Abortion not enough... let's euthanise born infants

Do the words of those who carry it out suffice? Don't want a sick child, euthanise it. Sounds like post-birth abortion to me.

Humans don't give each other their lives and aren't there to take them back.

[Schiavo content removed] - dmc

By embracing the grey, we are giving in to watered down black.

OK, if this offends people who empathise with those doctors, I can use a different wording, although I find it hard to call direct intended killing of a human being anything else, except maybe in case of people who actually are guided by some kind of misguided compassion.

[ March 31, 2005, 21:15: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

[Edited - there's already a Schiavo thread, let's keep the Sciavo stuff there . . . ] - dmc

It is the way you characterise the issue. ONLY people of ONE particular party happen to agree with your hyperbole and all these other shifty tactics to achieve your goals. Your above is akin to "I am not taking any party position or advocating for any particular candidate... but I think that gun control is wrong, abortion is wrong, prayer should be put back in schools, creationism should be taught in science classes and the UN sucks!"
I am not saying that ANY of the above resembles YOUR positions, just that the above is an example of someone "not advocating for a party/candidate and yet cannot be seen as "neutral" or not advocating a party position.

[ March 31, 2005, 20:54: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Chev, this is an oversimplification, because all of these examples are temporary or have alternatives to feeding tubes involved.

1. An unconscious person is not (typically) given a feeding tube if they are only going to be unconscious for a relatively brief period of time.

2. I've never heard of a person who is COMPLETELY paralyzed. I've heard of people being paralyzed from the waist down, the chest down, and the neck down. In two of those three examples they still have use of their arms. In the third case, there's nothing wrong with their mouths - they don't need feeding tubes.

3. Infants do not remain infants forever. They will "recover" eventually.

4. People without hands can still eat - they don't need feeding tubes, and then of course there is the possibility of prosthetics.

5. For those too weak to sit up a feed themselves, again there is nothing wrong with their mouths they don't have to be fed through a tube.

6. Dental surguries - this is just ridiculous. I'd wager a guess that there are dozens - if not hundreds - of people around the world that get their wisdom teeth removed every single day. Yes, consuming sold food is difficult for about a week afterwards, but you make a full recovery.

 

@dmc: Hmm... murder is a moral category to me, apart from it also being a legal category. I am not aware of any jurisdiction using the word "murder" with reference to abortion or euthanasia, but in some, it could be construed as such. In my own jurisdiction, euthanasia is called "euthanatic homicide". Abortion is stated as a crime against life, situated next to euthanatic homicide in the criminal code and called termination of pregnancy IIRC.

I am aware that murder requires malice, even as a moral category. However, malice does include making a decision that a certain human being's existence is no longer desirable and thus should be terminated for reasons ultimately coming down to convenience of some sort.

So when a clinic simply has infant euthanasia on the tab along with fixing your kidneys or cutting out your tonsils, I believe it's murder, as it's essentially paid killing of a human being. I have mixed feelings about zealous pro-choicers who do this to promote their ideas, and I would "excuse" people who are guided by some sort of compassion and consider themselves mercykillers, in the sense that I would consider it homicide. Probably there would be a number of mitigating circumstances revolving around reduced awareness, difficult circumstances, mental distress etc, but this is still homicide and not manslaughter. Of course, various jurisdictions may define the words differently.

As for the second issue, you're right, I don't believe it's exactly at all costs. For example, if someone is dying from cancer or something of this caliber and it's a matter of weeks with artificial heart stimulation or a similar device or of days without it, I don't believe the person should be forced to prolong the suffering. Same way, if someone's devastated organism is dying from age and all kinds of exhaustion, I don't believe we should fight for every minute. But I believe there is a difference between pulling the plug on heart stimulation and starving someone.

And what else is euthanasia than killing? It's called mercykilling sometimes, but it's killing. To kill means to terminate someone's existence. This is what "euthanising" means. We can speculate about reasons and motivations, but the act itself is one of killing.

Yeah, and all religious people worship evil.

