Leftist douche nozzle promotes infanticide - after abortion

[koshergrl]

OK, well I haven't posted here long and it's new news to me.

They are arguing for the mercy killing of disabled children who are born because the defects were not detected during pregnancy.

It is one thing to kill a healthy baby at birth, but another thing entirely to end the life of a child who is born physically disabled.

Basically, the argument is not for abortion at all - but for euthanasia.

No potential for abuse there, now, is there?

 

[koshergrl]

"
1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients’ knowledge or consent.(9)

• 14% of these patients were fully competent. (10)
• 72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated. (11)
• In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible. (12)

In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient’s death. (13) In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient’s consent.(14)
According to the Remmelink Report, Dutch physicians deliberately and intentionally ended the lives of 11,840 people by lethal overdoses or injections–a figure which accounts for 9.1% of the annual overall death rate of 130,000 per year. The majority of all euthanasia deaths in Holland are involuntary deaths."
Background about Euthanasia in The Netherlands | Patients Rights Council

 

[koshergrl]

"
Falsified Death Certificates —In the overwhelming majority of Dutch euthanasia cases, doctors–in order to avoid additional paperwork and scrutiny from local authorities–deliberately falsify patients’ death certificates, stating that the deaths occurred from natural causes. (19) In reference to Dutch euthanasia guidelines and the requirement that physicians report all euthanasia and assisted-suicide deaths to local prosecutors, a government health inspector recently told the New York Times: “In the end the system depends on the integrity of the physician, of what and how he reports. If the family doctor does not report a case of voluntary euthanasia or an assisted suicide, there is nothing to control.” (20)
Inadequate Pain Control and Comfort Care — In 1988, the British Medical Association released the findings of a study on Dutch euthanasia conducted at the request of British right-to-die advocates. The study found that, in spite of the fact that medical care is provided to everyone in Holland, palliative care (comfort care) programs, with adequate pain control techniques and knowledge, were poorly developed. (21) Where euthanasia is an accepted medical solution to patients’ pain and suffering, there is little incentive to develop programs which provide modern, available, and effective pain control for patients. As of mid-1990, only two hospice programs were in operation in all of Holland, and the services they provided were very limited. (22)"

Background about Euthanasia in The Netherlands | Patients Rights Council

 

[koshergrl]

"In 1993, the Dutch senior citizens’ group, the Protestant Christian Elderly Society, surveyed 2,066 seniors on general health care issues. The Survey did not address the euthanasia issue in any way, yet ten percent of the elderly respondents clearly indicated that, because of the Dutch euthanasia policy, they are afraid that their lives could be terminated without their request. According to the Elderly Society director, Hans Homans. “They are afraid that at a certain moment, on the basis of age, a treatment will be considered no longer economically viable, and an early end to their lives will be made.” "

Background about Euthanasia in The Netherlands | Patients Rights Council

"The Irony of History — During World War ll, Holland was the only occupied country whose doctors refused to participate in the German euthanasia program. Dutch physicians openly defied an order to treat only those patients who had a good chance of full recovery. They recognized that to comply with the order would have been the first step away from their duty to care for all patients. The German officer who gave that order was later executed for war crimes. "

 

[JoeB131]

You praise the authors with faint damns.

Or just having an adult conversation about it.

You wingnuts new anti-choice tactic is to talk about "Fetal Pain", even though we really don't know when during fetal development the pain receptors are turned on.

Here's some of that science stuff progressives hate:

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

But in your fanatic mercy, you would let a doomed infant live on for days with spina bifida or brittle bone syndrome. Has no chance of living, but gosh darn it, we aren't going to help it along.

And to a degree, I'm good with that. I don't want to ever get it to a point when the corporations that run health care EVER allow euthanasia as a valid treatment option. That's just asking for trouble.

No, you just want the government making that decision.

Wow. Propaganda from a funditard website.... why am I not surprised. Even a tiny little bit.

I think that decision should be made by doctors and patients. Or in this case, parents.

