14 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageLogically, ethically, and morally this is just the next step. Once one has set the precedent of taking human life to solve social problems, where do we draw the line? Infanticide of disabled children is the next logical step. Soon it'll be the mentally insane. I'd like to see LJ or Nemesio try and contend that its not.
I'm not at all comfortable with what these doctors are doing. It deserves a thread of its own.
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI did read it carefully; I suggest you do the same. It speaks of terminal illnesses, pain which cannot be treated and parental consent. Where is this widespread killing of merely handicapped infants you were prattling about??
Thanks. I hope the marauder reads it carefully and acknowledges the fact that handicapped BORN children are being killed in the Netherlands.
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseTHE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Logically, ethically, and morally this is just the next step. Once one has set the precedent of taking human life to solve social problems, where do we draw the line? Infanticide of disabled children is the next logical step. Soon it'll be the mentally insane. I'd like to see LJ or Nemesio try and contend that its not.
A logically equivalent argument:
Once you allow people to eat hamburgers made from living things, soon they'll be eating mentally insane human beings. A precedent has been set that you can eat living things so morally, ethically and logically a baby down the street is fair game to be put in a bun with pickles just like a cow.
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, yeah. Give it another 50 years.
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
A logically equivalent argument:
Once you allow people to eat hamburgers made from living things, soon they'll be eating mentally insane human beings. A precedent has been set that you can eat living things so morally, ethically and logically a baby down the street is fair game to be put in a bun with pickles just like a cow.
Your "equivalent" analogy is hilarious, but still false. I have established beyond dispute in this thread (unless you are willing to give it a go) that the fetus is human. If we were eating hamburgers containing human things (as your starting premise), then you might have a point.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI think abortion & post-natal euthanasia (let alone killing the insane--are there other ways to be insane than mentally?) are not quite the same issue. But feel free to start a thread and argue that they are.
Logically, ethically, and morally this is just the next step. Once one has set the precedent of taking human life to solve social problems, where do we draw the line? Infanticide of disabled children is the next logical step. Soon it'll be the mentally insane.
Do you think legally sanctioned infanticide etc are about to happen anytime soon in South Africa, where abortion is permitted?
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDo you think legally sanctioned infanticide etc are about to happen anytime soon in South Africa, where abortion is permitted?
I think abortion & post-natal euthanasia (let alone killing the insane--are there other ways to be insane than mentally?) are not quite the same issue. But feel free to start a thread and argue that they are.
Do you think legally sanctioned infanticide etc are about to happen anytime soon in South Africa, where abortion is permitted?
In South Africa the biggest poll ever taken of medical professionals concludes that over 80% of our doctors and nurses have a conscientious objection towards performing an abortion. The euthanasia legislation was stopped dead in its tracks in '98, so as yet I don't think so.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI am certain, because this has been the strategy of these people all along the societal development called the "slippery slope", the next thing the advocates of infanticide will claim is that the present Euthanasia law, only a short while operational, has to be adjusted because the law doesn't reflect the recent developments. The present euthanasia law will be declared "old fashioned", "niet meer van deze tijd" ("not belonging in our (modern) times anymore", literally translated) and the law will be adjusted. The "Groninger Protocols" are the preparations necessary to do just that.
Seems the doctors are doing it illegally, although the public prosecutor is turning a blind eye.
Seems the doctors are doing it illegally, although the public prosecutor is turning a blind eye.
This is another alarming aspect of these developments. Nobody seems to care except certain Christian political parties and groups, certainly NOT the ruling liberal VVD, D'66 and the Christian Democrats, the CDA, but the oppositional Protestant "Christenunie" and the Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP), and a few people from the medical field. The only important world organisation I know of who is vehemently protesting against these developments is the Roman-Catholic Church. The Dutch liberals turn their back on Her, ridicule Her for her "old-fashioned" stances and accuse the Church of opposing "progress".
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe only important world organisation I know of who is vehemently protesting against these developments
I am certain, because this has been the strategy of these people all along the societal development called the "slippery slope", the next thing the advocates of infanticide will claim is that the present Euthanasia law, only a short while operational, has to be adjusted because the law doesn't reflect the recent developments. The present euthanasia law wi ...[text shortened]... , ridicule Her for her "old-fashioned" stances and accuse the Church of opposing "progress".
The UN gave me some hope when it voted against cloning and embryonic stem cell research...but that is a debate for another day and another thread.
14 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseAnalogies can't be "false". Please don't get me started on THAT again. They can be useful or not. My analogy is useful as it takes the logical predicates of your claim i.e. zygotes are being killed, therefore soon mentally insane people will be killed and puts one of your things in the same relationship to another since a zygote is a living thing as is a cow. In fact, since Nemesio and LJ's definitions of "personhood" would fit a cow more than a 30 day old embyro, my conclusion is more reasonable than yours. Therefore, soon if Nemesio and LJ get their way we'll be eating the handicapped.
Yeah, yeah. Give it another 50 years.
Your "equivalent" analogy is hilarious, but still false. I have established beyond dispute in this thread (unless you are willing to give it a go) that the fetus is human. If we were eating hamburgers containing human things (as your starting premise), then you might have a point.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseSo all this talk of infanticide and murder is slightly exaggerated--for South Africa, at least (the Chinese of Europe are too inscrutable for their actions to be guessed at 🙂 ).
In South Africa the biggest poll ever taken of medical professionals concludes that over 80% of our doctors and nurses have a conscientious objection towards performing an abortion. The euthanasia legislation was stopped dead in its tracks in '98, so as yet I don't think so.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderHave it your way. Its just disingenuous. I won't start debating the merits as I know you will wrangle your way through a keyhole if you could - its a lawyer thing, I know, my sister is one.
Analogies can't be "false". Please don't get me started on THAT again. They can be useful or not. My analogy is useful as it takes the logical predicates of your claim i.e. zygotes are being killed, therefore soon mentally insane people will be killed and puts the same relationship since a zygote is a livng thing as is a cow. In fact, since Nemesio a ...[text shortened]... le than yours. Therefore, soon if Nemesio and LJ get their way we'll be eating the handicapped.
Humans have been capable of it before - have you read up on some of the atrocities exposed during the Nuremburg trials.
14 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFor now. But it does not detract in any way from my previous statements. With our politically-correct-to-the-point-of-following-the-most-liberal-ideas-except-when-it-comes-to-condemning-Bobby-Mugabe * government, you can never be sure...
So all this talk of infanticide and murder is slightly exaggerated--for South Africa, at least (the Chinese of Europe are too inscrutable for their actions to be guessed at 🙂 ).
* politically-correct-to-the-point-of-fol lowing-the-most-liberal-ideas-ex cept-when-it-comes-to-condem ning-Bobby-Mugabe
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderBBC report: "Dutch doctors have reported 22 mercy killings of terminally ill babies since 1997, according to a new study.
I did read it carefully; I suggest you do the same. It speaks of terminal illnesses, pain which cannot be treated and parental consent. Where is this widespread killing of merely handicapped infants you were prattling about??
None of the doctors involved were charged, although euthanasia for children is illegal in the Netherlands.
The report, in the Dutch Journal of Medicine, is the first detailed examination of child euthanasia.
The study's authors want to address under-reporting of the practice and encourage doctors to report cases without fear of prosecution.
The cases involved babies with extreme spina bifida, a disabling birth defect."
Marauder, please read the last sentence. The BBC report isn't very accurate. Spina bifida isn't a terminal disease.
14 Nov 05
I found a site in English. You have to take into account that not every report is accurate though. For instance when it says:
What is the Groningen Protocol?
The Groningen Protocol is an instrument developed to assess cases in which a decision is made to actively end the life of a newborn. "
This is simply not correct. The Groningen protocol is designed for children from birth upto 12 years old. However, cases of two or three year olds haven't been reported yet.
http://www.independentliving.org/docs7/if20051017.html