Doctors Want the Right to Kill Disabled Babies

  • Thread starter Thread starter sanctareparata
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sanctareparata

Guest
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2087-2437921,00.html

“…‘active euthanasia’ should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.”

"If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.” Preventing late-term abortions because parents could kill after the birth? :eek:

“We can terminate for serious foetal 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 okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”

“In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.”

“Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child.”
 
This is the logical result of legal abortion. We’ve legalized killing inside the womb, why is outside different? Location and size add nothing to the dignity of a human being. Those doctors are finally being honest with the public about the lack of inherent dignity they think humans have.

Now, if only people would realize the truth of the statement “What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” and realize since it should not be acceptable to kill a child outside the womb, it should not be acceptable inside the womb, either.

This is what a worldview without God does to society. It’s sick. And scary.
 
1)Abortions for exceptional cases.
2) Abortions for common cases.
3) Late-Term abortions.
4) Partial-Birth abortions.:crying:
5) Euthanasia for exceptional cases…:crying::crying:
 
sanctareparata said:
timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2087-2437921,00.html

“…‘active euthanasia’ should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.”

"If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.” Preventing late-term abortions because parents could kill after the birth? :eek:

“We can terminate for serious foetal 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 okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”

“In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.”

“Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child.”
Click to expand...
There is no difference beween what this Doctor wants and what is done to 1.2 million of our children a year.
 
sanctareparata said:
“Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child.”
Click to expand...
I’m the parent of two profoundly disabled children, and have lots of friends whose children have serious disabilities, and not a single one of us wishes we’d had the chance to kill our children. I’m speechless.
 
I am getting sicker to my stomach all the time. What comes in Europe come to the USA in time with our “activist” judges. This is all the more reason to vote pro life no matter what.
 
How many of you are going out and adopting disabled babies to prevent results like this? You all complain, but how many of you are willing to go adopt these kids that no one wants. Sure if the baby is wanted and is perfectly healthy, people will adopt them…

I suppose none of you put your dogs or cats down when they get critically sick either…

😦
 
zootjeff said:
How many of you are going out and adopting disabled babies to prevent results like this? You all complain, but how many of you are willing to go adopt these kids that no one wants. Sure if the baby is wanted and is perfectly healthy, people will adopt them…

I suppose none of you put your dogs or cats down when they get critically sick either…

😦
Click to expand...
bite me. i have two sons with autism. they can be a real pain and cause a lot of frustration, but i don’t complain. we have enough on our hands dealing with two autistic boys and a 6 year old who can hardly speak to make his wants and needs known. i love my boys more than anything else in the world. God save the man who tried to kill my boys, because i sure as hell won’t!
 
btw, i do put cats and dogs down when critically injured. however, there is a huge difference between a dog and a kid
 
Does anyone else see this as Orwellian. Increase infantcide to lower abortions 😦

These doctors are sick. :mad:
 
zootjeff said:
How many of you are going out and adopting disabled babies to prevent results like this? You all complain, but how many of you are willing to go adopt these kids that no one wants. Sure if the baby is wanted and is perfectly healthy, people will adopt them…

I suppose none of you put your dogs or cats down when they get critically sick either…

😦
Click to expand...
My husband and I had two bio children. We raised a total of nine children. Four of whom were disabled physically.

As for animals being put down. Yes I will put an animal down that is suffering. They are not humans with souls. This is just a straw-man argument.
 
zootjeff said:
How many of you are going out and adopting disabled babies to prevent results like this? You all complain, but how many of you are willing to go adopt these kids that no one wants. Sure if the baby is wanted and is perfectly healthy, people will adopt them…

I suppose none of you put your dogs or cats down when they get critically sick either…

😦
Click to expand...
While I personally haven’t adopted a disabled baby, I know some people who have. Most disabled babies are cared by their parents, so they don’t need adoption. Such was the case for my brother, who has serious physical birth defects. Was he a burden to our family…perhaps, but the blessings outweigh any burdens he may have caused.

I think it’s sick to compare my brother to a sick cat or dog. :mad:
 
“We can terminate for serious foetal 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 okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”
Click to expand...
Well, at least they see the contradiction there? Now if we can just get those who have any semblance of respect for human life to see it as well. 😦
 
djrakowski said:
I’m the parent of two profoundly disabled children, and have lots of friends whose children have serious disabilities, and not a single one of us wishes we’d had the chance to kill our children. I’m speechless.
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

I definitely hear you on this one. My mom is a special ed teacher, and I have worked as an aid in a special ed P.E. class when I was in high school. I can also assure you, none of those kids would have wished they had been killed.

