TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: 650 Babies Euthanized in the Netherlands Each Year Under Right to Die law


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
650 Babies Euthanized in the Netherlands Each Year Under Right to Die law
Permalink  
 


650 Babies Euthanized in the Netherlands Each Year Under Right to Die law

 
 

AP Photo

 

Just over a decade on from assisted dying being legalised in the Netherlands, as many as 1 in 33 Dutch people are thought to have died this way, including 650 babies a year, euthanized so that their parents don’t have to witness them struggle with disability or disease. The escalation in death by euthanasia over the last six years has led one Dutch ethicist, who had been in favour of the law when it was first passed, to warn “some slopes truly are slippery.”

Earlier this week, eighty prominent Britons wrote to the Telegraph calling for a commitment from all the political parties to revisit the question of assisted dying in the next Parliament, if a vote is not taken on the matter before the general election in May.

They wrote: “If there is not enough time for the Bill to complete its stages before the general election then it is imperative that Parliament continues this important debate afterwards.

“We are closer than ever to allowing dying people to have safeguarded choice in how they approach their deaths. Whoever forms the next government must allow time for Parliament to reach consensus on a safeguarded law.”

The signatories included actors Eric Idle and Hugh Grant, the philosopher AC Grayling, Members of Parliament Caroline Lucas and the Rt Hon Dame Joan Ruddock, and former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.

However, evidence from the Netherlands, where the first assisted dying law was passed in 2002, has shown that, far from being a method of last resort, assisted dying is fast becoming a ‘lifestyle choice’. People who have chosen to die this way include a 47-year-old divorced mother of two who was suffering from tinnitus, a loud ringing in the ears. She left behind a 13-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter, the Daily Mail has reported.

Her mother told the Mail: “Gaby told the children that she was planning to die, she was in pain and there was no cure for her.

“The euthanasia was agreed by doctors and she said her goodbyes and had time to organise her memorial service. She died a month later. Of course the children miss her badly, but they understand her decision.”

Although the law was designed to help terminally ill patients have a dignified death, the right to die has also been granted to a growing number of people who are physically healthy but have psychological problems. Official figures show that 13 patients suffering from mental illness were euthanized in 2011; by 2013 this number had risen to 42 patients.

And it is not just adults who are being euthanized. According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association, as many as 650 babies are killed by doctors each year because they are deemed to be in pain or facing a life of suffering.

Writing in the National Review, Wesley J Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism has called on those who support assisted dying to “stop pretending assisted suicide is about terminal illness and admit it is much more about disability–which is why the disability rights movement remains so opposed as they are the primary targets.  It is about allowing killing as an acceptable answer to many causes of suffering, whether terminal or chronic disease, disability, mental illness, or existential despair.”

The scale of the deaths has led former supporters of the right to die to change their minds. One such person is the Dutch ethicist Theo Boer, who, in 2007, said “there doesn’t need to be a slippery slope when it comes to euthanasia. A good euthanasia law, in combination with the euthanasia review procedure, provides the warrants for a stable and relatively low number of euthanasia.”

However, earlier this year he admitted “Most of my colleagues drew the same conclusion. But we were wrong – terribly wrong, in fact.”

Although the numbers of deaths remained steady between 2002 and 2008, even falling back a little in some years, over the last six years there has been an exponential growth in the number of assisted dying cases. 1,882 were euthanized in 2002, and by 2006 the number had barely risen, reaching 1,923. Yet by 2012, 4,188 cases were recorded, and in 2013, nearly 5,000. Figures aren’t yet available for 2014 but are expected to have topped the 6,000 mark.

This is due in no small part to constant pressure from Dutch Right to Die Society (NVVE) to push the boundaries of acceptability. Under Dutch law, GPs can administer injections to end life. The intention was that a person’s GP, who would have a long term doctor-patient relationship with that person, would have the option open as a last resort. However, the NVVE set up a number of travelling euthanasia “End of Life Clinics”, who either euthanize the person or send them away. On average their doctors see a patient just three times before killing them.

