Dutch to set guidelines for euthanasia of babies

[MissileMan]

Stupid, huh? Tsk tsk .... and here I'm trying to be polite.

I was being polite also...I didn't call you stupid, I said what you wrote was.

Your "mercy and compassion" argument is nothing more than whitewash/sanitizing state-sanctioned, selective murder of those deemed unworthy of living.

And yours is an overly-dramatic exaggeration of the intent of the legislation.

 

[MissileMan]

Wrong, it would be called 'compassionate euthanasia." Heck, it already is by you and others.

You and I must be reading different articles. The one I read mentioned nothing about parents coming to doctors with children they regret having so that they can be killed.

 

[Annie]

You and I must be reading different articles. The one I read mentioned nothing about parents coming to doctors with children they regret having so that they can be killed.

Twisting, and you are now saying it's not a slippery slope. That is SO much more on topic than making the connection between abortion and euthanasia.

 

[Gunny]

I was being polite also...I didn't call you stupid, I said what you wrote was.

There's a difference?


And yours is an overly-dramatic exaggeration of the intent of the legislation.

Nothing overly-dramatic about it. I described it accurately as I see it. If it isn't taking a live baby and making it a dead one, please feel free to correct me.

The progression here is not obvious only to those who don't want to look. From Roe v Wade to euthanizing babies deemed undesireable. So WHO is next?

Why pay social security to crotchety old F's who just drive around in the left lane during rush hour doing 20 mph under the speed limit so they can get some attention? We can just run 'em through the shredder on their 65th birthday.

Then there are Democrats. They serve no real purpose except to obstruct anything getting done. Shredder.

You tell me WHERE do we draw a line?

 

[MissileMan]

Twisting, and you are now saying it's not a slippery slope. That is SO much more on topic than making the connection between abortion and euthanasia.

You're the one who just said that killing a baby for convenience would be called "compassionate euthanasia". I was trying to point out that the article about the new Dutch law made no mention about killing for convenience. I'm trying to figure out how you get from "euthanizing a terminally ill baby" to "mom and dad are disappointed that junior has red hair and asks the doctor to kill him".

And no, I don't think there's a slippery slope. I think slippery slope arguments are irrational.

 

[MissileMan]

There is a difference...you know, condemn the sin, not the sinner!

Nothing overly-dramatic about it. I described it accurately as I see it. If it isn't taking a live baby and making it a dead one, please feel free to correct me.

The progression here is not obvious only to those who don't want to look. From Roe v Wade to euthanizing babies deemed undesireable. So WHO is next?

Again with the drama...who said anything about killing a baby because it's undesireable?

 

[Annie]

You're the one who just said that killing a baby for convenience would be called "compassionate euthanasia". I was trying to point out that the article about the new Dutch law made no mention about killing for convenience. I'm trying to figure out how you get from "euthanizing a terminally ill baby" to "mom and dad are disappointed that junior has red hair and asks the doctor to kill him".

And no, I don't think there's a slippery slope. I think slippery slope arguments are irrational.

Nope, disagree in the sense that 'slippery slopes' are looking past what is right in front of you, especially when presented as 'oh so reasonable' to what is coming next. In terms of higher order thinking, it's called making inferences. This is one of those times. Actually the argument stems from making abortion the 'law of the land,' instead of keeping it to the states.

 

[Abbey Normal]

There is a difference...you know, condemn the sin, not the sinner!



Again with the drama...who said anything about killing a baby because it's undesireable?

And who said anything about killing terminally ill babies when the Dutch passed their adult euthanasia laws? But, golly gee, they are extending the idea to babies. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[MissileMan]

And who said anything about killing terminally ill babies when the Dutch passed their adult euthanasia laws? But, golly gee, they are extending the idea to babies. Who'd a thunk it?

So it's ok to relieve the suffering of an adult, but not a child?

 

[Gunny]

There is a difference...you know, condemn the sin, not the sinner!



Again with the drama...who said anything about killing a baby because it's undesireable?

You must be reading something else and responding to me. I am hardly being dramatical. I'm just not trivializing life to the extent you are.
You're right. It's sanitized with "terminally ill." And we all know doctors are infallible.

If not for convenience, then what? "Compassion and mercy"? GMAFB. It's so no one has to pay to keep said baby alive until dies naturally.

 

[MissileMan]

Nope, disagree in the sense that 'slippery slopes' are looking past what is right in front of you, especially when presented as 'oh so reasonable' to what is coming next. In terms of higher order thinking, it's called making inferences. This is one of those times. Actually the argument stems from making abortion the 'law of the land,' instead of keeping it to the states.

The problem with slippery slope arguments is they always go to the extreme, most often to the point of being ridiculous.

 

[Gunny]

So it's ok to relieve the suffering of an adult, but not a child?

If a rational adult commits suicide by whatever means, that is on THEM.

That is not the case where a baby whose welfare is dependent on the decisions of others lives or dies by their word.

 

[Annie]

The problem with slippery slope arguments is they always go to the extreme, most often to the point of being ridiculous.

But not what I was writing, which you wished to tar for your own argument.

 

[Gunny]

The problem with slippery slope arguments is they always go to the extreme, most often to the point of being ridiculous.

They don't have to. The point is, one can take almost any major topic on morality that affects our society today and see where it started out with just a toe in the door.

 

[Abbey Normal]

So it's ok to relieve the suffering of an adult, but not a child?

You are switching arguments in mid-stream. Let's stick with the one at hand for a bit- you feel that the slippery slope argument is, I think you said, stupid. I think the slippery slope from abortion to adult euthanasia to infant euthansasia for terminal illness, to infant euthanasia for less severe reasons, is all too easy.

Whether we go all the way to infanticide for convenience is hard to say for sure, but who would have ever thought that in the USA you could have a live birth, murder the baby by crushing it's skull, and call it a legal abortion. Yet, that is where we are, so the concept of infanticide for convenience is already at our doorstep. Unfortunately, it is all a perfectly logical, tragic, progression.

 

[MissileMan]

But not what I was writing, which you wished to tar for your own argument.

Surely it doesn't take a genius to see that the next logical step would be 'inconveinence' or 'undesirable.'

I believe that this was extreme to the point of ridiculous.

 

[MissileMan]

If a rational adult commits suicide by whatever means, that is on THEM.

That is not the case where a baby whose welfare is dependent on the decisions of others lives or dies by their word.

And for children, the decisions of life and death are the responsibility of the parents. That's the way it works, unless you want to give up your parental rights to a government.

 

[Annie]

I believe that this was extreme to the point of ridiculous.

Nope, not ridiculous. Your 'belief' does not make it so. There are plenty of people who's children become unmanageable, perhaps for chemical reasons. Then there are parents that realize 'they were never meant to be parents', especially if there are other stressors at work-who doesn't have them. It's just a matter of time.

If someone had said in 1968 that 'legalized abortions' would lead to partial birth abortion, they would have been said to 'taking the argument past the point of ridiculous.' Now it's still part of the 'women's right to choose...' albeit if it's for her 'mental' or physical health.

 

[Mr. P]

....

You tell me WHERE do we draw a line?

Medical ethics would be a good start, instead of personal beliefs and feelings.
But, I know that’s not possible….so, you guys rave on about abortion instead of addressing the starter post directly.

 

[MissileMan]

You are switching arguments in mid-stream. Let's stick with the one at hand for a bit- you feel that the slippery slope argument is, I think you said, stupid. I think the slippery slope from abortion to adult euthanasia to infant euthansasia for terminal illness, to infant euthanasia for less severe reasons, is all too easy.

Whether we go all the way to infanticide for convenience is hard to say for sure, but who would have ever thought that in the USA you could have a live birth, murder the baby by crushing it's skull, and call it a legal abortion. Yet, that is where we are, so the concept of infanticide for convenience is already at our doorstep. Unfortunately, it is all a perfectly logical, tragic, progression.

I happen to believe that partial-birth abortions are despicable, but I also believe that abortion and euthanasia are two separate things with two distinct sets of uses and motives.