guys are gonna have some egg on your face. In the thread I opened, your beloved Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1945896,00.html) says the exact same things.


The Rt Rev Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark and vice chair of public affairs of the Mission and Public Affairs Council, states in the church's submission to the inquiry, that 'it may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death'....


The church's report does not spell out which medical conditions might justify a decision to allow babies to die...

The report also suggests the enormous cost implications to the NHS of keeping very premature and sick babies alive with invasive medical care and the burden on the parents should also be taken into consideration.

Go ahead and keep laughing Mascen and Tribesman, but even your lefty rag says that Bishop Butler is all for pulling the plug if the little bugger is draining too much money out of the system. :laugh4:

[Adrian II]

So THAT'S the secret!!! I thought it was a test of character to just sit there and try to keep the fatigue and exhaustion at bay.The secret is to sit down and breathe slowly every time you are about to lose consciousness from fatigue, and then try to tell yourself that one day this kid is going to come down the stairs as an adult, that he is going to say "Hi Mom, hi Dad', make his own breakfast, clean up after his own *** like a civilised being, announce 'I'm done with my homework', followed by either 'Anything I can do to help today?' or, in the specific case of one Adrian II, 'Gee, I have been reading this fascinating book yesterday and I would love to discuss it with you, Dad'.

You know it is an illusion, but it prevents you from shooting the kid on the spot, or strangling it slowly with a nylon chord...
My argument is with the Church of England and the Royal Academy of Physicians issuing a statement that even if the child might survive with treatment, if it's too expensive, you have to let them die.That is what worried me in the statement of the Bishop in the initial article and made me wonder if the gentleman considers himself a Christian.
This dyed in the wool capitalist would give his last nickel to help (and I frequently do).You know what is funny, in light of the above discussion about socialised medecine and such? Some, like you, worry about the thought of a heartless state health care system killing handicapped kids for reasons of financial convenience. Others worry about a heartless capitalist system where insurance companies force doctors and parents do the same, and for the very same reason: cost-cutting.

In the end, it always comes down to a question of who makes the decision and on what grounds. No matter what the prevalent health system is, the principle should be the same across the board. Decisions should be made by the parents, unless they are demonstrably unsuited to the role of parenting, but not without extensive consultation with the doctors who are responsible for the kid's treatment. The state should guarantee both due protocol and absence of undue financial pressures on the parties involved.

[Don Corleone]

Preach on, brother Adrian.

I'm not a huge believer in every last nickel health care, mind you. Personally, if I get the big C, I'll take rudimentary steps to try to treat it, but I'm not going to run up my insurance bill to the tune of 100K on every experimental possiblity out there. But most importantly, that is MY choice. If somebody else feels they want to exercise less certain, but still medically valid treatments, I agree that they should have access to them.

But frankly, I think a huge part of the reason with ballooning health care costs, in a private insurance payment system or in a state based one-payer system is the lack of visiblity into cost. If my doctor says "Look, we want to try a new ultrasound scan on you. It probably won't actually tell us very much, but it might, and hey, it's only going to cost you a $25.00 copay", my first thought would most likely be "$25.00? Why not?" But the fallacy here is that the procedure really costs hundreds of times that much, perhaps a thousand. My insurance company, and hence, all of my co-members are paying 2500 for a procedure that's not telling me very much and honestly, I don't even really care about. That, and of course, the evil lawyers. And you know what Shakespeare said about those dirty dogs...

[King Henry V]

You know it is an illusion, but it prevents you from shooting the kid on the spot, or strangling it slowly with a nylon chord...That is what worried me in the statement of the Bishop in the initial article and made me wonder if the gentleman considers himself a Christian.

Well since he is CofE, he could be anything from an atheist to a Muslim.

[Tribesman]

Go ahead and keep laughing Mascen and Tribesman, but even your lefty rag says that Bishop Butler is all for pulling the plug if the little bugger is draining too much money out of the system.

Yep , and notice the difference .....
Some sick babies must be allowed to die, says Church


and .....Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

Thats a damn big difference in reporting isn't it Don

[Adrian II]

That, and of course, the evil lawyers. And you know what Shakespeare said about those dirty dogs...And I know what John Maynard Keynes said to Dean Acheson during the 1944 Bretton Woods conference.
"The Mayflower, when she sailed from Plymouth, must have been entirely filled with lawyers."

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

You know, I get really sick and tired of this bullcrap that if it doesn't come out of a lefty leaning newspaper, it can't possibly be true.

If you were posting articles from the Daily Telegraph, or the Wall Street Journal, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. The problem people have with the Daily Mail is not that it is right wing, but that it is a sensationalist, scare-mongering rag. Bad journalism is bad journalism, whatever the political viewpoint of your newspaper.

[BDC]

The problem people have with the Daily Mail is not that it is right wing, but that it is a sensationalist, scare-mongering rag. Bad journalism is bad journalism, whatever the political viewpoint of your newspaper.

Any Americans who aren't given the opportunity to read it should probably be wary before leaping to its defence.

Whenever I have the misfortune to read it (it's free at my gym for some reason, it was the Independent and FT for free when I joined, going downmarket me thinks), I always end up really confused. You read a story that you're pretty certain you understand and suddenly it becomes a big vague mess. Can see why people get angry over things if it's the main source of news...

[Scurvy]

It has some interesting stuff in it, its just its often overshadowed by the huge amount of rubbish, its not the right-wing byass ( i can handle byass, because all media is byass, when reading left leaning papers i take this into account) its the more-or-less fabrication of some articles and complete sensationalism.

Having said its a bad paper, i read the metro, so i really can't talk :idea2:

:2thumbsup:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Ragnar,
Stephen Hawking couldn't justify his existence using your criteria. Would you recommend snuffing him as not contributing to society?


Don, He is One of FEW people who actually did something good with his life, even though he is severly disabled. Using him and the other Very Few People to me, isn't a good argument.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Don, He is One of FEW people who actually did something good with his life, even though he is severly disabled. Using him and the other Very Few People to me, isn't a good argument.

