The Wonders of Euthanasia.

Originally posted by kirksey957
So I guess what you are saying is that I would have a substantial stance if I more readily parroted your views.

Then what is your substantial stance ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Then what is your substantial stance ?

I like white women.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not playing that game, Nemesio; "slippery slope" is a term of art to me, but not to others: I was trying to determine if Ivanhoe was using in it's legal definition. Whereas others on this site have tried to use definitions as a way to substantively define issues away by adopting definitions contrary to legal practice. I use legal definitions when ...[text shortened]... ssing legal matters; if others are using different definitions, I prefer they explicitly say so.

Geez. I was only kidding 🙁

Originally posted by ivanhoe

No1,

I know this is difficult for you but please calm down. This issue is too important to come up with all kind of clever formal reasonings to try and dismiss the facts I am presenting here.

The Groningen protocol I presented is about involuntary Euthanasia. Can we agree on that conclusion ?

When you start presenting actual facts that would be nice. I know from personal experience that very often relatives have to make decisions regarding the termination of certain measures on a terminal ill patient which will cause death. Are they "involuntarily euthanasizing" their loved one? Or are they trying to avoid unnecessary suffering of someone they love because they feel if that person could tell them that's what they'd want them to do? Your categories are too rigid and simplistic for me.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I like white women.

Always dodging, always hiding ....

.... and please don't tell me you were being facetious ...... we've heard this before.

Originally posted by no1marauder
When you start presenting actual facts that would be nice. I know from personal experience that very often relatives have to make decisions regarding the termination of certain measures on a terminal ill patient which will caus ...[text shortened]... them to do? Your categories are too rigid and simplistic for me.

Can we agree on the fact that the "Groningen protocol" is about unvoluntary Euthanasia ?

... if you don't agree then what is it all about ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Can we agree on the fact that the "Groningen protocol" is about unvoluntary Euthanasia ?

No.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No.

Then what is it about ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Always dodging, always hiding ....

.... and please don't tell me you were being facetious ...... we've heard this before.

No, I was serious. OK, what is it that you offer to parents in these kinds of situations? Beyond being against euthanasia, can you give us some sense of what a connversation would look like between you and a parent or medical personnel in these kinds of tagic situations?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Then what is it about ?

It's about alleviating the suffering of human beings if the people who love them agree that they are terminally ill, in pain and that nothing more can be done to help them Who are you to judge the parents in this situation by saying they are "euthanizing" their own child? What your argument is about is imposing your religious beliefs on others. Leave 'em the hell alone, Ivanhoe, and pray to your God that you are never in such a terrible position as those parents find themselves in.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's about alleviating the suffering of human beings if the people who love them agree that they are terminally ill, in pain and that nothing more can be done to help them Who are you to judge the parents in this situation by saying they are "euthanizing" their own child? What your argument is about is imposing your religious beliefs on other ...[text shortened]... to your God that you are never in such a terrible position as those parents find themselves in.

The wonders of Euthanasia,

No1,

I hoped it would be clear that this is not always about terminally ill infants. It is also about disabled children who aren't terminally ill at all. It's about what is known today as "Quality of Life". If people do not meet the standard of what is supposed to be a "good" quality of life, then killing them is morally acceptable. I oppose such reasoning. If you want to call that "religious beliefs" then so be it.

To dismiss your opponent morally seems to be the goal of every discussion you have on this site, no1. I hope it makes you feel better, but my guess is you did not gain any important and relevant insight in the matters discussed here.

By the way no1, you are the one imposing your views on the disabled and handicapped children. You deny them life. You do not mind, no you advocate, imposing death on innocent children by making a misplaced appeal to pity. Talking about imposing one's beliefs on someone .......

Originally posted by ivanhoe


The wonders of Euthanasia,

No1,

I hoped it would be clear that this is not always about terminally ill infants. It is also about disabled children who aren't terminally ill at all. It's about what is known today as "Quality of Life". If people do not meet the standard of what is supposed to be a "good" quality of life, then killing them is m ...[text shortened]... by making a misplaced appeal to pity. Talking about imposing one's beliefs on someone .......

You've dropped to your usual level of lies, Ivanhoe. Where does the Groningen Protocol say anything about "disabled children who aren't terminally ill"? Nowhere, of course. You are creating a fantasy to rail against; I certainly never endorsed the killing of disabled and/or handicapped infants and you have a sick and depraved mind to imagine that I did. You need to go back on your medication, Ivanhoe; your hold on reality is again getting tenous.

Originally posted by kirksey957
No, I was serious. OK, what is it that you offer to parents in these kinds of situations? Beyond being against euthanasia, can you give us some sense of what a connversation would look like between you and a parent or medical personnel in these kinds of tagic situations?

You are talking now about a very different issue. What you posted is not about the moral permissibility of infanticide.

The media will brain-wash people into accepting passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia with consent and after that euthanasia without consent such as infanticide and killing severely disabled or handicapped people.

Everybody interested in how the euthanasia advocates will achieve this I have a good tip. Just check out all the popular soap opera's, sit coms and other television productions who are supposed to be entertainment programs and tearjerkers at the same time ...... and of course you have to check out the Hollywood productions.

Propaganda ? Brainwashing ? You tell me !

Originally posted by ivanhoe
By the way no1, you are the one imposing your views on the disabled and handicapped children. You deny them life. You do not mind, no you advocate, imposing death on innocent children by making a misplaced appeal to pity. Talking about imposing one's beliefs on someone .......

I'm not sure that this is quite fair, Ivanhoe. #1 isn't suggesting that
all infants which don't meet certain criteria ought to be euthanized; he
is suggesting that the option be available to parents.

And, the idea that parents impose their beliefs on their children is a
well-sanctioned one, no? That's what parents do. They teach their
children in the best way possible, doing what they believe is in their
child's best interests. When I was a baby, my parents laid me on my
tummy to sleep because they thought that this was the best thing to
do (although now doctors inform us that this increases the likelihood
of SIDS). They were looking out for me to the best of their ability,
even though what they did was potentially fatal to me. Parents in the
situation with a terminally ill child in severe and constant pain are
faced with a very difficult decision.

You may believe that his appeal to pity is misplaced, but who are you to
tell parents what to do with their decisions. We're not talking about
euthanizing an infant because it's a boy or has brown hair; we are talking
about terminally ill children who are going to suffer for the rest of their
short lives. It's somewhat more complicated then. Children life-changing
beliefs imposed on them all the time; how is this different?

I'm not saying I am in favor of euthanasia, I am saying that the situation
is far more complicated than you are making it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
You've dropped to your usual level of lies, Ivanhoe. Where does the Groningen Protocol say anything about "disabled children who aren't terminally ill"? Nowhere, of course. You are creating a fantasy to rail against; I certainly never endorsed the killing of disabled and/or handicapped infants and you have a sick and depraved mind to imagin ...[text shortened]... . You need to go back on your medication, Ivanhoe; your hold on reality is again getting tenous.

Be carefull no1, your innuendo, insults and your accusations are getting the upper hand .... otherwise I am forced to spend some quality time with you. Remember the last time ?

If you are able to find the exact text of the "Groningen Protocols" then I will be mightily gratefull to you.