In Christ,
Rand
 
The first country to legalise euthanasia, The Netherlands, legalised the euthanasia of newborns this year stating that it was already occurring and needed to be legalised so the doctors wouldn’t go to jail for murder. They used the same arguments in Holland that are now being used in Britain to convince people that this is a good idea.

This article (see link below) on the what is being proposed in the future of euthanasia in the Netherlands now is quite frightening.

Just last year, euthanasia activists in Holland tried to lower the age of consent for voluntary euthanasia to 12 (from 16).

Having had success in legalising killing newborns, they are now proposing to “create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people “with no free will,” including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.”

It has gone from old folks who are now a burden to disabled newborns to disabled adults. They are not talking about voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide here but forced euthanasia (ie - the death sentence, just like what they are doing to disabled babies) for people who are not able to make decisions for themselves.

The really frightening thing about it is that it is already happening in hospitals and nursing homes. Instead of prosecuting the killers for murder, they are proposing to just make it legal instead. Where does it end? If a doctor is allowed to kill his patient because in his opinion that patient has no quality of life, what is to stop any person from killing someone else judging that they would be better off dead. “I just ended their suffering”

msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/

This is an abomination and should be opposed with great vigour.

Yes - very twisted logic - kill babies after their born so you can avoid killing them before they are born.

In Britain, they allow abortions in the case of severe birth defects up until full-term. Birth defects considered ‘severe’ enough to warrant a late-term abortion in Britain have included a cleft palate and a club foot. It is no great leap to see that legalised infanticide “in the case of severe birth defects” will see these children being given a lethal injection too. Only ‘perfect’ babies will now be allowed to live.

Excuse me, I have to go be sick.
 
Linda_Marie said:
The first country to legalise euthanasia, The Netherlands, legalised the euthanasia of newborns this year stating that it was already occurring and needed to be legalised so the doctors wouldn’t go to jail for murder. They used the same arguments in Holland that are now being used in Britain to convince people that this is a good idea.

This article (see link below) on the what is being proposed in the future of euthanasia in the Netherlands now is quite frightening.

Just last year, euthanasia activists in Holland tried to lower the age of consent for voluntary euthanasia to 12 (from 16).

Having had success in legalising killing newborns, they are now proposing to “create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people “with no free will,” including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.”

It has gone from old folks who are now a burden to disabled newborns to disabled adults. They are not talking about voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide here but forced euthanasia (ie - the death sentence, just like what they are doing to disabled babies) for people who are not able to make decisions for themselves.

The really frightening thing about it is that it is already happening in hospitals and nursing homes. Instead of prosecuting the killers for murder, they are proposing to just make it legal instead. Where does it end? If a doctor is allowed to kill his patient because in his opinion that patient has no quality of life, what is to stop any person from killing someone else judging that they would be better off dead. “I just ended their suffering”

msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/

This is an abomination and should be opposed with great vigour.

Yes - very twisted logic - kill babies after their born so you can avoid killing them before they are born.

In Britain, they allow abortions in the case of severe birth defects up until full-term. Birth defects considered ‘severe’ enough to warrant a late-term abortion in Britain have included a cleft palate and a club foot. It is no great leap to see that legalised infanticide “in the case of severe birth defects” will see these children being given a lethal injection too. Only ‘perfect’ babies will now be allowed to live.

Excuse me, I have to go be sick.
Click to expand...
The Nazis were just ahead of their time. Sickening indeed.
 
Linda_Marie said:
It has gone from old folks who are now a burden to disabled newborns to disabled adults. They are not talking about voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide here but forced euthanasia (ie - the death sentence, just like what they are doing to disabled babies) for people who are not able to make decisions for themselves.

The really frightening thing about it is that it is already happening in hospitals and nursing homes. Instead of prosecuting the killers for murder, they are proposing to just make it legal instead.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before this is seen as a solution to the social security crisis. Kill off the old folks, the dependent and the disabled before they cost too much. It won’t be phrased like that, of course; it will just be more compassion coming your way.
 
I’m not at all surprised that it has come to this. People will do anything to make their lives easier, even if that means making up a bunch of lies to make themselves feel better about doing it. Logic doesn’t come into play with these people. Besides, the world, especially Europe and the U.S have been like the frog slowly boiling to death in a pot of water. Society get us used to something, calls in normal and then goes to the next thing that is worse and continues convincing us that is ok…the cycle never ends its seems. I do feel sick even though I’m not shocked…:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top