How on earth do you know what good a person does (disabled or not)? What gives you the right to evaluate a person's contribution as good or not? When did you become a god?

:dizzy2:

[mystic brew]

So hardly killing babies. There probably isn't a baby anywhere who survived being born before 22 weeks anyway. It's not that long ago that babies born well past this stage would be certain to die in any case. Plus the report points out that everything needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis anyway.
one of the articles posted so far said 98% of babies born pre 22 weeks die despite the best efforts of the doctors anyway.
Now, i don't like the implications of cost benefit analysis, but NHS managers have to put money where it's going to be of most use. Why a bishop is getting involved is a whole 'nother matter.

And on the topic of the Daily Mail, i spit in it's general direction.
Telegraph
Time
Economist
... bring em on as essentially right leaning reliable news sources... but the Mail? It's gutter journalism.
Even, god help me, The Sun is a better newspaper.

[macsen rufus]

Go ahead and keep laughing Mascen and Tribesman, but even your lefty rag says ....

FYI Don, I don't take ANY printed newspaper, nor have I ever made any claims that the Grauniad is any great paragon. What I do say is that the Mail is a particularly bad example of a not particularly impressive collective. Disagree with me all you like, but DON'T put words in my mouth to do so :furious3:

Edit:
(Sorry, Don, this was a pre-coffee post. I'm only peeved because you usually express yourself well enough without slinging around accusations of bias willy-nilly. I think the other posts above should be enough to show you the issue with the Mail is not its "leanings" but its willful trolling. It is the inflamed bile-duct of middle-brow, middle-income, middle-England, which publishes stories designed to enrage rather than enlighten.)

[Adrian II]

And on the topic of the Daily Mail, i spit in it's general direction.
Telegraph
Time
EconomistI like The Telegraph even though I have different 'leanings' than you. And The Telegraph carries by far the best Letters to the Editor; witty, informative, eccentric - the kind that used to be in The Times until a certain gentleman laid hands on it.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

How on earth do you know what good a person does (disabled or not)? What gives you the right to evaluate a person's contribution as good or not? When did you become a god?

:dizzy2:


Guess I need to argue with you :shame:

"How on earth do you know what good a person does (disabled or not)?"

If you Actually Read the Topic, it's about Disabled People, not people like us who are normal..


Second, Me a god? Thank you very Much for calling me one, like a cookie?:balloon2: :no:

What gives me the right? If you had a baby, who going to have MS, or going to be both Blind and deaf for the rest of your life, would you like to take care of him/her? If Yes, WHAT FOR?


Use your Head People. God gave you a Brain, use it. In the Animal Kingdom, the weakest animals get killed off the bat.
This is the Human Kingdom, not the Animal Kingdom, but even still. Being in a WheelChair, but actually Working, like some people I know, is one thing. They don't waste money.

But People Like that Terry Shacvo Woman, Who just sat there and had to Suffer, Well, you guys get the point.

Just some people just don't seem to get any points here at Backroom :idea2:

[Ser Clegane]

Use your Head People. God gave you a Brain, use it.

[...]

Just some people just don't seem to get any points here at Backroom

You might want to improve your line of argument a bit ... this approach is rather alienating than convincing.

[Kralizec]

What gives me the right? If you had a baby, who going to have MS, or going to be both Blind and deaf for the rest of your life, would you like to take care of him/her? If Yes, WHAT FOR?

So if the parents don't want to raise the kid, kill it?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Guess I need to argue with you :shame:

"How on earth do you know what good a person does (disabled or not)?"

If you Actually Read the Topic, it's about Disabled People, not people like us who are normal..

How do you know I'm not disabled? How do I know you're "normal"? What is "normal"?



Second, Me a god? Thank you very Much for calling me one, like a cookie?:balloon2: :no:

It was just that you appeared to be so sure of yourself and other's intentions the only explanation that presented itself to me was godhead. In the context of the discussion, I suppose the only other explanation that gave you the right to decide someone's viability would make you a doctor or an accountant.


What gives me the right? If you had a baby, who going to have MS, or going to be both Blind and deaf for the rest of your life, would you like to take care of him/her? If Yes, WHAT FOR?

Would I be OK by you to look after my child if she was only blind? What if she limped a bit? It would be informative if you could provide a list of "defects" that are so intolerable I should kill my child rather than let her live. I imagine being ginger might start it off. I'd also like to know what you think children ARE FOR?


Use your Head People. God gave you a Brain, use it. In the Animal Kingdom, the weakest animals get killed off the bat.
This is the Human Kingdom, not the Animal Kingdom, but even still. Being in a WheelChair, but actually Working, like some people I know, is one thing. They don't waste money.

This part I will forebear from answering, in the interests of civility.


Just some people just don't seem to get any points here at Backroom :idea2:

Sorry, I escaped the eugenics cull. There's still time though.

[King Ragnar]

Normal being someone who is completely healthy with no MAJOR disabilites,
in reply to Kralizec, yes if the parents do not want to raise a severely diabled child then kill it, it will let the hospital save other peoples lives by saving them money and other resources instead of wasting them on a child who has no future and no parents.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Folks:

You do realize that Johnathan Swift was SATARIZING and not trying to establish the parameters of future NHS policy?

[Redleg]

Having spent some time in a neo-natal ward with my son who was born 7 weeks premature, I find myself blessed not to have made such a decision that faces many of the parents that have children in the neo-natal wards.

When one reaches the point where they believe killing new born babies is no big deal if they are severly disabled is an unknown feeling for myself.

Having lived on a farm where I had to destroy animals that became so injuried that I had to destroy them, I still did not approach the level of callousness that I have seen expressed in this thread. The ending of a life of any living thing should never be treated in such a way. Animals and people die all the time, if their is hope of life, then one must pursue that life until ends.

When I was young and activitily hunted for food, I had more respected for the animal life I was ending then some have expressed about a new born severly disabled human being.