“The NVVE shows no signs of being satisfied even with these developments,” Boer has said. “They will not rest until a lethal pill is made available to anyone over 70 years who wishes to die. Some slopes truly are slippery.”

He warned “I used to be a supporter of legislation. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a different view. At the very least, wait for an honest and intellectually satisfying analysis of the reasons behind the explosive increase in the numbers.

“Is it because the law should have had better safeguards? Or is it because the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as a normality instead of a last resort? Before those questions are answered, don’t go there. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again

 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/02/650-babies-euthanized-in-the-netherlands-each-year-under-right-to-die-law/



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

Truth? Of pure fiction?

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

Is it possible they are now just counting the babies that have always been allowed to pass without medical intervention? I know of couples who have refused medical intervention for their newborns because the babies had fatal conditions and the interventions had a negligible effect on the outcome. All they would cause is pain, so they chose to allow the babies to pass peacefully.

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



Regular

Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't think so, since the statistics are created by the Holland government itself.  They are counting ASSISTED suicides, not the inaction of medical intervention.  They had that a long time before this law.  



__________________
“One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.” C.S.Lewis


Nothing's Impossible

Status: Offline
Posts: 16913
Date:
Permalink  
 

That just blows my mind.

__________________

A person's a person no matter how small.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ilumine wrote:

I don't think so, since the statistics are created by the Holland government itself.  They are counting ASSISTED suicides, not the inaction of medical intervention.  They had that a long time before this law.  


All that means is that babies that had fatal defects might have been helped along, rather then having been late-term-aborted, or allowed to be in constant pain and distress until their organs failed. 

 

And I don't see euthanizing newborns as "assisted suicide" at all, since the infants are NOT asking anyone to help them kill themselves.

For something to be a suicide, the one who's ending their life has to actually take a conscious action to end their life. Babies  cannot do that.

 

Just because the statistics come from "the Holland government itself" doesn't mean the numbers are true or accurate.

It probably means that the numbers were put together by individual who had access to data, and who had an agenda.

Keep in mind that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I find it curious you will just assume that whatever you are reading isn't true when you disagree with it.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Nothing's Impossible

Status: Offline
Posts: 16913
Date:
Permalink  
 

Could they be trying to create a perfect population? No need to worry about long term care of a handicapped or sickly child, just nip it in the bud at birth. This is really getting under my skin.

__________________

A person's a person no matter how small.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

Another question...

 

"1 in 33 Dutch people are thought to have died this way"

 

That's 3% of the total population killing themselves every year???

I doubt that 3% of their population dies every year from ALL CAUSES. Simple math says that means that in 10 years 30% of their population have died (by their own hand, assisted or not), 60% in 20 years, 90% in 30 years.

 

Total nonsense. There would be almost no one left alive.



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Southern_Belle wrote:

Could they be trying to create a perfect population? No need to worry about long term care of a handicapped or sickly child, just nip it in the bud at birth. This is really getting under my skin.


More and more we are deciding that some lives are not worth living.  Or, that if there is any suffering in life, then that somehow is no longer balanced out by the sanctity of life or even any possible good moments left.  



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I find it curious you will just assume that whatever you are reading isn't true when you disagree with it.


There are a LOT of things that get on the Internet that ... surprise ... are not true. 

I just read the article and red flags popped up.

 

When the statistics given just don't stand the test of basic logic or basic math, that's most likely because they're just not true.

And when someone says that babies are choosing to commit suicide, that taints the entire article with a thick smell of cr@p.

 

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Active Euthanasia doesn't mean you always "choose" it so yeah, that can fall under that categorization. Someone else choosing to ACTIVELY end your life is euthanasia if they are purposefully and willfully giving you a life ending injection, pill, or some type of asphyxia versus withdrawing treatment and letting nature take its course.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

I am confused by how the article also seems to claim that overall deaths have stayed the same or decreased.
I can't copy it with my phone to point it out.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

But, I agree who knows about anyone's statistics anymore? But, the point really isn't whether it is 650 babies or 649 but to open up a discussion about the topic.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

Is it a slippery slope? Yes.

