British Begin Debate on Killing Disabled Babies

[Gonz]

*sigh* It would be a waste of time to explain because I think everyone else understands and even with an explanation you would at least pretend not to.

If Dr. Hawking were dead, that'd be one less person against teaching creationism as a science in school though, wouldn't it?

Seeing a larger picture is helpful. Maybe you need glasses.

I have no idea & don't care about Hawkings deity beliefs, although why this is even brought up is beyond me.

You seem to put me into the incorrect categories. I am capable of & adept at questioning both sides. Since so many here adamantly follow one path, I'll step along the other looking for different answers. I don't like crowds.

 

[MrBishop]

Harris told the Times: "We can terminate for serious fetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the fetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said, obviously referring to partial-birth abortion.

 

[Gonz]

Good point. So abortion should be stopped?

 

[MrBishop]

Actually...i think that he was referring to where to draw the line. Pointing out that the moral line IS blurred.

* Most birth defects can be detected LONG before the actual birth. Spinabifida for one. IMHO, this should be a non-issue except the mothers of the babies couldn't make up their minds about abortion until it was made up for them... now they have a different decision to make and a different set of issues to make that decision under.

 

[Professur]

It should be a blast when someone terminates a girl, since they're essentially disabled boys, unable to father children of their own.

 

[chcr]

Seeing a larger picture is helpful. Maybe you need glasses.

Hell, Bonzo, you didn't even understand what I said and you're accusing my of being blind. The "larger picture" is that there are in fact times when euthanasia is the most humane action, whether or not you think so.

Already have glasses, BTW. Getting new ones tomorrow. Maybe that'll bring me around to your point of view.

I have no idea & don't care about Hawkings deity beliefs, although why this is even brought up is beyond me.

You suggest that I should want him dead since he might have died once. I suggest that perhaps you should want him dead for an even more ridiculous reason. I always forget that you need the sarcasm tags, sorry. Point of information though, that's not euthanasia.

You seem to put me into the incorrect categories. I am capable of & adept at questioning both sides. Since so many here adamantly follow one path, I'll step along the other looking for different answers. I don't like crowds.

And of course, this is what it's really about. You didn't like something I said (in a PM) about you and now you'll accuse me of any number of things. If it makes you feel better about yourself, fine. I really couldn't care less.

For the record, There are clearly situations where, in hindsight, euthanasia would have been the kindiest, most humane thing to do. Exactly as I said.

Re the subject at hand, I've always felt that there are circumstances under which euthanasia (and that's what we're really discussing regardless of emotional protestations) is not only justified, but a kindness bordering on a necessity.

However, who feels qualified to make such a judgement in advance? Not me. I don't think that the "experts" can predict what will happen in any given case with enough certainty to make such a judgement so while I understand the impulse behind introducing such an idea, I would certainly be against it. Thus:

My problem with that is and always has been; Who decides?

Now regarding abortion (since you brought it up), I personally believe that anyone who uses it as a birth control method should be permanently sterilized with extreme prejudice. It's not, however, my uterus or my body, so while I have an opinion I don't have the right to decide for someone else. There are, OTOH, situations where abortion (why isn't it "abourtion" in Canada?) is the only choice.

The Stephen Hawking tirade had nothing to do with any opinion I presented, which I tried to point out to you (twicet). You had your teeth in an emotional hissy fit though, and wouldn't stop. Will you stop now?

 

[chcr]

It should be a blast when someone terminates a girl, since they're essentially disabled boys, unable to father children of their own.

Sure they can. They're called clones.

You don't read or watch enough really cheesy science fiction.

 

[MrBishop]

It should be a blast when someone terminates a girl, since they're essentially disabled boys, unable to father children of their own.

That's how they do it in China.

 

[Gonz]

You suggest that I should want him dead since he might have died once.

Missed the mark entirely.

You didn't like something I said (in a PM) about you and now you'll accuse me of any number of things.

That was just another in a long list of examples of you attacking me instead of the message.

For the record, There are clearly situations where, in hindsight, euthanasia would have been the kindiest, most humane thing to do. Exactly as I said.

However, who feels qualified to make such a judgement in advance?

As you point out, hindsight is 20/20.

Dr Hawkings is a great example, if you'd take the time to ask for clarification instead of looking for reasons to disagree with me. Euthanasia...killing as an act to relieve suffering, assumes we know how someone else feels or what is best for them. It also assumes we know their future & what it holds in store. Dr Hawkings was supposed to die of a rather unpleasant disease. While, over the years, his body has made his life unpleasant (unbearable from some shallow points of view), it has not made it less important to him, nor to ours. Some people would assume to know what is best for others. It is better to err on the side of life since death is irreversible.

The Stephen Hawking tirade had nothing to do with any opinion I presented, which I tried to point out to you (twicet). You had your teeth in an emotional hissy fit though, and wouldn't stop. Will you stop now?

 

[chcr]

Will you stop now?

I knew you couldn't do it.

Much where I stood until I experiened one human...
A brain may live where a body fails.

The implication is pretty clear there. Maybe not to you.

Euthanasia implies the inability of the subject to make their own decision. In this particular instance we were talking about infants. Neither of these apply to Dr. Hawking's case. Once again and for the rest of time, your response had nothing whatever to do with my stated opinion but I was the one being argumentative. Whatever...

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Gonz]

Whatever...

yep

 

[chcr]

I knew you couldn't do it.