Sometimes I despise the human race and a few of you have added to that feeling in this thread. :no: :thumbsdown:

But a few of you have dispelled the disgust I have had in reading this thread - and I appreciate the effort,

[King Ragnar]

Its a Dog eat Dog World
Everyman for himself
etc

[Redleg]

Its a Dog eat Dog World
Everyman for himself
etc


Where is the dog eat dog world? In places like the Congo.

If the United Kingdom has degenerated into a such an attitude as a whole then the United Kingdom has lost its way.

Those that speak of a dog eat dog world and live in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States haven't a clue what a horrible place the world can be for individuals. Losing your humanity with such comments demonstrate a personal flaw greater then I care to address.

[Ser Clegane]

yes if the parents do not want to raise a severely diabled child then kill it, it will let the hospital save other peoples lives by saving them money and other resources instead of wasting them on a child who has no future and no parents.

That sounds a bit too easy for me - and considering that an "easy" model has been tried here some 70 years ago I do not quite like the sound of that.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think that people (not only childrean but also adult people) should be kept alive at any cost (and by "cost" I do not mean monetary cost but the price that has to be paid in terms of pain and loss of dignity).

However, I have a problem when the decision whether a child should live or die is reduced to an administrative decision of a doctor and that is based on a simple cost/benefit calculation.
Ultimately, such a decision needs to be made by a doctor and the parents and should only be possible in rare cases, e.g. high level of physical suffering, cases where inevitable death is only postponed by a couple of weeks. Being blind and deaf does not qualify IMO.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

If the United Kingdom has degenerated into a such an attitude as a whole then the United Kingdom has lost its way.

Please don't take Ragnar as representative of the attitudes of British people, I implore you.

[Ser Clegane]

Its a Dog eat Dog World
Everyman for himself
etc

No it isn't - perhaps you would like to have it that way but I think it is one of the hallmarks of civilisation that we move beyond such a thing.
Just because some cynics only care for themselves does not mean that the majority follows this "philiosophy"

[Redleg]

Please don't take Ragnar as representative of the attitudes of British people, I implore you.

I don't, especially when individuals such as Banquo's Ghost have responded equolently to his rubbish.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Please don't take Ragnar as representative of the attitudes of British people, I implore you.

I won't either.

However, as one of those church-going yanks who gets ridiculed by too many European secularists, I must note that it is Ragnar's expressed amoral attitude that gives us pause. If, in "defeating" religion, you encourage a reversion to intellectual barbarism, what price "victory?"

I am glad to hear this viewpoint marginalized.

[King Ragnar]

Did i say my views represent that of the UK, no its my opinion am i not entitled to it, or is not PC enough for everyone?
I still firmly believe in survival of the fitest and dog eat dog world, notice we have been pouring money into places of povety for years and years and nothing happens...

[Scurvy]

Having spent some time in a neo-natal ward with my son who was born 7 weeks premature, I find myself blessed not to have made such a decision that faces many of the parents that have children in the neo-natal wards.

When one reaches the point where they believe killing new born babies is no big deal if they are severly disabled is an unknown feeling for myself.

I don't think anyones said it's no big deal, it is a very big deal, if my parents had made that decision, i wouldnt be here (8 weeks prem.),
however there must be some cases where doctors know the child will die in the first few days, or suffer hugely debilitating illness's which are a burden on the family financially and mentally, it is an unrealistic link to say just because killing a child can be "right (horrible wording, sorry) that its no big deal, - its ehy its a difficult issue though, its hard to judge whether death is better than life, because the life never gets to be lived :no:



Sometimes I despise the human race and a few of you have added to that feeling in this thread.

Thats unfair, having an opinion isn't to be despised :2thumbsup:

[Ser Clegane]

Did i say my views represent that of the UK, no its my opinion am i not entitled to it, or is not PC enough for everyone

Actually you said that it's a 'dog eat dog world' and people said that it is not.
Now you are saying that it should be a 'dog eats dog world' which is slightly different. You are of course entitled to this opinion, just as everybody else here is entitled to voice his/her opinion on such a view as long as this opinion is not expressed within our forum rules (e.g. without personal attacks)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Did i say my views represent that of the UK, no its my opinion am i not entitled to it, or is not PC enough for everyone?
I still firmly believe in survival of the fitest and dog eat dog world, notice we have been pouring money into places of povety for years and years and nothing happens...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, regardless of its inanity.

I would encourage you to look into political theory a bit (Locke, Rousseau, The Federalist Papers, etc.). There are good reasons -- directly linked to survival -- for moving beyond the Hobbesian state of nature you appear to advocate.

Foreign Aid, which you decry, has its uses. Its value is usually characterized by the amount of "political capital" it generates -- to think of it as a serious effort to eradicate poverty is silly. Those who vote to send the aid are pretty well aware that a goodly portion of it ends up in individual accounts in the Caymans or with the Swiss. I too have my problems with this system.

Private charity -- not done through taxation -- is a different matter altogether. Charity is an enobling virtue and has rewards for both the giver and the receiver.

[Scurvy]

Did i say my views represent that of the UK, no its my opinion am i not entitled to it, or is not PC enough for everyone?
I still firmly believe in survival of the fitest and dog eat dog world, notice we have been pouring money into places of povety for years and years and nothing happens...

PC has nothing to do with it, people just find your views extreme - not your fault, at least your honest :2thumbsup:

survival of the fittest only goes so far, as a species we have developed far beyond mere survival, we now have the capacity and ability to help the species as a whole, and therefore should do so. :egypt:

[King Ragnar]

what satisfaction do i get from giving money to a person who probably is a fraud and even if it is going to them, why should i give it to someone i have never met nor will ever meet on the other side of the world?

[Adrian II]

I still firmly believe in survival of the fitest and dog eat dog world (..)Well, some people like to tackle moral dilemma's with naturalistic arguments. It may be an interesting exercise and produce surprising results. Not, however, if the arguments stem from mere popular Darwinism, which is derived from social Darwinism, which in turn has only a tenuous relationship (if any) to biological Darwinism and evolution theory.