Do I support physician-assisted euthanasia? Yes.

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Greased pigs might go down the slope pretty fast!  biggrin



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Greased pigs might go down the slope pretty fast!  biggrin


 WHEEEEE!!!!

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sooooeeeyyyy!! Here piggy, piggy. Come to Mama. Mama gonna make it all better for ya!

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Sooooeeeyyyy!! Here piggy, piggy. Come to Mama. Mama gonna make it all better for ya!


 Sure thing...just as soon as I finish my bubble bath!

evileye

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

Just keep watching.

This is just the beginning.

__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Vette's SS!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 2297
Date:
Permalink  
 

I am still confused by the article saying that the number of deaths has remained the same, but assisted deaths have risen dramatically.
That seems contrary to the point they are trying to make.


__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

ed11563 wrote:

Another question...

 

"1 in 33 Dutch people are thought to have died this way"

 

That's 3% of the total population killing themselves every year???

I doubt that 3% of their population dies every year from ALL CAUSES. Simple math says that means that in 10 years 30% of their population have died (by their own hand, assisted or not), 60% in 20 years, 90% in 30 years.

 

Total nonsense. There would be almost no one left alive.


Oh come on.  Don't be dense.  They obviously mean that 1 in 33 Dutch people who DIE do so in this manner.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

We do not allow our pets to suffer needlessly.

WHY don't we treat our family members with the same consideration?

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:

We do not allow our pets to suffer needlessly.

WHY don't we treat our family members with the same consideration?

flan


Absolutely ridiculous comparison.

 

Our pets cannot make such decisions for themselves--ever.

Humans, at least most of them, can.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:


Oh come on.  Don't be dense.  They obviously mean that 1 in 33 Dutch people who DIE do so in this manner.   


One thing I KNOW from reading a lot of clinical studies and papers is, 

if the author is vague on an important point, they're screwing with the readers.

Reading it as written, then deciding the author was just unclear, is always a mistake.

Either they don't know how to proofread, or they're fibbing, making things up.

Either way, their credibility is shot.

 

 

Being critical when what's written doesn't make enough sense is NOT being "dense".

If you want to believe this article with the changes you think should have been made, feel free. If you find it outrageous, feel free.

No one in the United States can do anything about it anyway.

I'm still calling "B.S."

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

Because animals are not people.

I didn't see where the article specified what disability the babies had. Were they severe? Like no brain or other vital organ?

Or were any of them missing a leg?

When you begin killing babies because of disabilities you don't want to deal with, then that is a very dangerous place to be.



__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:


Oh come on.  Don't be dense.  They obviously mean that 1 in 33 Dutch people who DIE do so in this manner.   


One thing I KNOW from reading a lot of clinical studies and papers is, 

if the author is vague on an important point, they're screwing with the readers.

Reading it as written, then deciding the author was just unclear, is always a mistake.

Either they don't know how to proofread, or they're fibbing, making things up.

Either way, their credibility is shot.

 

 

Being critical when what's written doesn't make enough sense is NOT being "dense".

If you want to believe this article with the changes you think should have been made, feel free. If you find it outrageous, feel free.

No one in the United States can do anything about it anyway.

I'm still calling "B.S."

 


It's not about being critical of what is written.  It's about not seeing what is obviously there. 

I'm not saying I believe the article in whole--but if you can't see that they weren't saying that 1 in 33 Dutch people were dead in this manner in one year, then the term dense applies.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

lilyofcourse wrote:

Because animals are not people.

I didn't see where the article specified what disability the babies had. Were they severe? Like no brain or other vital organ?

Or were any of them missing a leg?

When you begin killing babies because of disabilities you don't want to deal with, then that is a very dangerous place to be.


 No, people are MORE than a pet, therefore they should be treated better than an animal.

I am NOT talking about babies, Lily. I am referring to adults, who should be able to choose for themselves.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Because animals are not people.

I didn't see where the article specified what disability the babies had. Were they severe? Like no brain or other vital organ?

Or were any of them missing a leg?