But again, I don't trust Cigna and Blue Cross as far as I could throw one of their overpaid executives.

 

[koshergrl]

Wow...did someone say "babykilling"?

Joeb is right on it!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Wow...did someone say "babykilling"?

Joeb is right on it!!!

As opposed to Koshie, who thinks that babies with spina-bifida and brittle bone syndrome should be allowed to linger for weeks or until their parents run out of money, whichever comes first.

 

[hortysir]

OK, well I haven't posted here long and it's new news to me.

They are arguing for the mercy killing of disabled children who are born because the defects were not detected during pregnancy.

It is one thing to kill a healthy baby at birth, but another thing entirely to end the life of a child who is born physically disabled.

Basically, the argument is not for abortion at all - but for euthanasia.

Guess you (conveniently?) missed this part:

**should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled**

 

[hortysir]

They are arguing for the mercy killing of disabled children who are born because the defects were not detected during pregnancy.

It is one thing to kill a healthy baby at birth, but another thing entirely to end the life of a child who is born physically disabled.

Basically, the argument is not for abortion at all - but for euthanasia.

You praise the authors with faint damns.

Or just having an adult conversation about it.

You wingnuts new anti-choice tactic is to talk about "Fetal Pain", even though we really don't know when during fetal development the pain receptors are turned on.

But in your fanatic mercy, you would let a doomed infant live on for days with spina bifida or brittle bone syndrome. Has no chance of living, but gosh darn it, we aren't going to help it along.

And to a degree, I'm good with that. I don't want to ever get it to a point when the corporations that run health care EVER allow euthanasia as a valid treatment option. That's just asking for trouble.

Oh, goody

Anutter illerate:

**should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled**

 

[Plasmaball]

Notice how the left uses clever word changes. Global Warming becomes climate change, and infanticide becomes after birth abortion. Hell, whey don't we just act like Spartans and through babies who don't score enough points over a cliff?

Abortion equals murder....yeah you have no special claim to blaming the left.....

 

[daveman]

Or just having an adult conversation about it.

You wingnuts new anti-choice tactic is to talk about "Fetal Pain", even though we really don't know when during fetal development the pain receptors are turned on.

Here's some of that science stuff progressives hate:

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

But in your fanatic mercy, you would let a doomed infant live on for days with spina bifida or brittle bone syndrome. Has no chance of living, but gosh darn it, we aren't going to help it along.

And to a degree, I'm good with that. I don't want to ever get it to a point when the corporations that run health care EVER allow euthanasia as a valid treatment option. That's just asking for trouble.

No, you just want the government making that decision.

Wow. Propaganda from a funditard website.... why am I not surprised. Even a tiny little bit.

Ahhh. So now multiple citations of scientific papers is "propaganda".

Let's look at just the first point: References to these papers:

Myers LB, Bulich LA, Hess, P, Miller, NM. Fetal endoscopic surgery: indications and anaesthetic management. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 18:2 (2004) 231-258.

95Smith S. Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience. London: CARE, 1996.

Derbyshire SW, Foetal pain? Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 24:5 (2010) 647-655.

Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New England Journal of Medicine. 317:21 (1987) 1321-1329.

25Humphrey T. Some correlations between the appearance of human fetal reflexes and the development of the nervous system. Progress in Brain Research. 4 (1964) 93-135.

26Valnaan HB, Pearson JP. What the fetus feels. British Medical Journal. 280 (1980) 233-234.

Vanhalto S, van Nieuwenhuizen O. Fetal Pain? Brain & Development. 22 (2000) 145-150.

Brusseau R. Developmental Perpectives: is the Fetus Conscious? International Anesthesiology Clinics. 46:3 (2008) 11-23.

19Simons SH, Tibboel D. Pain perception development and maturation. Seminars on Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 11 (2006) 227-231.

Mark D. Rollins, Mark A. Rosen, “Anesthesia for Fetal Intervention and Surgery”, in Gregory’s Pediatric Anesthesia, ed. George A. Gregory & Dean B. Adropoulos (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 444–474, 465.

Van Scheltema PNA, Bakker S, Vandenbussche FPHA, Oepkes, D. Fetal Pain. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 19:4 (2008) 311-324.

Glover V. Fetal pain: implications for research and practice. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 106 (1999) 881-886.

Lee SJ, Ralston HJP, Drey EA, Partridge, JC, Rosen, MA. A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association. 294:8 (2005) 947-954.

16Kostovic I, Rakic P. Developmental history of the transient subplate zone in the visual and somatosensory cortex of the macaque monkey and human brain. Journal of Comparative Neurology. 297 (1990) 441-470.

17Hevner RF. Development of connections in the human visual system during fetal mid-gestation: a Diltracing study. Journal of Experiemental Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology. 59 (2000) 385-392.

Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic implications. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.

Marc Van de Velde & Frederik De Buck, Fetal and Maternal Analgesia/Anesthesia for Fetal Procedures. Fetal Diagn Ther 31(4) (2012) 201-9.​

Needless to say, you didn't click anything beyond the link I provided. If you had, you wouldn't have made your mind-numbingly STUPID characterization of the information.

I think that decision should be made by doctors and patients. Or in this case, parents.

But again, I don't trust Cigna and Blue Cross as far as I could throw one of their overpaid executives.

But you trust the government.

Gaea alone knows why, but you do.

 

[laughinReaper]

OK, well I haven't posted here long and it's new news to me.

They are arguing for the mercy killing of disabled children who are born because the defects were not detected during pregnancy.

It is one thing to kill a healthy baby at birth, but another thing entirely to end the life of a child who is born physically disabled.

Basically, the argument is not for abortion at all - but for euthanasia.

"the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."


I don't see it as an entirely different thing. I was born with Chronic Asthma,a disease that can not be detected in the womb. I almost died several times from it. Now if this went through I might have been euthanized. Certainly it was a burden on my parents and siblings. I also out grew a large amount of it. I still have to take meds but I lived longer than the doctors expected (past my mid 20's) new meds have made my life much better and I am a productive citizen and mother of three. So my question is who the **** is anybody to decide FOR ME how good my future will be and that I don't deserve to live? Certainly not a bunch of abortionists or the government who never met me. Not my doctors and not my parents because they didn't know about medical improvements that would be available in the future.

I've known kids with Down syndrome, yes they are simple and need care but they don't seem unhappy. My cousin is slow because he didn't have enough oxygen at birth but he supports himself in a limited way as a bagger and is happy. My Aunt and Uncle have financially provided for him but if they hadn't someone in the family would have taken him in when his parents died. Fortunately he has a brother and sister who will keep after him.

My concern with this type of thinking is that it mirrors Hitler. It starts with those who can't care for themselves or are limited, the old, the very young and the disabled and then spreads to Idealism of who is perfect and who is not in the eyes of that society. In Hitlers case,Jews,minorities,gypsies,anyone who disagrees with the common thinking of the government, and anyone who doesn't fit in. Who gets to decide? Where does it end?Should somebody be considered lesser if they don't have blonde hair and blue eyes? We have done this expirement before and fought a world war over it. Sadly it seems we have not learned from our mistakes. You can't call Hitler a Monster without calling people who support abortion monsters too.

 

[Noomi]

Lifers can't have an adult conversation. KG negs people she disagrees with, but doesn't even bother to respond to their posts.

LOL.

 

[Noomi]

OK, well I haven't posted here long and it's new news to me.

They are arguing for the mercy killing of disabled children who are born because the defects were not detected during pregnancy.

It is one thing to kill a healthy baby at birth, but another thing entirely to end the life of a child who is born physically disabled.

Basically, the argument is not for abortion at all - but for euthanasia.

Who makes the call and at what point ?

When the child will need 24 hour care for the rest of its life, that is when the call should be made.
If a kid is born with severe brain damage and cannot walk, talk, see or hear, they will rely on someone to care for them for the rest of their life - not to mention they will drain public funds for their medical treatment.
Make the call then, and terminate their life.

 

[Noomi]

This is outrageous where do we stop. An elderly person gets cancer and we kill them so they don't need to suffer the treatment? Reminds me of obama saying instead of grandma getting a hip replacement, just give her a pain pill.

Umm, no, but if grandma has cancer that cannot be cured, no medical treatment should be offered, just palliative care until nature takes it course.

No sense wasting tax dollars on people who have zero chance of survival. You may as well throw your money in a pile and burn it.

 

[daveman]

This is outrageous where do we stop. An elderly person gets cancer and we kill them so they don't need to suffer the treatment? Reminds me of obama saying instead of grandma getting a hip replacement, just give her a pain pill.

Umm, no, but if grandma has cancer that cannot be cured, no medical treatment should be offered, just palliative care until nature takes it course.

No sense wasting tax dollars on people who have zero chance of survival. You may as well throw your money in a pile and burn it.

Oh, look: A progressive espousing economically-motivated death panels.

 

[Noomi]

^explain the benefits of treating someone for cancer when that cancer cannot be cured?

 

[daveman]

^explain the benefits of treating someone for cancer when that cancer cannot be cured?

Because sometimes the uncurable are indeed cured.

Where there's life, there's hope. Some people simply can't understand that. I'd say it's because they don't place much value on life.

 

[laughinReaper]

They are arguing for the mercy killing of disabled children who are born because the defects were not detected during pregnancy.

It is one thing to kill a healthy baby at birth, but another thing entirely to end the life of a child who is born physically disabled.

Basically, the argument is not for abortion at all - but for euthanasia.

Who makes the call and at what point ?

When the child will need 24 hour care for the rest of its life, that is when the call should be made.
If a kid is born with severe brain damage and cannot walk, talk, see or hear, they will rely on someone to care for them for the rest of their life - not to mention they will drain public funds for their medical treatment.
Make the call then, and terminate their life.

But you can say the same for cancer,alzheimers,MS, would you kill Stephen Hawking? Why is a childs life less important and less worth saving or caring for than an adult?

As far as draining funds and costing a fortune many of these people who support abortion wouldn't just except death and die the minute they got a disease so as not to be a financial burden. They will have Chemo,organ transplants,take multiple medications,surgery all to keep themselves alive for as long as possible. If they think burdens on society are justification to have an abortion then maybe they should embrace death and let a younger,stronger,healthier noob take their place on the planet. They are old and decrepit those kids can run circles around them. Our society places more value on youth. Let the babies live and let the old take the dirt nap. Doesn't that make more sense? It does until the old person is you and it's your turn. Seems a bit hippocritical. Every life is valuable even one like Hawking who can't do anything for himself but is a genius.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Wow. Propaganda from a funditard website.... why am I not surprised. Even a tiny little bit.

Ahhh. So now multiple citations of scientific papers is "propaganda".

Let's look at just the [

Needless to say, you didn't click anything beyond the link I provided. If you had, you wouldn't have made your mind-numbingly STUPID characterization of the information.

Why should I bother. Any link you provide is going to come from FUNDITARDS. Just not going to waste my time. I clicked on it, and saw exactly what I was expecting, the usual anti-abortion crazy we've come to expect that keeps you Rubes voting against my economic interests.

[

I think that decision should be made by doctors and patients. Or in this case, parents.

But again, I don't trust Cigna and Blue Cross as far as I could throw one of their overpaid executives.

But you trust the government.

Gaea alone knows why, but you do.

Simple enough.

How many times have I been fucked over by big corporations? Lots.

Especially the time I got let go from a job because I had the bad luck to run up some medical bills.

How many times have I been fucked over by the Government? Never.

In fact, the one time I even had a dispute with the government (an issue around the time of my discharge, I needed to clear up) A call to my Congressman got that settled pretty quickly.

In fact, the government has done me some serious solids. Paid for my college, helped me get a loan for my house, provided me with gainful employment and training.