Such arguments are usually deficient in that they assume that 'fitness' in Darwinian theory equals individual physical fitness by today's standards. It doesn't.

To cut a very long expose very short, we have in our midst people like Stephen Hawkings. They are physically unfit by almost any standard, yet intellectually gifted to the extent that they may, one day, invent a revolutionary way to prolong human survival for much longer then projected. For instance by finding a way to break out of our solar system (which has a limited lifespan) and break into other, ever younger solar systems.

The degree of fitness of individuals and races often has to be established after the fact; we simply can not predict fitness on the basis of our limited knowledge of the universe. What is pretty certain, to my mind, is that the King Ragnars of this world will not prolong human existence if they keep adhering to their fallacies.

[GoreBag]

BG, don't bother, mang.

[Redleg]

I don't think anyones said it's no big deal, it is a very big deal, if my parents had made that decision, i wouldnt be here (8 weeks prem.),

You might want to re-read some of the posts.



however there must be some cases where doctors know the child will die in the first few days, or suffer hugely debilitating illness's which are a burden on the family financially and mentally, it is an unrealistic link to say just because killing a child can be "right (horrible wording, sorry) that its no big deal, - its ehy its a difficult issue though, its hard to judge whether death is better than life, because the life never gets to be lived :no:

agreed - and that is why I am disgusted with the shallow disregard for life expressed by some.



Thats unfair, having an opinion isn't to be despised :2thumbsup:
Its completely fair, some opinions should be despised on principle. I also dispise those who advocate racism. the very nature of the philisophy behind racism deserves contempt and ridicule anytime it is faced.


One of the main characteristics that seperate man from animals is our ability to express ourselves and show empthay for our fellow human beings. When we as a people loose our empthay - then we are no longer human but just the animals that some can be.

[Redleg]

The degree of fitness of individuals and races often has to be established after the fact; we simply can not predict fitness on the basis of our limited knowledge of the universe. What is pretty certain, to my mind, is that the King Ragnars of this world will not prolong human existence if they keep adhering to their fallacies.

Agreed

[MSB]

This is terrible news. A supposed Christian wants the government to kill innocent new born babies who, although they may be deformed/disabled, could have a chance in life. Look at Simona Atzori (born with no arms), Joey Deacon (cerebral palsy sufferer) and Anne Begg (sufferer of Gaucher's disease). All of these people have done something with their lives despite their disability. If a disabled new born baby was killed then the most intelligent person ever to set their eyes on the world could be gone out of "mercy". And this isn't even considering the effects of a system that could go corrupt or spiral out of control. If a law such as the one that the "Christian" in question wants. This is disability discrimination!

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

How do you know I'm not disabled? How do I know you're "normal"? What is "normal"?




It was just that you appeared to be so sure of yourself and other's intentions the only explanation that presented itself to me was godhead. In the context of the discussion, I suppose the only other explanation that gave you the right to decide someone's viability would make you a doctor or an accountant.



Would I be OK by you to look after my child if she was only blind? What if she limped a bit? It would be informative if you could provide a list of "defects" that are so intolerable I should kill my child rather than let her live. I imagine being ginger might start it off. I'd also like to know what you think children ARE FOR?



This part I will forebear from answering, in the interests of civility.



Sorry, I escaped the eugenics cull. There's still time though.



Also in Interset of Civility, I keep myself from telling you my thoughts Bud

I live you with two Comments. Number One Ban, Children are for increasing the population, ever think of that :inquisitive: ? Whatever,

and the last


"Normal being someone who is completely healthy with no MAJOR disabilites,
in reply to Kralizec, yes if the parents do not want to raise a severely diabled child then kill it, it will let the hospital save other peoples lives by saving them money and other resources instead of wasting them on a child who has no future and no parents."

100% agreed My Fellow King Ragnar

[Goofball]

I won't either.

However, as one of those church-going yanks who gets ridiculed by too many European secularists, I must note that it is Ragnar's expressed amoral attitude that gives us pause. If, in "defeating" religion, you encourage a reversion to intellectual barbarism, what price "victory?"

I am glad to hear this viewpoint marginalized.

You don't need religion to tell you that killing babies is a bad idea. I think you will find that secular humanists also find the idea repugnant.

[Andres]

Some views exposed in this thread... Well, they "amazed" (not to say "disgusted") me, to say the least.

As a student, one day I was taking an oral examination. While waiting for my turn, two parents came in. They had this boy with them, in a wheelchair. He was disabled, he couldn't speak, he could barely move his right hand.

He was a student. He came to take the exam. He had a special laptop connected on his wheelchair. He got some questions and he started to answer them. It was the same course, but since he couldn't speak, he had to take the test written. He typed the answers with his one, shaky hand.

I picked up his name. At the proclamation at the end of the year, I heard he passed and could go on to the next year. I never saw him again. Did he die? Did his condition got worse making it impossible to go further? Did he take the exams without me noticing it?

I don't know.

Will he ever be able to actually get a job and work in his condition? Most likely not.

After reading some of the posts in here, this guy would qualify to some of you as "to be killed by birth because not useful".

:shame:

What about his courage? His strength? The iron will he must have (had). The strength of his parents? The proud they must have felt hearing their son actually passed and could go on to the next year?

I don't know how the other posters in this thread feel, but I admired him. I looked up at him. Remembering this guy and his achievements, I still become emotional, allthough it has been 8 years since I saw him taking his exam, in that wheelchair, his head hanging, sometimes shaking, with one hand strangely typing on his computer.

Was/is this HUMAN being's life worhtfull? YES, YES and YES !!! Just for being an example that you can achieve alot if you really want it. And it made his parents a fine example of just how much love and dedication a parent can give to his child.

Some of the posts in here are just disrespectful regarding to this lad.

:no:

[Scurvy]

This is terrible news. A supposed Christian wants the government to kill innocent new born babies who, although they may be deformed/disabled, could have a chance in life. Look at Simona Atzori (born with no arms), Joey Deacon (cerebral palsy sufferer) and Anne Begg (sufferer of Gaucher's disease). All of these people have done something with their lives despite their disability. If a disabled new born baby was killed then the most intelligent person ever to set their eyes on the world could be gone out of "mercy".

the use of specific examples doenst really justify the argument as a whole, im sure i could find millions of examples where people who had those disabilities lead miserable lives, i also think the three deseases are not quite serious enough to warrant death, its only when there is no chance of reasonable life (ie. no life at all) that the baby should be put to rest,

Andres, similar answer, - i don;t know what he was suffeing, but if he lived that long then i wouldnt count it as a waste, i am guessing (although i don't know) that his parents were fairly well off, and able to afford the care he needed, it doesnt change his achievment, but a lot of families wouldnt be able to support a child like that, and so both the child and they would suffer (usually ending in the childs death)

[Adrian II]

Look at Simona Atzori (born with no arms), Joey Deacon (cerebral palsy sufferer) and Anne Begg (sufferer of Gaucher's disease).Of course they live, and they should. In principle all disabled newborns should live.

For me, the moral dilemma starts when a child suffers and will probably go on suffering for the rest of its life. Some newborns suffer pain and misery of a kind I can not even begin to picture in my worst nightmares. If the prognosis is bad, then what do we do? How do you weigh the chance of a considerable improvement in the child's condition or the chance that the child will die a long-drawn, horrible death because you do everything to prolong its life?

And I do mean weigh the chances, in a mathematical sense.

Oh, and let's see how fit our Darwinian amateurs are when it comes to probability calculus.

[Ser Clegane]

i also think the three deseases are not quite serious enough to warrant death, its only when there is no chance of reasonable life (ie. no life at all) that the baby should be put to rest,

I thinks this is an important point - it is my impression that (apart from rare exceptions) nobody here would support killing babies in the cases of such disabilities.

As with discussions about abortions we should keep in mind that there is more than just the extremes when it comes to having a view on an issue.

[Avicenna]

what satisfaction do i get from giving money to a person who probably is a fraud and even if it is going to them, why should i give it to someone i have never met nor will ever meet on the other side of the world?

What a wonderful human being you are. I am sure the world could do with more like you.

[GoreBag]

Did i say my views represent that of the UK, no its my opinion am i not entitled to it, or is not PC enough for everyone?
I still firmly believe in survival of the fitest and dog eat dog world, notice we have been pouring money into places of povety for years and years and nothing happens...

Whoa, whoa, be fair here. Who do you mean by 'we'? If you just mean your country's government, then you haven't done anything. How many problems do you expect to solve by throwing money at them, anyway?

As well, having been born in Britain doesn't make you more 'fit', unless you're trying to use some reductionist neo-nazi logic. If anything, there's more room for the unfit to survive in a country like yours.

[Andres]

As with discussions about abortions we should keep in mind that there is more than just the extremes when it comes to having a view on an issue.

As was the purpose of my post.

After reading some of the posts in this thread, I was under the impression that some of the participants at the discussion would consider approve support and defend a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking). I consider this as an "extreme". Extremes are to disapprove. If my impression was caused by misinterpreting though (which I doubt), I apologize.

To even consider the use of arguments like "economically speaking", "the financial issues of the case", "it costs more to society then we would benefit from it" in this case seems untasteful, even disgusting to me, the more if "benefits" seems to be interpreted as only financial benefits (as if there don't exist other "benefits").

If you ask my humble opinion: a decent regulation on the matter would be an almost impossible task. Besides the medical side of the story, there's is also an emotional one and off course a moral one.

How to decide whether it is allowed to kill the child or not? Where will we draw the line? "He cannot use arms or legs, so you are allowed to kill him" ? , "He seems not to know what is going on, so you can kill him" ?, "He isn't able to have a decent job, so he will only cost us a lot of money, so you can kill him" ?... I repeat: where will you draw the line? Can you possible draw a line here? Who will draw it? If, within the lines of your new regulation, the child's life is "not worthy to live" (which is the only way to define the conclusion of the doctors/parents/psychologists/philisophers and whoever would be to make the decision), will the parents be able to decide to let the baby live or not? Will they be forced to watch and let it die/be killed even if they want it to live and to take care of it? Will we give them financial support? Do you feel obliged or not?

More questions then answers.

[Scurvy]

As was the purpose of my post.

After reading some of the posts in this thread, I was under the impression that some of the participants at the discussion would consider approve support and defend a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking). I consider this as an "extreme". Extremes are to disapprove.

I dont see how it is extreme to support the law, i would (and i don;t consider myself a very "extreme" person) with emphasis on it being a very cautious law, with strict guidlelines on which type of case would end in a death



To even consider the use of arguments like "economically speaking", "the financial issues of the case", "it costs more to society then we would benefit from it" in this case seems untasteful, even disgusting to me,

they have to be considered, in the UK the NHS hardly has unlimited money, and doctors would be most effective in treating cases, that can be effectively treated. Some families might not be able to support themselves and a (very) severly disabled child. Its realistic, hardly disgusting.

:2thumbsup:

[Ser Clegane]

More questions then answers.
And that's how it should be.

It should never be our aim to find easy answers on such issues. Decisions whether it might be better to end the life of a newborn must never become routine decisions but should be painful case by case decisions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You don't need religion to tell you that killing babies is a bad idea. I think you will find that secular humanists also find the idea repugnant.

I would agree with you that the clear majority do find it repugnant. My concern is that secular humanism makes it easier, intellectually, to embrace amorality -- at least if part of your audience isn't willing to do the hard work of developing a rigorous moral code in the absence of one derived from religious faith and tradition. Those who are willing to undertake such a introspective journey would, of course, be at no moral disadvantage when compared to one who is churched.

Please note that one later post in this thread suggested that King R look into political philosophy a bit -- I did not try to Bible-thump him. Morality is not the exclusive province of religion.