When you begin killing babies because of disabilities you don't want to deal with, then that is a very dangerous place to be.


 No, people are MORE than a pet, therefore they should be treated better than an animal.

I am NOT talking about babies, Lily. I am referring to adults, who should be able to choose for themselves.

flan


But you want other people to choose for them--thus the pets comparison.

 

Or do you admit the comparison is nonsense. 



-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 3rd of January 2015 04:07:31 PM

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

husker:

NOTHING you can say will change my mind.

And I won't change yours.

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.

__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

lilyofcourse wrote:

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.


Of course it will.  It is a SHORT step from people deciding to die with dignity on their own--to having someone else decide for them.  VERY SHORT. 

Plus, these babies didn't decide squat.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.


Of course it will.  It is a SHORT step from people deciding to die with dignity on their own--to having someone else decide for them.  VERY SHORT. 

Plus, these babies didn't decide squat.   


 And that is why it would have to be VERY carefully monitored. There ARE states now that allow physician-assisted suicide.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Regular

Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Date:
Permalink  
 

ed11563 wrote:
Ilumine wrote:

I don't think so, since the statistics are created by the Holland government itself.  They are counting ASSISTED suicides, not the inaction of medical intervention.  They had that a long time before this law.  


All that means is that babies that had fatal defects might have been helped along, rather then having been late-term-aborted, or allowed to be in constant pain and distress until their organs failed. 

 

And I don't see euthanizing newborns as "assisted suicide" at all, since the infants are NOT asking anyone to help them kill themselves.

For something to be a suicide, the one who's ending their life has to actually take a conscious action to end their life. Babies  cannot do that.

 

Just because the statistics come from "the Holland government itself" doesn't mean the numbers are true or accurate.

It probably means that the numbers were put together by individual who had access to data, and who had an agenda.

Keep in mind that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

 


 You do get that I was just replying to Mellow Mama's comment right?  That the statistics were not based on a lack of medical intervention, but were based on a medical provider ASSISTING in the death of the child after it was born.  And given the ability of the doctors to ASSIST in the death of the babies is based on the Dutch LAW that governs Assisted Suicide (you know the whole point of the article), my use of the term suicide was not meant to imply that the babies ASKED FOR IT. 

 

 



__________________
“One day, you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.” C.S.Lewis


On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Suicide implies choice. How can one use that term for infants?

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ilumine wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Ilumine wrote:

I don't think so, since the statistics are created by the Holland government itself.  They are counting ASSISTED suicides, not the inaction of medical intervention.  They had that a long time before this law.  


All that means is that babies that had fatal defects might have been helped along, rather then having been late-term-aborted, or allowed to be in constant pain and distress until their organs failed. 

 

And I don't see euthanizing newborns as "assisted suicide" at all, since the infants are NOT asking anyone to help them kill themselves.

For something to be a suicide, the one who's ending their life has to actually take a conscious action to end their life. Babies  cannot do that.

 

Just because the statistics come from "the Holland government itself" doesn't mean the numbers are true or accurate.

It probably means that the numbers were put together by individual who had access to data, and who had an agenda.

Keep in mind that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

 


 You do get that I was just replying to Mellow Mama's comment right?  That the statistics were not based on a lack of medical intervention, but were based on a medical provider ASSISTING in the death of the child after it was born.  And given the ability of the doctors to ASSIST in the death of the babies is based on the Dutch LAW that governs Assisted Suicide (you know the whole point of the article), my use of the term suicide was not meant to imply that the babies ASKED FOR IT. 

 

 


oops, now I get it. 

 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.


Of course it will.  It is a SHORT step from people deciding to die with dignity on their own--to having someone else decide for them.  VERY SHORT. 

Plus, these babies didn't decide squat.   


 And that is why it would have to be VERY carefully monitored. There ARE states now that allow physician-assisted suicide.

flan


For babies? Babies CANT ask to die.

I am not even talking about adults. Adults can do whatever, it's their life.

But a baby? The baby cant ask.

I personally know kids who, had this been an option and they belonged to someone who didn't want to deal with them, would be dead. 