Well, one can't have an apple and eat it. People always take offence when you disagree with something they do on moral grounds and call it wrong.

Those wishes were only alleged and weakly so at that. Ultimately, she was put to death to make a political statement, let alone other motives.

If I want e.g. reduced taxes and only one party proposes that, do I somehow lose my right to have my opinion? Or do I automatically become a supporter of the only party to have the same view? That's rich. By this logic, if Jews and Muslims believe in God, I am Christian, Jewish and Muslim at the same time.

Supporting a certain idea or having a certain economic, social or moral wish doesn't make you an adherent of any political course. If I am pro-life, it doesn't mean I have fallen in love with Dubya, for instance.

Edit: Removed parts related with the Schiavo case. I have them saved on my hard drive in the event that they should be necessary.

[ March 31, 2005, 21:34: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

This is slightly off-topic, but it needs to be asked. Now, I know Poland is an extremely religious (specifically Catholic) country, but are you telling me that getting an abortion in Poland is a criminal offense?!?

 

Carrying out is, getting one isn't. Basically, everyone involved commits a crime except the mother. But after birth, she does commit a crime. If it's under the post-birth shock, it's a different crime from plain homicide and the penalty is slightly lower. Requesting infant euthanasia would be either this (indirectly) or plain homicide (by command or inciting, same penalty range as for direct perpetration), but not the euthanatic homicide (euthanatic homicide has to be requested and committed out of compassion).

The penal code was prepared and passed by a leftist parliament dominated by two left parties of which one is anticlerical and the other at best indifferent. Why asking?

 

Bah. Soon we'll be getting the whole masturbation = mass murder thing again.

 

Chev,

You need to start to distinguish more between different scearios here in order for anyone to listen to your arguments.

To try to argue all cases from a script which is woefully short of alternatives to be applied in differing circumstances, leaves the whole argument falling flat on it's face for most of us.

Firstly, not everything is either good or evil which is what you seem to be arguing.
Secondly, my version of good and evil differs from yours. Good and evil are neither absolute nor yours to judge absolutely.
Finally, if we are going to argue good and evil with the bible and church as our reference point, I would like to remind you to re-read your history of all those atrocities that have been commited by Christians in the name of and with the blessing of the church.

Euthenasia: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

That is what this is about, not some absurdly extrapolated point of view that all doctors in the Netherlands go around killing kids their parents didn't want. - I know, I exaggerate. Sorry. But the point is that to debate Euthanesia of infants, that is the correct context, to discuss it in, not whether you think that people can just go to any doctor to ask for their kid to be put down like an animal at the vets. That is clearly not the case as I'm sure we all agree.

 

There is not point in a pointless existence and I personally applaud the Netherlands for allowing people to choose how to end their lives.
As Lloyd Banks says "Everybody gona die one day, wether its natural causes or gun play". Of course I'm going to live for ever after I have my brain placed in a robot body

 

How does that apply to infants? How do infants choose to end their lives?

 

I think the fact we all need to acknowledge is that euthanasia occurs quite frequently regardless of our moral stance towards the issue. Just in my little corner of the world, the Lehigh Valley, we had a male nurse who was charged with killing a number of patients just last year. I forget the exact details of the case, Rallymama may remember more accurately if the story made its way down to her press, but I am comfortable saying the number killed was about 20 elderly people.

I highly doubt this man was unique in his activities.

So the question really becomes: do we want this to occur outside the realm of law or under guidelines that society has deemed moral?

 

We had a female variant, Lucy de B. This nurse was helping people in ending their lives. For some reason, if you are a doctor, you are authorized to do that.

I see little difference in killing (as in ending one's life, I'm not saying 'murdering') an infant and killing a person in a coma, in example. They both can't choose. And though I understand their families' motivations, I do not (always) agree with it.

There was talking here that 12 year old people should be allowed to choose if they would end their lives. Now that was scary. A feared a lot of unstable teenagers would seriously consider that. That was years ago and a bit more complicated, as well, btw.

Back on topic:
These docters are not simply murderers of kids their parents didn't want. I agree with that. And this is rather a matter of early age euthanasia (eu = good, thanatos = death) then a too-late-stage abortion. Whatever we call it, I still have my bad feelings about this. I don't like the idea of ending lives, how mercyful it may sound. That doesn't mean I would prolong live at any costs.

 

If they aren't responsible enough to be given a driving license, they are responsible enough to choose to die now? Yeah, I agree with you.

Depends. One reason people have for abortion is innate disease or disfigurement. Normally, they would abort the child, but let's say there was no prenatal research. So they are aborting the child now, already after birth.

My issue is the border being extended. First, we claim that a fertilised egg isn't a human being. Then, the foetus is suddenly not a child with full rights. Right now, it looks like infants are not sentient enough. So what's next? Euthanasia by parental request until legal age? Euthanasia by the legal guardian's request for people in custody?

At the same time, the same people claim that death penalty is wrong because the society has no right to choose to eliminate a criminal from its ranks. Where is the logic?

Next, if medical euthanasia seems to be so great and legal, what's wrong with good old sharp devices? Ordering an injection for someone is euthanasia but doing the same with a knife or a gun would be homicide...

Yeah. Artificially prolonging life in suffering, using extraordinary means of medical care, is not something people should be expected to have. If someone is about to die, let him better die a more natural death in more dignity. But things like taking food away (even if it's tube) are different.

As for murder or not, I believe it might not be murder if there were some genuine compassion and the deed were committed to shorten suffering that would inevitably lead to death but over a longer period of time. But what about contempt for life as a "freak"? Is the life of disabled people unworthy? But a doctor who only asks himself if it won't get him in jail and goes ahead, collecting cash and not giving a damn about deeper philosophical intricacies, he gets very close to murder. Wonder if he would euthanise a child with asthma if the parents decided that life isn't worth a couple of decades of coughing.

 

Science goes onward where religious dogma stands still.

Highly doubtful. There is no one seriously advocating for these things, and even if there would be their numbers would be small enough to make them insignificant. You're just blowing the situation out of proportions.

The difference is that with the death penalty you're dealing out a punishment, in euthanasia you're preventing needless suffering and/or obeying according to the victim's wishes. To me the logical difference is completely obvious.

 

Every fool with a bit knowledge of biology knows the differences and similarities (?) of a sperm-cell, a fertilized egg, a born baby and an adult.

(Seems I am a fool with too less knowledge of the english language )

A docter who was doing abortions said that, but every fool with a bit knowledge of biology knows the differences and similarities (?) of a sperm-cell, a fertilized egg, a born baby and an adult.

 

When abortion was first being made legal, I suppose the prospect of euthanising infants was highly doubtful back then.

Needless suffering of an infant with a disability?

Masturbation isn't murder. Doesn't mean it isn't evil.

 

Wow -- what a brutal topic! I think that Chev's desire to discuss the topic is a good thing -- this is a VERY serious matter that does have a bearing on everyone who lives in society, particularily in this day and age when a person can go from a normal, functioning member of society to a vegetable in the amount of time it takes a car to swerve into the wrong lane. Before euthanasia is considered, I'd want a LOT of debate to occur before I was euthanized.

If I were in charge, I'd define the situation in terms of pain -- IMHO, God does not want anyone to suffer needlessly. Therefore, if there is no end to the possible suffering and the end is a foregone conclusion, and the quality of life possible between now and the unquestioned end is likely to be nil, then I say end the suffering -- I honestly believe that would be the decent, humane and Godly thing to do.

If it's a matter of poor quality of life, or "improving the gene pool", then I'd have serious problems with that -- should we kill all the Downs Syndrome or FAS kids? But I don't think that's what's being advocated here. Chevy's fear of the whole deal going down a slippery slope is a fair one, though. It certainly wouldn't be an easy decision for anyone involved, and in the extreme cases mentioned here, I'd be likely to take a hands off approach and leave any judging of such matters to God -- there's plenty of less ambiguous crimes that merit our attention, like rape and murder.