[Andres]

I dont see how it is extreme to support the law, i would (and i don;t consider myself a very "extreme" person) with emphasis on it being a very cautious law, with strict guidlelines on which type of case would end in a death

I was talking about "a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking)" = a law that would only take this in consideration to form an ordeal. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :sorry:

I still feel that considering financial, economic elements to decide over the life of a human is distasteful.



they have to be considered, in the UK the NHS hardly has unlimited money, and doctors would be most effective in treating cases, that can be effectively treated. Some families might not be able to support themselves and a (very) severly disabled child. Its realistic, hardly disgusting.

:2thumbsup:

I hear you, I even understand you. If I would be able to put aside my emotions, my feelings, and as a consequence would be thinking rational = only rational, I might even be able to defend your point of view.

On the other hand, from a strictly rational and financial point of view, looking at the financial gains/losses, one would be able to defend the killing of old people who aren't able to work anymore. After all, most of them just cost us money, don't they? Makes me think, maybe we should screen and examine all of the inhabitants of our respective countries and all those who are likely to only cost us instead of earning us money in the future, should be killed...

I know I'm exaggerating know and these are words that you didn't speak. I just want to point out the danger of being too rational on such difficult matters and to what extremes being only/strictly rational could lead.

The ability to think rationally is not the only thing that makes us "human". Emotions and feelings like compassion, empathy,... are also part of us.

Reading things like this:

Use your Head People. God gave you a Brain, use it. In the Animal Kingdom, the weakest animals get killed off the bat.
This is the Human Kingdom, not the Animal Kingdom, but even still. Being in a WheelChair, but actually Working, like some people I know, is one thing. They don't waste money.

:shame:

and this:


Its a Dog eat Dog World
Everyman for himself

:shame:

makes one feel the need to post the messages I'm trying to post...

[King Ragnar]

the fact that your questioning what i posted:shame:

[Andres]

the fact that your questioning what i posted:shame:


Well, I refuse to believe, let alone accept, that we are living in a "Dog eat Dog World, Everyman for himself" as a given, unchangeable fact.

Accepting it would lead to apathy and thus the "Dog eat Dog World, Everyman for himself" would last forever.

No matter how cruel the world is, it is no excuse to put away your humanity and thus to contribute to it's cruelty and actually really making it a Dog eat Dog world.

But these are general reflections and I get carried away way too far off topic :oops: :sorry:

[Scurvy]

I was talking about "a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking)" = a law that would only take this in consideration to form an ordeal. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :sorry:

:bow:



I hear you, I even understand you. If I would be able to put aside my emotions, my feelings, and as a consequence would be thinking rational = only rational, I might even be able to defend your point of view.

I know I'm exaggerating know and these are words that you didn't speak. I just want to point out the danger of being too rational on such difficult matters and to what extremes being only/strictly rational could lead.

The ability to think rationally is not the only thing that makes us "human". Emotions and feelings like compassion, empathy,... are also part of us.

I can see where your coming from, rationallity can only go so far, and the emotional side has to be taken into account.
However one of the things that makes us human is our ability to balannce the rational with the irrational, the emotional implications should be considered as much as (and probably more than) the rational,
I think its important to remember the the whelfare of the child is the priority, and saying "i dont want to kill him because my emotions prevent me from doing so" isnt necessarily valid, if you let a child live, but it siffers greatly and then dies maybe a day later, is that any better than "killing" it outright?

its a very difficult issue, partly because the emotional context (no-on ewnts to kill a baby) is so huge

:2thumbsup:



Reading things like this:
and this:
makes one feel the need to post the messages I'm trying to post...

I agree, thats taking the whole thing a step too far, and completely devalues any rational argument - it isnt only money that should be considered, and we should help when we realistically can.

:2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

Well someone made a very very good point ....

Sometimes I despise the human race and a few of you have added to that feeling in this thread.

But for the hell of it , I must ask Ragnar .
Since you believe that a British person is superior to anyone who is not British , would a Britsh premature disabled baby not be superior to a premature disabled baby of foriegn descent ?
Or are your views just despicable nonsense ?

[King Ragnar]

well tribesman, premature babies arent exactly SEVERELY disabled children, premature children wouldnt exactly fit into that group, unless it was very very premature, we are arguing about killing SEVERELY disabled children at birth, and even if that child was british and SEVERELY disable it should still be killed in my opinion, im not saying kill all children with disabilities just the most severe and worse cases possible. and please dont insult my views i try to accept yours so just accept mine for once please, instead of having to challange me for every thing i post in, your the main reason i get warnings, so ill just bite my tounge.

[Andres]

I agree, thats taking the whole thing a step too far, and completely devalues any rational argument - it isnt only money that should be considered, and we should help when we realistically can.
:2thumbsup:

:bow:

[Tribesman]

please dont insult my views i try to accept yours so just accept mine for once please
My dearest Ragnar , I accept your views for exactly what they are .

I wonder if you noticed this line in the post preceeding mine .
However one of the things that makes us human is our ability to balannce the rational with the irrational:inquisitive:

[KrooK]

Sorry but its ridiculus. Who can decide about our right to life?

We can kill small child because we think that its life might be hard
but we can't kill crime who made other people's lives hard.

Who can decide if that child want or don't want live?
This is just like nazism - we can't let them live in order to healt and financial condition of our society.

We have already discussed this issue on my university and we can't support it. It's even worst than nazism - people who know what nazis had done, are deciding to follow them.

Anyway this could be good example of madness that rule over Europe.
We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death.
Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........

[AntiochusIII]

We have already discussed this issue on my university and we can't support it. It's even worst than nazism - people who know what nazis had done, are deciding to follow them.

Anyway this could be good example of madness that rule over Europe.
We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death.
Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........:balloon2: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)

[mystic brew]

I like The Telegraph even though I have different 'leanings' than you. And The Telegraph carries by far the best Letters to the Editor; witty, informative, eccentric - the kind that used to be in The Times until a certain gentleman laid hands on it.
oh, i read the Independent as my paper of choice. But the Telegraph (clarkson aside) offers a thinking alternative to the knee jerk nonsense of the Mail.

[mystic brew]

I would agree with you that the clear majority do find it repugnant. My concern is that secular humanism makes it easier, intellectually, to embrace amorality -- at least if part of your audience isn't willing to do the hard work of developing a rigorous moral code in the absence of one derived from religious faith and tradition. Those who are willing to undertake such a introspective journey would, of course, be at no moral disadvantage when compared to one who is churched.
I would dispute this assertion. there is no logical reason why humanism should be any more prone to making decisions to let people die, or even take an active hand in doing so, than religious people. The consolation of an afterlife has in the past been used to justify all sorts of acts depriving the individual of life, the inquisition being an old and hoary example. Also some sects of Christianity refuse medical treatment such as blood transfusions.
I think you may be conflating two seperate philosophies, that of humanism and nihilism. Secular humanism, in the absence of an afterlife, believes that human life is the only thing an individual gets, so the termination of one is not a decision to be taken lightly.
It may be you believe that without the threat of punishment from God mankind is likely to err, but i think i'll let you tell me that, rather than putting words in your mouth! :idea2:

[Scurvy]

Sorry but its ridiculus. Who can decide about our right to life?
We can kill small child because we think that its life might be hard
but we can't kill crime who made other people's lives hard.


We don't kill a small child because it's life might be hard, we kill it when it will have no life at all, it must be stressed that the "killing" should only occur with extremely serious cases, surely if all the child will know (for maybe 48hours if its lucky) is pain and suffering, then death is better.




This is just like nazism - we can't let them live in order to healt and financial condition of our society.
It's even worst than nazism - people who know what nazis had done, are deciding to follow them.


I'm afraid i completely fail to see the link with nazism .....:beam:

its not just the health and finacnial condition of society, its of the family, the severe mental burden and financial problems that a family might have to cope with are just too great. If the chld will have no life, then why waste valuable money that could be used to treat others, and inflict unnecessary pain upon the family (ie, a quick death as opposed to a long drawn out aggonising death)
as i'v said before, you have to balance both the rational and irrational, ie, the emotional and the financial/practical



Anyway this could be good example of madness that rule over Europe.
We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death.
Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........

slightly melodramatic :2thumbsup:

[Rodion Romanovich]

I support abortion until the 12th month. We have too much overpopulation and any way of preventing a new human from being born rather than killing him/her after he/she becomes a human being is great. Preferably the primitive overreproduction should be stopped before conception, but if people can't control their desires or can't afford condoms, abortions (or preferably free condoms for everyone) is necessary.

[Redleg]

I support abortion until the 12th month. .

That might work for horses and elephants, but not humans. Or do you advocate the killing of healthly new-born babies up until the time they turn three monthes old. :thumbsdown:

I must repeat myself for a second time it seems.

That is why I am disgusted with the shallow disregard for life expressed by some.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not necessarily killing, but putting them out to the wolves. It isn't killing when they're below 3 months. But above all - it's more honorable to prevent conception than forcing a woman to have to carry a heavy baby, hurt her back, become fat, get uglier breasts, migraine for 9 months, not being available to have sex with (at least not as much), and hurt her lower body parts before ending the life. The worst of all, is if you above forcing the woman to do that also force the man and woman together to raise the child, learn to love it, teach it many things, form memories with it - and then see it killed by war or starvation.

Let's just say that we both agree that it's more honorable to abort before conception than later, and that we have some kind of idea that killing a child and an adolescent in many ways feels worse than say killing a 80 years old person, without really analyzing further why that thought exists (even if it has a quite interesting biological background). Like you, I'm strongly against abortion, but I wouldn't label it murder. Apart from the label I also assume that we have different ideas of how to implement reduced abortion rates in society in the most effective way. Given my knowledge of you from earlier threads, the main difference in our way of thinking lies in that you are more of a rule ethics type, while I apply a "continuous transformation of consequence ethics models into simple temporarily kept rule ethics sets". Since the entire rest of the discussion would be about our fundamental views on ethics but hidden in details of implementation, I might as well right away say that we will most likely only waste time if we try to debate abortion if we haven't first had a debate about our fundamental ways of ethical reasoning.

As for that debate, and the connection between thought and action, and rule ethics/political correctness contra consequence ethics, let me just take an example that "politically correct" behavior or rule ethics thinking, i.e. refusing to think in certain ways that would be declared tabboo by rule ethics rather than applying a consequence ethics way of reasoning, usually results in actions that cause more suffering, sins and other things that most rule ethics system claim to be trying to minimize:
An American study in economics compared the outcome of two types of political decisions: 1. where before the decision was made, it was assumed that a human life was worth a certain amount of money, 2. where no such assumption was made because it was considered unholy and evil. It turned out that on average, the decisions made by using the 1st method ended up carrying out actions that saved more lives, and if afterwards an estimation of value of human life was made for decisions of the 2nd type, it turned out that the second type of reasoning on average valued a human life half as high as the 1st type of decision-making.

[Adrian II]

We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death. Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........Well, since the defeat of nazism and communism, the end of colonialism and the advent of Isabelle Adjani, western civilization seems to be on a bit of an upward slope again.

Put that in your Spengler pipe and smoke it, Krook.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well, since the defeat of nazism and communism, the end of colonialism and the advent of Isabelle Adjani, western civilization seems to be on a bit of an upward slope again.

Put that in your Spengler pipe and smoke it, Krook.

I assume that in terms of the classical rennaissance view of the roman empire (which I assume was used above where civilization was assumed good and barbary bad - if I'm assuming wrong I apologize?), a good-looking actress would not be the barbary but the decadence part of our civilization :wink: - the final years before the fall :hide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Adjani

[Rodion Romanovich]

Oh what am I doing?! I thought this was a regular abortion thread, but it specifically said "severely disabled babies". Let me just point out for clarification that everything I said above was my general view of abortion, not a specifical view about severely disabled babies.

[MSB]

Finishing off my original post (the backroom just moves too fast for me!):
About a corrupt system:
The system could go completely wrong and become corrupted. For example: Doctor sees a teenage mum of thirteen give birth. After having it she decides that she doesn't want the child and, out of sympathy for the mother who could not cope with the child and give it a good life, the doctor, on the orders of the mother, claims the baby has a disability, even though it does not, and lets it die. This is a bit of an extreme, but it could happen. Also if a law like this was to be passed then eventually it could lead to even more extreme laws, and this one is extreme enough anyway.

Another point, that should also be taken into consideration, is that in the child's lifetime then a cure may be discovered for the problem that they originally had. In that case then they would have died unnecessarily.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Finishing off my original post (the backroom just moves too fast for me!):
About a corrupt system:
The system could go completely wrong and become corrupted. For example: Doctor sees a teenage mum of thirteen give birth. After having it she decides that she doesn't want the child and, out of sympathy for the mother who could not cope with the child and give it a good life, the doctor, on the orders of the mother, claims the baby has a disability, even though it does not, and lets it die. This is a bit of an extreme, but it could happen. Also if a law like this was to be passed then eventually it could lead to even more extreme laws, and this one is extreme enough anyway.

Another point, that should also be taken into consideration, is that in the child's lifetime then a cure may be discovered for the problem that they originally had. In that case then they would have died unnecessarily.
Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:

[MSB]

Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:
Abortion, in my opinion, isn't much better than killing a baby at birth. Sorry to have to tell you this, but I am a pro-life Catholic Christian.

[Redleg]

Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:

As mentioned before 12 months might work for horses and elephants, but not humans. The normal gestation period is about 270 days. So if you advocate abortion on humans up until the 12 month you are advocating the killing of healthy human beings that are 3 months old. Also know as murder.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would dispute this assertion. there is no logical reason why humanism should be any more prone to making decisions to let people die, or even take an active hand in doing so, than religious people.

I understand your point. I guess my concern centers on the idea of moral relativism. For the religious, morality is more of an absolute -- a standard set forth by their religious beliefs to which they should adhere/aspire. This has been twisted of course -- Crusaders despoiling a Muslim village and killing its inhabitants are hardly acting toward the spirit of "Thou Shalt Not Murder," despite their steadfast belief that they were doing God's work.
Secular Humanism, with its emphasis on the individual and preference for equality also runs the risk of having no "higher moral standard." If every belief is equally worthy of respect and every action only to be judged by the standards of the individual enacting it, then how can one judge some act to be "wrong" and another "good." If it would be too costly to continue that life, if we view such a life as not worth living, then we should end it. Moral relativism in action.


The consolation of an afterlife has in the past been used to justify all sorts of acts depriving the individual of life, the inquisition being an old and hoary example. Also some sects of Christianity refuse medical treatment such as blood transfusions.

Sadly true. The religious version of "the ends justify the means" has produced too much suffering.


I think you may be conflating two seperate philosophies, that of humanism and nihilism. Secular humanism, in the absence of an afterlife, believes that human life is the only thing an individual gets, so the termination of one is not a decision to be taken lightly.
It may be you believe that without the threat of punishment from God mankind is likely to err, but i think i'll let you tell me that, rather than putting words in your mouth! :idea2:

I think humanity is likely to err irregardless of divine punishment -- and I am therefore quite thankful for divine forgiveness!:yes: I know I need it.

You assert a secular humanism that values life -- if there is no afterlife then we should treasure this life (reasonably logical) -- but by creating a situation where moral relativism applies, it is all too possible for secular humanism to evoke nihilism. If no moral code is provided for you, YOU must do the work to establish one. Will it be rigorous enough? Will it focus on the betterment of the individual and of the society? Or will it simply be an excuse to hedonims? I fear far too many make the latter choice, and undercut the potential for secular humanism to make a better contribution.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:

You are aware that most societies would label that "murder" and put you in jail if you participated in same?

[Scurvy]

Finishing off my original post (the backroom just moves too fast for me!):
About a corrupt system:
The system could go completely wrong and become corrupted. For example: Doctor sees a teenage mum of thirteen give birth. After having it she decides that she doesn't want the child and, out of sympathy for the mother who could not cope with the child and give it a good life, the doctor, on the orders of the mother, claims the baby has a disability, even though it does not, and lets it die. This is a bit of an extreme, but it could happen. Also if a law like this was to be passed then eventually it could lead to even more extreme laws, and this one is extreme enough anyway.

Another point, that should also be taken into consideration, is that in the child's lifetime then a cure may be discovered for the problem that they originally had. In that case then they would have died unnecessarily.

That just wouldnt happen, the rules would have to be very strict, but it is possible to iradicate corruption through a well thought out law.

Is it right to make a child live in aggony for years until a cure (of which theres a fairly low chance occuring) appears? In many of the cases were talking about (i would claim the majority) would live no more than 5 - 10 years, or would have very complex problems which normal medical research wouldnt bother finding cures for. In most of the cases there simply can be no cure, the problems are more than health, ie, severe learning disabilities, etc. and it doesnt relive the burden on the family in the time they have to wait....

:2thumbsup:

btw, i think abortion is a completely different issue....

[Rodion Romanovich]

You are aware that most societies would label that "murder" and put you in jail if you participated in same?
Of course I'm aware that some humans have lately decided to choose such an extremist point of view. Traditionally, humans throughout history have put out children to the wolves, hyaenas, prarie dogs etc. as a means of abortion or when primitive contraceptives failed. Better that, than killing them in war when they're 20 years old, but best of all to not have the contraception take place if unnatural death is the predetermined fate of the child. As above, this is my view of abortion in general, not specific for disabled infants.

[Ser Clegane]

I think we have come to an end here.

I'd like to point out that the promotion of what any society considers as murder is not acceptable on this board.
There might be places where you can freely discuss such options - this is not one of them.

Thanks to all for the mostly civil and interesting contributions to this debate.