While they may not be like everyone else, they are happy, living full lives and even going to college.

When you kill a baby, you don't know what you killing for the rest of us.

 



__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.


Of course it will.  It is a SHORT step from people deciding to die with dignity on their own--to having someone else decide for them.  VERY SHORT. 

Plus, these babies didn't decide squat.   


 And that is why it would have to be VERY carefully monitored. There ARE states now that allow physician-assisted suicide.

flan


For babies? Babies CANT ask to die.

I am not even talking about adults. Adults can do whatever, it's their life.

But a baby? The baby cant ask.

I personally know kids who, had this been an option and they belonged to someone who didn't want to deal with them, would be dead. 

While they may not be like everyone else, they are happy, living full lives and even going to college.

When you kill a baby, you don't know what you killing for the rest of us.

 


 No, Lily, in the U.S. an ADULT cannot do "whatever."

And I have changed to a related subject, because that is how a conversation works.

flan

 



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yeah, an adult can kill themselves. They can do that.

But a baby cant.

So to advocate that a baby's death because a parent doesn't want to be bothered with it is not the baby's choice.

It is murder. No matter how pretty you wrap it up.

And the "in the U.S." is irrelevant because this article is about the Netherlands. Not the U.S.

However I can see how some would LOVE to have the ability to kill people they don't want to be bothered by here.

__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Give Me Grand's!

Status: Offline
Posts: 13802
Date:
Permalink  
 

I wonder how many of the babies organs were used for another infant.

__________________

I drink coffee so I don't kill you.

I quilt so I don't kill you.

Do you see a theme?

Faith isn't something that keeps bad things from happening. Faith is what helps us get through bad things when they do happen.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.


Of course it will.  It is a SHORT step from people deciding to die with dignity on their own--to having someone else decide for them.  VERY SHORT. 

Plus, these babies didn't decide squat.   


 And that is why it would have to be VERY carefully monitored. There ARE states now that allow physician-assisted suicide.

flan


And that all depends on who is doing the monitoring--and most people in favor of issues like this, don't give a crap about life in the first place.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.


Of course it will.  It is a SHORT step from people deciding to die with dignity on their own--to having someone else decide for them.  VERY SHORT. 

Plus, these babies didn't decide squat.   


 And that is why it would have to be VERY carefully monitored. There ARE states now that allow physician-assisted suicide.

flan


And that all depends on who is doing the monitoring--and most people in favor of issues like this, don't give a crap about life in the first place.  


 No, we care about the QUALITY of life.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Well. I am talking about the babies.

All this amounts to is after birth abortion.

I still would like to know the disabilities these babies had.

I wonder how long it will take for them to begin killing the kids who re later diagnosed with some disability or become disabled?

Because that is exactly where this kind of thing leads.


Of course it will.  It is a SHORT step from people deciding to die with dignity on their own--to having someone else decide for them.  VERY SHORT. 

Plus, these babies didn't decide squat.   


 And that is why it would have to be VERY carefully monitored. There ARE states now that allow physician-assisted suicide.

flan


And that all depends on who is doing the monitoring--and most people in favor of issues like this, don't give a crap about life in the first place.  


 No, we care about the QUALITY of life.

flan


LOL!!!  And who gets to decide that--especially for babies?  Someone else.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

I'm talking about adults.

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:

I'm talking about adults.

flan


You are in favor of abortion--so someone is deciding for those babies.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:

I'm talking about adults.

flan


You are in favor of abortion--so someone is deciding for those babies.  


 I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:

I'm talking about adults.

flan


You are in favor of abortion--so someone is deciding for those babies.  


 I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose.

flan


Which is a prime example of someone getting to choose for someone else--which you purported to be against.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:

I'm talking about adults.

flan


You are in favor of abortion--so someone is deciding for those babies.  


 I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose.

flan


Which is a prime example of someone getting to choose for someone else--which you purported to be against.  


Check mate!  



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

Adults make decisions for children all the time...

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Making a decision to KILL your child?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/

1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard