The Damn Human Race

[Skeptic]

It seems that "Free Inquiry" magazine had gone completely off its rocker.

In their latest issue, among articles about enlightment, humaneness, reason, etc., etc., etc., an article by a certain Barbara Smoker, who is advocating infant euthanasia.

No, that's not a misprint. Look it up yourselves. She advocates killing "severely handicapped" infants, which she considers merely "very late abortion", since it is "cruel" to let them live and suffer; besides, the parents can usually create "a new human being in less than a year", so what's the big deal?

Alas, people being their usual irrational selves, her "advocacy for infant euthenasia had attracted the fiercest and most sustained hatered". She was even called a baby-killer, for some reason. Imagine that!

It is people like that make me wish sometimes that god, if he exists, would just damn the entire human race to hell, like Mark Twain often said in his bitter old age.

[Tmy]

I could be for infant euthanasia in some cases. People will have abortions in cases where they knwo the fetis has major problems.

Is it such a horrible thing to not want a poor child to suffer a horrible fate. THere have been times were parents kill their children in order to stop their suffering. I feel for them.

I think its a debateable topic if you can get past the emotions.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tmy

Is it such a horrible thing to not want a poor child to suffer a horrible fate. THere have been times were parents kill their children in order to stop their suffering. I feel for them.




What you are saying is only valid if you know what is going to happen to the child in the future.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In their latest issue, among articles about enlightment, humaneness, reason, etc., etc., etc., an article by a certain Barbara Smoker, who is advocating infant euthanasia.

No, that's not a misprint. Look it up yourselves. She advocates killing "severely handicapped" infants, which she considers merely "very late abortion", since it is "cruel" to let them live and suffer; besides, the parents can usually create "a new human being in less than a year", so what's the big deal?

Yes, yes, yes. Won't somebody think of the children, indeed. I like kids. But they are not different, they are not special, not magical, and not worth more or less than any other person. Children with severe congenital defects may be in a lot of pain, or be miserable, and may not even be self-aware. It's all a matter of degree - would you kill your child if he or she were born severely mentally retarded and in constant pain from some hereditary or developmental disease? or would you let him or her suffer because "life is a precious gift from Jesus?"

No one's advocating that the government take handicapped children from their parents and toss them in a ditch, Skeptic. No one wants parents to arbitrarily kill (relatively) healthy kids. There's a huge difference between Down's syndrome and, say, anencephaly. And that's what Smoker's talking about.

[DanishDynamite]

I'm with Tmy. What's your main problem with the concept, Skeptic? You don't say in your post.

[JamesM]

Given that children cannot give their consent to be euthanased, are there any other circumstances where children can be killed (or allowed to die or whatever) currently? When they're on life support?

[geni]

All those in favor please state precisely where you would draw the line.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
No one's advocating that the government take handicapped children from their parents and toss them in a ditch, Skeptic...

It's not a goal, it's a movement. One step at a time. See?

[El Greco]

Euthanasia in babies should be allowed. It *will* be allowed in the future civilized societies. As a first step, there should be a list of specific diagnoses where there is absolutely no hope for survival and the life quality of the infant will be tragical. In such cases, euthanasia should be allowed should the parents wish to resort to it.

Just tell me how can an infant with Anencephaly (http://www.asfhelp.com/ASF_files/asf_home.htm) survive, and what kind of life do you expect those babies to have during the few hours or days they are going to live. This is an extreme example, but there are many more fatal syndromes.

[Aoidoi]

Professor Singer at Princeton raised a similar idea and you should have seen the s#!&storm when they tried to hire him. His was basically that children with no hope of a meaningful life and no family willing to take care of them should be euthanized (paraphrased, I don't recall all the details).

While you may agree or disagree, it seems to me that it's a worthwhile ethics discussion.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by geni
All those in favor please state precisely where you would draw the line. No idea. I'm not a specialist in congenital defects or their long-term prognosis/outlook.

However, I see no a priori reason why euthanasia shouldn't be an option in some circumstances.

[Tony]

I think it should be an option, but not a mandate. If a parent has a disabled kid and loves them and wants to care for them, the parent should have that right.

[Andonyx]

My main issue with this idea is more of a philosophical one. This is really only a hop skip and a jump away from a type of eugenics program. Granted the purported aim is not to "purify" the genes of the next generation but to stop suffering. Still this kind of things invites abuse...

The issue is when the line between congenital illness that causes suffering becomes blurred with congenital traits that are not desireable. There are a great deal of frightening implications behind an idea like this.

In addition while I cannot conscience the opposition to other types of euthanasia from a religious standpoint, there is something to be said for the assumption that every life is precious until proven otherwise. Life should regarded as a valuable commodity if for no other reason than I'm pretty sure this is all we get.

As such I still think it should only be the person's own consent to be euthanized. This raises problems I understand for the mentally handicapped, or incapacitated...and it doesn't even jive with my stance on abortion or the Schiavo case, but these are not easy, one answer questions.

[Skeptic]

What's my problem with this?

Well, call me old fashioned, but I seem to recall that deliberately killing an innocent person (such as a baby) without their consent (which a baby is unable to give) is known as "murder". I have a problem with murder.

Also, being a bit old-fashined, I ESPECIALLY have problem with the murder of children, babies, and other helpless person, as being a particularly horrible sort of murder. I have a problem with particularly henious murders.

Finally, somewhat less important than these two rather obvious facts, is the fact that, as usual, it is the helpless and disabled which it is "OK" to murder, because somebody ELSE decided their life is "not worth living". Without bothering to ask them for their opinion, of course.

The "humanistic" idea here is, actually, a fascist idea: that the lives of the healthy and fortunate are worth more than those of the handicapped and unfortunate, and that therefore it is OK to get rid of the undermenschen to make room for us better people.

[El Greco]

Many people seem to confuse serious disabilities with syndromes having extremely poor prognosis. I'm specifically referring to the latter, like the aforementioned anencephaly, or Trisomy 18 (90% of infants die within 1 year), or hypoplastic left heart syndrome etc.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco
Many people seem to confuse serious disabilities with syndromes having extremely poor prognosis. I'm specifically referring to the latter, like the aforementioned anencephaly, or Trisomy 18 (90% of infants die within 1 year), or hypoplastic left heart syndrome etc.

Everyone has an extreamly poor prognosis. Soner or latter everyone is going to die so it does not matter if they are killed now right?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
It's not a goal, it's a movement. One step at a time. See?

What, seriously? Who are the people anxiously waiting to see the streets run red with infant blood?

If you're being sarcastic, I apologize - too much Kumar/may flower/traveller lately, and I can't tell anymore.

[Tmy]

The "humanistic" idea here is, actually, a fascist idea: that the lives of the healthy and fortunate are worth more than those of the handicapped and unfortunate, and that therefore it is OK to get rid of the [I]undermenschen to make room for us better people. [/B]

Its found in nature. Many animals will abandon "defective" offspring and concentrate on healthy ones.

People often do this with their pets. For many people putting pets down is not a financial or convienient decision. Its a decision based in sympathy and love. They want to end the animals suffering. But when it comes to other people its like "hey, life at all costs."

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni


Everyone has an extreamly poor prognosis. Soner or latter everyone is going to die so it does not matter if they are killed now right?

From what you say, I safely assume that you have absolutely no idea about the severity of certain syndromes and you have probably never been in a neonatal IU. "Extremely poor prognosis" has a specific meaning in medicine. Look at some of these sites (http://www.familyvillage.wisc.edu/lib_anen.htm), read some personal stories, and figure out for yourself how can these children survive. If I ever have an anencephalic child I will choose euthanasia for it if I have the option. You may choose to be humane and let the poor infant die by itself. Maybe even videotape the few hours s/he is going to live.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What's my problem with this?

Well, call me old fashioned, but I seem to recall that deliberately killing an innocent person (such as a baby) without their consent (which a baby is unable to give) is known as "murder". I have a problem with murder.

Also, being a bit old-fashined, I ESPECIALLY have problem with the murder of children, babies, and other helpless person, as being a particularly horrible sort of murder. I have a problem with particularly henious murders.

Finally, somewhat less important than these two rather obvious facts, is the fact that, as usual, it is the helpless and disabled which it is "OK" to murder, because somebody ELSE decided their life is "not worth living". Without bothering to ask them for their opinion, of course.

The "humanistic" idea here is, actually, a fascist idea: that the lives of the healthy and fortunate are worth more than those of the handicapped and unfortunate, and that therefore it is OK to get rid of the undermenschen to make room for us better people.

hear hear...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What's my problem with this?

Well, call me old fashioned, but I seem to recall that deliberately killing an innocent person (such as a baby) without their consent (which a baby is unable to give) is known as "murder". I have a problem with murder.

Also, being a bit old-fashined, I ESPECIALLY have problem with the murder of children, babies, and other helpless person, as being a particularly horrible sort of murder. I have a problem with particularly henious murders.

Finally, somewhat less important than these two rather obvious facts, is the fact that, as usual, it is the helpless and disabled which it is "OK" to murder, because somebody ELSE decided their life is "not worth living". Without bothering to ask them for their opinion, of course.

The "humanistic" idea here is, actually, a fascist idea: that the lives of the healthy and fortunate are worth more than those of the handicapped and unfortunate, and that therefore it is OK to get rid of the undermenschen to make room for us better people.


Good points.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


From what you say, I safely assume that you have absolutely no idea about the severity of certain syndromes and you have probably never been in a neonatal IU. "Extremely poor prognosis" has a specific meaning in medicine. Look at some of these sites (http://www.familyvillage.wisc.edu/lib_anen.htm), read some personal stories, and figure out for yourself how can these children survive. If I ever have an anencephalic child I will choose euthanasia for it if I have the option. You may choose to be humane and let the poor infant die by itself. Maybe even videotape the few hours s/he is going to live.

The child is uncounious and can feel no pain so by the standards that you are using it makes no difference. If you can't stand the idea that is your problem and killing is not the solution.

Can you please state where you are drawing the line.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


What, seriously? Who are the people anxiously waiting to see the streets run red with infant blood?

If you're being sarcastic, I apologize - too much Kumar/may flower/traveller lately, and I can't tell anymore.

Not sarcastic. Nor particularly horrified at smothering a hideously deformed baby at birth (as was often done in the past). That's not the point.

I don't posit a deliberate conspiracy with horrid little men rubbing their hands plotting destruction.

It's a movement with a discernable direction. Not necessarily with a conscious final goal. We've been there before, it can happen again.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Andonyx
[B]My main issue with this idea is more of a philosophical one. This is really only a hop skip and a jump away from a type of eugenics program. Granted the purported aim is not to "purify" the genes of the next generation but to stop suffering. Still this kind of things invites abuse...I don't think it is any more a step toward eugenics than test-tube babies. Are you opposed to these?
The issue is when the line between congenital illness that causes suffering becomes blurred with congenital traits that are not desireable. There are a great deal of frightening implications behind an idea like this.I agree that there must be safeguards.
In addition while I cannot conscience the opposition to other types of euthanasia from a religious standpoint, there is something to be said for the assumption that every life is precious until proven otherwise. Life should regarded as a valuable commodity if for no other reason than I'm pretty sure this is all we get.While I sort of agree with the sentiment that "life is precious", it is really a very vague statement. Bacteria are life. Have you ever used penicilin?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni


The child is uncounious and can feel no pain so by the standards that you are using it makes no difference. If you can't stand the idea that is your problem and killing is not the solution.

Can you please state where you are drawing the line.

You answered too quickly, so you probably didn't read the personal stories.

You also continue strawmanning by calling it "killing". No, it's not killing. It's called euthanasia.

I said above where I would draw the line. A group of specialists would decide on a limited number of syndromes with extremely poor prognosis (maybe 100% death in the first year). Another prerequisite is that the children would suffer daily. In such cases euthanasia should be legal, if the parents select it. The list would be updated as medical progress improves the prognosis of certain syndromes (which I find rather improbable for such syndromes, but anyway).

Mind you, a doctor will always suggest abortion should such a diagnosis be made during pregnancy. In these cases, abortion is also legal everywhere in the world, AFAIK.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:What's my problem with this?

Well, call me old fashioned, but I seem to recall that deliberately killing an innocent person (such as a baby) without their consent (which a baby is unable to give) is known as "murder". I have a problem with murder. Would you have a problem putting down a suffering kitten/puppy/etc with no prospects of getting better? If yes, why? If no, why would you not extend the same pity to members of your own species?
Also, being a bit old-fashined, I ESPECIALLY have problem with the murder of children, babies, and other helpless person, as being a particularly horrible sort of murder. I have a problem with particularly henious murders. What is heinous about ending someone's suffering?
Finally, somewhat less important than these two rather obvious facts, is the fact that, as usual, it is the helpless and disabled which it is "OK" to murder, because somebody ELSE decided their life is "not worth living". Without bothering to ask them for their opinion, of course.Babies, like animals, can't be asked their opinion. This doesn't mean we don't know whether they are suffering or not.
The "humanistic" idea here is, actually, a fascist idea: that the lives of the healthy and fortunate are worth more than those of the handicapped and unfortunate, and that therefore it is OK to get rid of the undermenschen to make room for us better people. Yes, the lives of productive members of society are worth more to that society than those who are not productive. A hard fact of life, but such is obviously the case.

[Tmy]

No one seems to mind playing god when it comes to dragging out life to the very last second. So whats wrong with the flip side.

ASs for consent. Well wheres the babies consent when we're cicumsizing the poor infant. Ive never heard of anyone consent to having Mr. Happy go under the knife. Wheres the outrage dammit!!!!

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't think it is any more a step toward eugenics than test-tube babies. Are you opposed to these?
I agree that there must be safeguards.
While I sort of agree with the sentiment that "life is precious", it is really a very vague statement. Bacteria are life. Have you ever used penicilin?

Well, yes that's a huge difference. Test tube babies are there to grant life / children where it was not previously possible due to circumstance. This is about taking it away when it may not be a necessity.

Eugenics is not the same as genetics engineering. Eugenics was a practice of attempting to accelerate selective gene reproduction by sterilizing or executing those not deemed fit to reproduce.

I don't see how test tube babies ties in here.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Yes, the lives of productive members of society are worth more to that society than those who are not productive. A hard fact of life, but such is obviously the case.


This is a fascistic idea. Are you a fascist?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Tmy


ASs for consent. Well wheres the babies consent when we're cicumsizing the poor infant. Ive never heard of anyone consent to having Mr. Happy go under the knife. Wheres the outrage dammit!!!!

You'd be surprised we had a 20 page thread about this once.


Oh wait....that was you apparently. Well just a refresher:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=16986&highlight=Circumcision

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:Well, yes that's a huge difference. Test tube babies are there to grant life / children where it was not previously possible due to circumstance. This is about taking it away when it may not be a necessity.

Eugenics is not the same as genetics engineering. Eugenics was a practice of attempting to accelerate selective gene reproduction by sterilizing or executing those not deemed fit to reproduce.

I don't see how test tube babies ties in here. They tie in because the goal of eugenics could be achieved by either method. Kill undesireables or directly breed desireables.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Tony
This is a fascistic idea. Are you a fascist? Why is it fascistic? It is an obvious fact.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by geni



Can you please state where you are drawing the line.

We draw life n death lines all the time. Organ lists for example. Even speed limits, we could save thousands of lives a yaer if we lowered the highway limts to 25mph, BUT MILLIONS WOULD BE LATE! Tough decisons have to be made. You cant run from decisions just cause they are tough.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by El Greco
You also continue strawmanning by calling it "killing". No, it's not killing. It's called euthanasia.


"Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a mule have?"
"A: Four. Because calling it a leg doesn't make it so."

- A. Lincoln

[El Greco]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


"Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a mule have?"
"A: Four. Because calling it a leg doesn't make it so."

- A. Lincoln

Hardly an argument in my book. The we could also call it "murder" or "assassination". From the time it will be legal, it will be "euthanasia". Period.

But if you like the above quotation so much, why not apply it backwards ? Calling "euthanasia" a "killing" doesn't make it one.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

"Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a mule have?"
"A: Four. Because calling it a leg doesn't make it so."

- A. Lincoln Indeed. However, there is a reason that there are many terms for "causing the death of". Examples are: suicide, manslaughter, murder, euthanasia, etc. The reason of course, is that they differ in some way.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


"Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a mule have?"
"A: Four. Because calling it a leg doesn't make it so."

- A. Lincoln

Funny. I never heard anyone say that Abe was "euthanized by John Wilkes Booth."

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Andonyx:They tie in because the goal of eugenics could be achieved by either method. Kill undesireables or directly breed desireables.

Fair enough,

But to me that argument just makes test tube conception scarier. It doesn't make infant euthanasia more appealing.

The problem is you run into these ethical questions whenever you have to put humans or a group of humans in the position of choosing which people die and which live. There is always the potential for abuse, and there will always be a circumstance without clear cut answers.

Personally I think once a person is brain dead, boom....organs hit the auction block. But a lot of people either for religious reasons or simply people who find it ghoulish object to that strenuously.

On the other hand while you can make a pure numbers argument for the worth of a severely afflicted person to society as a whole...well, I am not religious at all, I don't believe in God or a soul, but I do believe that each person's life is priceless to themselves and the people who care about them.

Yes you can have another child but you are not REPLACING a lost or euthanized one.

So how does one determine a criteria that would actually allow us to say in no uncertain terms...."This person would literally be better off dead."

It's a difficult thing, no?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Indeed. However, there is a reason that there are many terms for "causing the death of". Examples are: suicide, manslaughter, murder, euthanasia, etc. The reason of course, is that they differ in some way.

You forgot a strange term called "death penalty"

[DanishDynamite]

Andonyx:Fair enough,

But to me that argument just makes test tube conception scarier. It doesn't make infant euthanasia more appealing.OK.
The problem is you run into these ethical questions whenever you have to put humans or a group of humans in the position of choosing which people die and which live. There is always the potential for abuse, and there will always be a circumstance without clear cut answers.I agree completely.
Personally I think once a person is brain dead, boom....organs hit the auction block. But a lot of people either for religious reasons or simply people who find it ghoulish object to that strenuously.I agree with your position.
On the other hand while you can make a pure numbers argument for the worth of a severely afflicted person to society as a whole...well, I am not religious at all, I don't believe in God or a soul, but I do believe that each person's life is priceless to themselves and the people who care about them.Which is find and dandy. I have no problem with people caring for their handicapped child.
Yes you can have another child but you are not REPLACING a lost or euthanized one.A matter of semantics.
So how does one determine a criteria that would actually allow us to say in no uncertain terms...."This person would literally be better off dead."I agree that it won't be easy. I just don't see why the option shouldn't be there.
It's a difficult thing, no? Indeed.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by El Greco


You forgot a strange term called "death penalty" Consider it added to the list.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


You answered too quickly, so you probably didn't read the personal stories.

Earlier in the thread someone said to keep emotional arguments out of the way so I stuck to the medical reports. I have now read the personal stroies and as far as I can see they make no difference.

You also continue strawmanning by calling it "killing". No, it's not killing. It's called euthanasia.

from dictionary.com
The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

The ending of life seems a pretty good definition of killing to me but have no abjection if you wish to use the term euthanasia

I said above where I would draw the line. A group of specialists would decide on a limited number of syndromes with extremely poor prognosis (maybe 100% death in the first year). Another prerequisite is that the children would suffer daily. In such cases euthanasia should be legal, if the parents select it. The list would be updated as medical progress improves the prognosis of certain syndromes (which I find rather improbable for such syndromes, but anyway).

In this case the suffering is zero. Why should length of life have anything to do with the matter? We don't kill 50 year olds just because we know the will die of a heart atack in the next 6 months.

[JAR]

I also advocate infant euthanasia.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by JAR
I also advocate infant euthanasia.

Nah, I won't say it. It would be too easy.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Nah, I won't say it. It would be too easy. Oh, go on! You know you want to! :)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
from dictionary.com
The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

What is it with dictionary.com ? Isn't the word "euthanasia" over there ? Oh, yes, it is:

act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

Seems more appropriate to me, eh ?

In this case the suffering is zero. Why should length of life have anything to do with the matter? We don't kill 50 year olds just because we know the will die of a heart atack in the next 6 months.

Oh, I see. In Anencephaly the suffering is zero. What if most of the brain is absent ? What about Severe Isolated Lissencephaly where all children die within two months but there is a brain ?

I also said that daily suffering would be a prerequisite. And in fact, euthanasia in terminal adult cancer patients is very seriously considered in many countries.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Oh, go on! You know you want to! :)

The phrase "fish in a barrell" comes to mind.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by El Greco


You forgot a strange term called "death penalty"

Which kind? :p

Hanging? High or low? Tree, lamppost, gallows, or yardarm? Drop 'em or haul 'em up?

Shooting? Firing squad or pistol to head?

Electrocution? AC or DC? :p

Got a point? :p

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Which kind? :p

Hanging? High or low? Tree, lamppost, gallows, or yardarm? Drop 'em or haul 'em up?

Shooting? Firing squad or pistol to head?

Electrocution? AC or DC? :p

Got a point? :p

I was thinking more of impalement...

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Indeed. However, there is a reason that there are many terms for "causing the death of". Examples are: suicide, manslaughter, murder, euthanasia, etc. The reason of course, is that they differ in some way.

Suicide = Killing yourself

Murder = Killing another with requisite intent/without recognized excuse

Manslaughter = Killing another with "lesser" intent than required for murder

euthanasia . . . .

Note that while all are perfectly fine words, but no one would say (for example) that "No, its not killing, its called murder."

Remember the message being responded to:
You also continue strawmanning by calling it "killing". No, it's not killing. It's called euthanasia.

Why is it not killing?

Is manslaughter (or any of your other examples) not killing?

[Cain]

Christ I hate how these threads accumulate fifty replies before I get the chance to even read them.

Professor Singer at Princeton raised a similar idea and you should have seen the s#!&storm when they tried to hire him. His was basically that children with no hope of a meaningful life and no family willing to take care of them should be euthanized (paraphrased, I don't recall all the details).

While you may agree or disagree, it seems to me that it's a worthwhile ethics discussion.

It sounds very similar to Singer's idea, which says that parents should have about a month -- four weeks to be precise -- to decide whether or not to keep it. I think he has since altered his position slightly, but there's not a hint of "purity" or killing all the deviants in his line of thought. He's attempting to analyze the best interests of the baby in terms of overall happiness. A severely disabled woman, a bright lawyer, was invited Singer to speak at Princeton on this topic. She's an activist for the handicapped and wrote up a long article on her encounter with the professor in the _New York Times Magazine_.

Does Singer advocate second-class citizenship for the handicapped once they become adults? Not at all. Their interests and concerns are allotted the same weight as anybody else.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


Oh, I see. In Anencephaly the suffering is zero. What if most of the brain is absent ? What about Severe Isolated Lissencephaly where all children die within two months but there is a brain ?

I also said that daily suffering would be a prerequisite. And in fact, euthanasia in terminal adult cancer patients is very seriously considered in many countries.

Suffering is an argument for better palertive care it is not an argument for euthanasia. In the case of severe SIL it would appear (from the little I can gather from the net perhaps you can find me some links) that it should be posible to nutrealise any suffering using various methods.

As for your board of specialists do you think they could make a mistake? If yes then they may kill people for no reason. If no then you are claiming that they have god like powers.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Suicide = Killing yourself

Murder = Killing another with requisite intent/without recognized excuse

Manslaughter = Killing another with "lesser" intent than required for murder

euthanasia . . . .

Note that while all are perfectly fine words, but no one would say (for example) that "No, its not killing, its called murder."

Remember the message being responded to:


Why is it not killing?

Is manslaughter (or any of your other examples) not killing? Is removing artificial life-support "killing"?

The word "kill", while not as emotionally charged as "murder", still carries an emotional taint. Why not use the words which best describe the action?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
[B]Why is it not killing?


For the same reason that we say "the convict was executed by lethal injection"

I have a surprise for you. Try googling for

- "executed by lethal injection" vs
- "killed by lethal injection"

Compare the number of results and what kind of sites use each expression. Isn't "execution" a "killing" ?

Also, since dictionary.com is so popular here, notice that it refers to euthanasia as "ending the life".

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Is removing artificial life-support "killing"?

The word "kill", while not as emotionally charged as "murder", still carries an emotional taint. Why not use the words which best describe the action?

You are bootstrapping. You have to assume the correctness of your position regarding the definition in order to use that as evidence that it is better -- it begs the question.

[Cain]

Murder is by definition an unlawful killing. (There's also an element of malicious intent).

"Killing" is more neutral. Pro-"life" activists confuse these terms all the time.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
Suffering is an argument for better palertive care it is not an argument for euthanasia. In the case of severe SIL it would appear (from the little I can gather from the net perhaps you can find me some links) that it should be posible to nutrealise any suffering using various methods.
Yes, perhaps you can make them vegetables so that they don't show signs of suffering. But as we know from terminal cancer patients, there comes a time when the effective does of morphine is lethal.

Originally posted by geni
As for your board of specialists do you think they could make a mistake? If yes then they may kill people for no reason. If no then you are claiming that they have god like powers.
This reminds me of the joke where the lawyer questions the doctor:
- "Doctor, before performing the autopsy did you check for pulse ?"
- "No, sir"
- "Perhaps you checked for muscle tone ?"
- "No, I didn't"
- "Did you check for breath, then ?"
- "I didn't"
- "Then how can you be sure that the man was dead ?"
- "I am sure because his brain was in a jar on my desk"
- "Yes, but couldn't he be still alive ?"
- "I suppose you are right, he could be alive and practicing law somewhere"

When we talk about such syndromes, we talk about conditions incompatible with life. Do you have to be god-like to understand that there cannot be life without a brain ? Well, there are many more such cases where we can be absolutely certain.

[DanishDynamite]

NoZed Avenger:You are bootstrapping. You have to assume the correctness of your position regarding the definition in order to use that as evidence that it is better -- it begs the question. You lost me. Kindly explain in two syllable words (or less) what you mean.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by El Greco


For the same reason that we say "the convict was executed by lethal injection"


Um. That's killing, too. The convicted, capital murderer is killed.

"execution" is a fine word, but I would not try to assert that "you cannot call it killing, it is executing" for example.


I have a surprise for you. Try googling for

- "executed by lethal injection" vs
- "killed by lethal injection"

Compare the number of results and what kind of sites use each expression. Isn't "execution" a "killing" ?

Yes. That many people prefer to use euphemisms for killing -- verbal eupeptics, as it were -- does not make the execution any less a killing.

Just as saying that someone "passed over" doesn't make him or her any less dead.


Also, since dictionary.com is so popular here, notice that it refers to euthanasia as "ending the life".

What a coincidence. "Kill" means "To deprive of life" or "To put an end to; extinguish" from the same source.


Your point is that those opposing this measure are using "killing" because it is less pleasant. You feel that the use of the term is there to evoke emotional responses.

At the same time, the opposition may well argue that avoiding the term is the same process in reverse -- an attempt to whitewash what is actually being done.

Both sides have legitimate points on that score. But I think your criticism goes too far when you say that euthanasia simply isn't killing. The old term was "mercy killing," after all. Overly emotional appeals should be avoided, but I think everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a human life that everyone is discussing. Glossing over the messy details may be just as big an error -- I think it is important for everyone to acknowledge that both of those positions may have hidden assumptions or baggage that come with them.

N/A

[El Greco]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Your point is that those opposing this measure are using "killing" because it is less pleasant. You feel that the use of the term is there to evoke emotional responses.

At the same time, the opposition may well argue that avoiding the term is the same process in reverse -- an attempt to whitewash what is actually being done.


You are correct, but I have the support of dictionary.com. And all dictionaries in the world, for that matter. If we are going to talk, we will have to use the "politically correct" term. And this is euthanasia, whether you agree or not.

For still others, the appropriate term would be "murder". Or even "murder in cold blood". Go to any anti-abortion christian site for example.

We have both made our points.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
NoZed Avenger:You lost me. Kindly explain in two syllable words (or less) what you mean.

Sorry. I knew that my message wasn't entirely clear; that was my failure to get the point across. Let me try in a little more detail. The last part of my previous post to EG may help out in context, too.

You said:The word "kill", while not as emotionally charged as "murder", still carries an emotional taint. Why not use the words which best describe the action?

In order to accept your position (that the use of "euthanasia" is superior to or more accurate than "killing"), you must first assume that you are correct about the very thing you are asserting.

In other words, to accept that we should use the word "euthanize," we must accept the initial idea that "euthanize" is, in fact, the best word to describe it.

You are, at least to an extent, assuming the truth of what you are asserting.

I would point at my last reply to EG on the subject -- I think avoiding the (potentially emotional) implications of the act is potentially just as dangerous as overly-emotionalizing it.

We have to make sure that we are not relying on euphemisms in order to avoid being uncomfortable, in my opinion. When refering to the death penalty, both sides have to keep in mind that everyone is talking about killing someone. Ending a life.

As another example, war involves killing - not just "liquidating" or "neutralizing" or "pacifying" a people/area. Avoiding the negative-sounding words can be a mistake, too. We must be careful not to candy-coat any discussions in our efforts to avoid negatively-charged words -- sometimes those words are accurate, even if we are uncomforatble using them.

N/A

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco



This reminds me of the joke where the lawyer questions the doctor:
- "Doctor, before performing the autopsy did you check for pulse ?"
- "No, sir"
- "Perhaps you checked for muscle tone ?"
- "No, I didn't"
- "Did you check for breath, then ?"
- "I didn't"
- "Then how can you be sure that the man was dead ?"
- "I am sure because his brain was in a jar on my desk"
- "Yes, but couldn't he be still alive ?"
- "I suppose you are right, he could be alive and practicing law somewhere"

Well there was a case where someone made it as far as the autopsy table before they relised that she was alive (she went on to make a full recovery) and there are plenty of cases of people making it as far as the mourtery.

When we talk about such syndromes, we talk about conditions incompatible with life. Do you have to be god-like to understand that there cannot be life without a brain ? Well, there are many more such cases where we can be absolutely certain.
from the fact that the child starts off alive and in both cases you mention has a life exptancy of greater than 3 minutes we can conclude that these conditions are not totaly incompatible with life. As to making a mistake the team of specialist would have to be certian that it was severe SIL rather than SIL.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Sorry. I knew that my message wasn't entirely clear; that was my failure to get the point across. Let me try in a little more detail. The last part of my previous post to EG may help out in context, too.

You said:

In order to accept your position (that the use of "euthanasia" is superior to or more accurate than "killing"), you must first assume that you are correct about the very thing you are asserting.

In other words, to accept that we should use the word "euthanize," we must accept the initial idea that "euthanize" is, in fact, the best word to describe it.

You are, at least to an extent, assuming the truth of what you are asserting.

I would point at my last reply to EG on the subject -- I think avoiding the (potentially emotional) implications of the act is potentially just as dangerous as overly-emotionalizing it.

We have to make sure that we are not relying on euphemisms in order to avoid being uncomfortable, in my opinion. When refering to the death penalty, both sides have to keep in mind that everyone is talking about killing someone. Ending a life.

As another example, war involves killing - not just "liquidating" or "neutralizing" or "pacifying" a people/area. Avoiding the negative-sounding words can be a mistake, too. We must be careful not to candy-coat any discussions in our efforts to avoid negatively-charged words -- sometimes those words are accurate, even if we are uncomforatble using them.

N/A Thank you for clarifying.

I would be perfectly happy to use the term "mercy killing" if the word "euthanasia" is deemed unacceptable. One must be Politically Correct.;)

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Thank you for clarifying.

I would be perfectly happy to use the term "mercy killing" if the word "euthanasia" is deemed unacceptable. One must be Politically Correct.;)

Still not neutral. It is saying that this form of killing is always merciful. Therefor it is supporting you piont of view. The equivlent on my side would be "unlawful killing" not as loaded as murder but still loaded.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Thank you for clarifying.

I would be perfectly happy to use the term "mercy killing" if the word "euthanasia" is deemed unacceptable. One must be Politically Correct.;)

I'm sorry I was not originally clear.

I don't deem either word unacceptable, at least if placed in context appropriately. Neither would I mandate that anyone involved in the discussion must use one or the other, or any other phrase.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by geni


Still not neutral. It is saying that this form of killing is always merciful. Therefor it is supporting you piont of view. The equivlent on my side would be "unlawful killing" not as loaded as murder but still loaded. So what do you suggest?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


I'm sorry I was not originally clear.

I don't deem either word unacceptable, at least if placed in context appropriately. Neither would I mandate that anyone involved in the discussion must use one or the other, or any other phrase. I'm confused. What exactly are you advocating, then?

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So what do you suggest?

That is the problem. The closest I can get is "ending of life" but I still feel that one is loaded.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by geni


That is the problem. The closest I can get is "ending of life" but I still feel that one is loaded. Are you saying we can't discuss this issue because we can't agree on a neutral term? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm confused. What exactly are you advocating, then?

I am not an advocate, per se. My only objection was to the position that Euthanasia =! a type of killing.

I recognize the legitimate point that the use of "kill" -- according to context -- may be an attempt to add an emotional overtone to the debate. But at the same time, it is also possible that avoiding the word or eliminating it completely from the debate is just as big an error in the other direction.

The original declaration that voluntarily ending someone's life is not killing (that it was in fact a strawman) simply took a legitimate point and took it WAY too far, IMO.

I was only hoping that both sides could acknowledge that either position - a total exclusion of the other viewpoint - might be unhealthy.

But luckily, no one can use a term other than 'euthanasia' now, so its all been settled.

I think that everyone assumed I was taking a position in the debate proper or advocating a position in this -- and then reacted to my posts by reading that into my words, when in fact I was only trying to point out the danger of requiring the exclusive use of one term in the debate/discussion.

N/A

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


I am not an advocate, per se. My only objection was to the position that Euthanasia =! a type of killing.

I recognize the legitimate point that the use of "kill" -- according to context -- may be an attempt to add an emotional overtone to the debate. But at the same time, it is also possible that avoiding the word or eliminating it completely from the debate is just as big an error in the other direction.

The original declaration that voluntarily ending someone's life is not killing (that it was in fact a strawman) simply took a legitimate point and took it WAY too far, IMO.

I was only hoping that both sides could acknowledge that either position - a total exclusion of the other viewpoint - might be unhealthy.

But luckily, no one can use a term other than 'euthanasia' now, so its all been settled.

I think that everyone assumed I was taking a position in the debate proper or advocating a position in this -- and then reacted to my posts by reading that into my words, when in fact I was only trying to point out the danger of requiring the exclusive use of one term in the debate/discussion.

N/A I understand. I will say that there is a kernel of truth in what you say. On the other hand, a specific term already exists to describe the action which this thread is about. I'm sure that even if we use this fairly neutral term, people can still make their viewpoints clear.

Anyway, it is way past my bedtime here, so I'm off to bed. Ciao.

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Are you saying we can't discuss this issue because we can't agree on a neutral term? I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous.

No. I'm saying that you are going to have to accept that any term used is going to be loaded. I said that I have no objections to others using the term euthanasia. They are going to have to accept that I am not going to.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally qutoed by DanishDynamite
Yes, the lives of productive members of society are worth more to that society than those who are not productive. A hard fact of life, but such is obviously the case.

I hate that statement and don't think it should be used in any way to support euthanasia. Productive in what sense? A person can be highly productive, but use it in a way which has negative consequences for society. And severe disability doesn't always mean poor productivity. Stephen Hawkins? Christopher Reeve? Even if a life has only very limited scope for productivity and is spent navel-gazing, it can still be of great value to the person living it. If we start measuring peoples worth by their productivity or their *projected productivity*...we'd really be getting into some murky waters.

I do support euthanasia, for infants too, in extreme cases, but I don't think we should use "productivity" as the criteria...it should be based on quality of life issues for the individual concerned, in consultation with doctors and parents.

[Skeptic]

Its found in nature. Many animals will abandon "defective" offspring and concentrate on healthy ones.

Incest, genocide, and killing your mate for food are also found in nature. The "it's natural" idea to excuse murdering babies (which is precisely what it is) is straight out of the fascist social-darwinist apologetics.

It's the idea that "survival of the fittest" in nature imples that a). they have the right to choose who is "fit" and who is not among human beings, and to b). kill the "unfit" ones since that's the "natural" thing to do.

[Skeptic]

What, seriously? Who are the people anxiously waiting to see the streets run red with infant blood?

Why, of course not! The extermination of the unfit must be done in a scientific, painless, humane, private manner which will not distress society at large.

Ms. Smoker suggests a quick lethal injection (seriously). Other people, I recall, used different methods.

[Skeptic]

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding on the part of some posters here, which is my fault...

Tmy, DD, etc.:

Ms. Smoker is NOT talking about not taking extraordinary measures to save the life of an infant who would probably die anyway. That ("passive euthenasia") is morally problematic in many cases, but not murder.

Ms. Smoker is talking about "active euthenasia"--e.g., murder--of infants who WOULD survive for years (and perhaps into adulthood and old age) under normal care, but with "severe disabilities".

She thinks it is an "act of mercy" to kill them precisely because it "saves" them from a LONG "worthless" life. She wants to save them the "agonizing decision" of committing suicide later in life (once they decide their life is "worthless", I suppose) or--if they are too much of a coward in her view, I suppose--the "agony of waiting" for natural death to "release" them.

How nice of her, don't you think, to be so considerate and caring to those infants she wants to kill with lethal injection?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by El Greco


I was thinking more of impalement...

Well then. Impalement is much more pointier, but lethal injection seems to be the preferred method among us more civilized (or at least fashionable) executioners nowadays.

John Muhammad aka "The DC Sniper" was just convicted of murder in Virginia USA. The jury is now in what is called "the penalty phase". The jury will decide whether it is to be life in prison without parole, or death.

No military tribunal death penalties so far, despite the international screaming about the possibility. This one remains to be seen.

[Cain]

First, what's the title of the article? I am browsing the journal online through an academic service and it shows zero hits for a Smoker. I scanned over the titles for the Oct/Nov issue (I guess FI is now bimonthly) and nothing suggestive popped out.

Originally posted by Skeptic
What's my problem with this?

Well, call me old fashioned, but I seem to recall that deliberately killing an innocent person (such as a baby) without their consent (which a baby is unable to give) is known as "murder". I have a problem with murder.

"Innocent person" is loaded and consent is secondary. Those who oppose abortion make identical arguments: the fetus is innocent, a person, and unable to give its consent.

What is the standard for personhood? When, according to you, does it become a person with rights?

Also, being a bit old-fashined, I ESPECIALLY have problem with the murder of children, babies, and other helpless person, as being a particularly horrible sort of murder. I have a problem with particularly henious murders.

Murder is first and foremost a legal concept. The heinousness of the action is precisely what's being argued.

Finally, somewhat less important than these two rather obvious facts,

No, I do not think these facts are "obvious," or even persuasive, or even especially relevant and on topic. Identical arguments can be offered against an incestuous love affair: 1) It's illegal 2) it's gross.

(Personhood, again, requires definition.)

is the fact that, as usual, it is the helpless and disabled which it is "OK" to murder, because somebody ELSE decided their life is "not worth living". Without bothering to ask them for their opinion, of course.

No, that is in all likelihood a straw man: the author, I suspect, only argues that parents ought to decide whether or not to keep a severely disabled infant. Or are you saying she explicitly advocates literally murdering people in wheelchairs on the street?

The "humanistic" idea here is, actually, a fascist idea: that the lives of the healthy and fortunate are worth more than those of the handicapped and unfortunate, and that therefore it is OK to get rid of the undermenschen to make room for us better people.

In his book _Practical Ethics_, Peter Singer (the controversial public philosopher mentioned earlier who is most responsible for pressing this issue) brings up the example of the drug thalidomide. When taken by pregnant women, this drug caused many infants to be born without arms and legs. The above implies that parents should have no reason to sue the drug manufacturer. Or, why should we oppose women taking this pill (thalidomide) during pregnancy if a severely disabled and abnormal baby is no different?

He writes: "If this sounds grotesque, that is only becuase we are all in no doubt at all that it is better to be born with limbs than without them."

Singer only says that the decision is with the parents.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Professor Singer at Princeton raised a similar idea and you should have seen the s#!&storm when they tried to hire him. His was basically that children with no hope of a meaningful life and no family willing to take care of them should be euthanized (paraphrased, I don't recall all the details).

While you may agree or disagree, it seems to me that it's a worthwhile ethics discussion.

Isn't Singer one of those Jews?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
from the fact that the child starts off alive and in both cases you mention has a life exptancy of greater than 3 minutes we can conclude that these conditions are not totaly incompatible with life. As to making a mistake the team of specialist would have to be certian that it was severe SIL rather than SIL.

Ok, if I understand your point, you actually agree with me that *if* we can be 100% certain that an infant will die pretty soon and will suffer immensely, then euthanasia should be an option for the parents to consider. You just say that we can't be 100% sure that death will occur within our preset timeframe ?

Am I correct in interpreting your view this way ?

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


Ok, if I understand your point, you actually agree with me that *if* we can be 100% certain that an infant will die pretty soon and will suffer immensely, then euthanasia should be an option for the parents to consider. You just say that we can't be 100% sure that death will occur within our preset timeframe ?

Am I correct in interpreting your view this way ?

Sort of. I think to be 100% sure the Judgement would have to be made by a being who was totaly infalible or to put it anther way a being who would meet the requirements for some definations of god. If there was such a being and we assume that they were always honest I think it would be very hard to dissagree with them.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni


Sort of. I think to be 100% sure the Judgement would have to be made by a being who was totaly infalible or to put it anther way a being who would meet the requirements for some definations of god. If there was such a being and we assume that they were always honest I think it would be very hard to dissagree with them.


And also, may I suppose that by the same logic, you are against abortion in cases like the aforementioned ? Is it your opinion that a mother with an anencephalic child has to give birth to it, even though the diagnosis may have already been made as early as the 3rd month ?

[Tmy]

I say killing (call it what you like) is just fine. Its not like we're gonna do this cause the kid has big ears or sumthin. But why sentence these kids to a harsh life, let them know the bliss that is oblivion. Plus it can save us on health care costs.

Its kinda silly how we can keep terminal veggies on life support at huge societal, emotional and financial costs, and then say we have no money to supply people wh basic prescritions.

Who are we to decide the value of life?? Again this is nothing new. Juries are asked to do this every day in our courtrooms.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco



And also, may I suppose that by the same logic, you are against abortion in cases like the aforementioned ? Is it your opinion that a mother with an anencephalic child has to give birth to it, even though the diagnosis may have already been made as early as the 3rd month ?

I can't see how my statement applys to abortion in any way. In the 3rd month the child is not going to survive outside the womb.

[El Greco]

I also mentioned abortion, because it is a proven fact that you cannot define a set of vital functions that will characterize a baby as "alive" when born, but "not yet alive" when unborn:

Heart starts beating around 20 days
Brain activity measured around 40 days

So, using the above vital functions (the absence of which is used in medicine to signify death), babies > 40 days are alive.

What is it exactly that makes justifiable the abortion but not justifiable the euthanasia of a baby with an extremely serious syndrome ? How is the concept of life different in these two cases ?

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco
I also mentioned abortion, because it is a proven fact that you cannot define a set of vital functions that will characterize a baby as "alive" when born, but "not yet alive" when unborn:

Heart starts beating around 20 days
Brain activity measured around 40 days

So, using the above vital functions (the absence of which is used in medicine to signify death), babies > 40 days are alive.

What is it exactly that makes justifiable the abortion but not justifiable the euthanasia of a baby with an extremely serious syndrome ? How is the concept of life different in these two cases ?

Your argument makes the euthanasia of any baby justifiable (after all how are they different from unborn babies?). Trying to compare indivudals that are outside the womb and surviving ( all be it not for very long) without major medical intervention with those who are still unborn is a clasic apples and oranges case.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni


Your argument makes the euthanasia of any baby justifiable (after all how are they different from unborn babies?). Trying to compare indivudals that are outside the womb and surviving ( all be it not for very long) without major medical intervention with those who are still unborn is a clasic apples and oranges case.

Argument ? I hardly worded an argument. The arguments are going to follow. I was just asking questions. Read my posts again. QUESTIONS. And the last one, was this:

1) You say that a only god-like creature should have the authority to allow euthanasia. Why does it take less than an god-like creature to define what is alive and what is not, what should be aborted and what should be not ?

2) How is a baby of 9 months minus 10 days different from a baby of of 9 months plus 10 days ?

- "Quick, let's kill it now because in 10 days it will be illegal"

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


1) You say that a only god-like creature should have the authority to allow euthanasia. Why does it take less than an god-like creature to define what is alive and what is not, what should be aborted and what should be not ?

I never said this. I my position on abortion is not relevant to this debate but since you incinsist my position on abortions is that I will not appose it as long as it obeys UK abortion law to the letter.

2) How is a baby of 9 months minus 10 days different from a baby of of 9 months plus 10 days ?

- "Quick, let's kill it now because in 10 days it will be illegal"

Well I would say stawman but thats not my style. The important point is birth. Not the age of the baby/featus.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
I never said this. I my position on abortion is not relevant to this debate but since you incinsist my position on abortions is that I will not appose it as long as it obeys UK abortion law to the letter.

Well I would say stawman but thats not my style. The important point is birth. Not the age of the baby/featus.

I don't see how can UK law be so consistent with your ideas about life and death, but never mind.

I'm sorry, hardly a strawman. A difficult question yes. A strawman no.

I guess now I should ask you whether you are the god-like creature deciding that "the important point is birth". But I won't. Also, I will not go into my arguments about how it is possible in some cases to be 100% sure about an infant's death or suffering.

But in any case, I think that at least I have provided some food for thought. :)

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco


I don't see how can UK law be so consistent with your ideas about life and death, but never mind.

Because it only alows abortion in cases where the mothers of her other childerens life/health is in danger.

I'm sorry, hardly a strawman. A difficult question yes. A strawman no.

I guess now I should ask you whether you are the god-like creature deciding that "the important point is birth". But I won't. Also, I will not go into my arguments about how it is possible in some cases to be 100% sure about an infant's death or suffering.

Because I have no choice but to draw a line. After birth we a have a choice.

But in any case, I think that at least I have provided some food for thought. :) [/B]

Basicly my case boils down to what harm does it do to others people to not euthanise the child.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni


Basicly my case boils down to what harm does it do to others people to not euthanise the child.

This is entirely different topic. Go to Family village (http://www.familyvillage.wisc.edu/specific.htm), browse the different conditions, go to support sites, read lots of peronal stories.

It is devastating for the family. Homes break down, families are taken to pieces. Many times, parents decide that they will not have another child, put off by their child's extreme suffering whith which they have to live daily.

[Skeptic]

I say killing (call it what you like) is just fine. Its not like we're gonna do this cause the kid has big ears or sumthin. But why sentence these kids to a harsh life, let them know the bliss that is oblivion.

Do you mind if I come over to your house and "let you know the bliss that is oblivion" instead of continuing this harsh life, full of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? Is Wednesday good?

You disagree? Hell, who asks YOU. I decided your life's not worth living. So there. Shut up and get on with the program, already. Whaddaya mean, you're innocent, you have a right to life? Says who?

And it will keep health care costs down, too! Just think of all the money WE will save once we get rid of YOU!

[Skeptic]

Yes, the lives of productive members of society are worth more to that society than those who are not productive. A hard fact of life, but such is obviously the case.

But, DD, we are not arguing about whether or not a productive member of society is economically more valuable than a non-productive one. What we're arguing about is your claim that non-productive people of certain sorts, such as certain babies, NO LONGER HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS, above all the right to life, but only the "right" to die, whether they want to or not (and who asks them, anyway).

This is the very essence of fascism: to believe that one has no innate human rights, but that only those who are "superior" enough according to some economic or social measure have rights, while those who do not "pass the test" are expendable because their life is "not worth living"--or so the would-be murderers tell themselves to quiet their consciousness, presuming they have any.

Pastor Neimoller, the anti-nazi firebrand, said it best in one of his speeched: "Old people, useless people, retarded people--so what? Have they somehow given up their right to live?" According to you, the answer is "yes".


P.S.

Let me guess: you are against the death penality, that "barbaric" killing that shows such "disrespect" for life, right? Especially when it it "unfairly targets the mentally retarded"?

Let us all hope you'll never become king of the world; in your moral universe, to avoid being "mercifully" killed and saved from an unproductive, useless life, the one thing a mentally retarded person would have to do is to brutally murder somebody and get themselves comdemned to death.

Nothing less would covince the likes of you that they, too, have a right to live, just like ALL brutal murderers.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:But, DD, we are not arguing about whether or not a productive member of society is economically more valuable than a non-productive one.I agree.
What we're arguing about is your claim that non-productive people of certain sorts, such as certain babies, NO LONGER HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS, above all the right to life, but only the "right" to die, whether they want to or not (and who asks them, anyway). Nope, that's not what we are arguing about either. We are discussing whether or not the option of infant euthanasia should be legal. Various arguments can be made in favor or against. One argument could involve looking at the cost/benefit to society. So far, I have not made such an argument, but simply stated the fact (tautology?) that productive members of society are more valuable to that society than non-productive members.
This is the very essence of fascism: to believe that one has no innate human rights, but that only those who are "superior" enough according to some economic or social measure have rights, while those who do not "pass the test" are expendable because their life is "not worth living"--or so the would-be murderers tell themselves to quiet their consciousness, presuming they have any.You keep bringing up the topic of Rights. How about the right of a human not to suffer? How about the rights of the parents not to suffer?
Pastor Neimoller, the anti-nazi firebrand, said it best in one of his speeched: "Old people, useless people, retarded people--so what? Have they somehow given up their right to live?" According to you, the answer is "yes".I believe this is known as a strawman. Still, I have a counter-quote (although I'm not sure who said it): "A society has the rights which it can afford."
P.S.

Let me guess: you are against the death penality, that "barbaric" killing that shows such "disrespect" for life, right? Especially when it it "unfairly targets the mentally retarded"?No. I am, however, against the death penalty.
Let us all hope you'll never become king of the world;The feeling is mutual.
...in your moral universe, to avoid being "mercifully" killed and saved from an unproductive, useless life, the one thing a mentally retarded person would have to do is to brutally murder somebody and get themselves comdemned to death. Not understood. How could a euthanised baby kill anyone? And where did I ever mention "mentally retarded"?
Nothing less would covince the likes of you that they, too, have a right to live, just like ALL brutal murderers. :confused:

[JAR]

If I was severely handicapped, I'd want to be dead.

The sad thing is that I know people who have said that they want to stay alive regardless of how miserable they are. My younger brother thinks this way, my mother thinks this way and my father thinks this way. My older brother on the other hand, like myself, does not think this way.

My mother is against allowing people to kill themselves because according to her, it is against human nature to not try to keep humans alive as long as possible. To support this, she cites the example of the body of an ancient stone age person who was kept alive by other stone age people despite being horribly handicapped.

[Skeptic]

Nope, that's not what we are arguing about either. We are discussing whether or not the option of infant euthanasia should be legal.

Yes, we're arguing about whether killing babies who are "inferior" should be legal. If it is legal, it means they don't have an inalianable right to life like other people do. Which means you think they don't have human rights because they are not up to par. Which is fascism writ large.

Various arguments can be made in favor or against. One argument could involve looking at the cost/benefit to society.

Indeed so. An argument can also be made for total eradication of humanity: that sure as hell will help the biosphere, THAT'S for sure.

As for the cost/benefit to society argument, it is yet again the fascist argument: some people are "worth" enough for society to have a right to live... and others don't.

You keep bringing up the topic of Rights.

Imagine that!

How about the right of a human not to suffer?

Let's call a spade a spade here, DD. What you call the "right not to suffer" merely means the "right" to be murdered by the "compassionate protectors of their rights".

Do these infants have OTHER rights? Like the right for life? Or for a fair trial before they are executed? No, the ONLY "right" you think they have is the "right" of other people to kill them. Which shows how much you are really concerned about their rights quite well.

How about the rights of the parents not to suffer?

Well, since the parents have a right not to suffer, how about euthenaizing THEM? And no need to ask, either--you're doing them a favor, right, by releasing them from the horrible suffering?

By the way, how about the rights of the Germans not to suffer from racial pollution by the jews?

(Yeah, yeah, yeah: you advocate killing babies and the next thing you know, people call you a Nazi. How unfair).

Not understood. How could a euthanised baby kill anyone?

Alas, he cannot; for if he could brutally murder somebody before you come after him with the lethal injection, suddenly he would change his designation from the disposable group of defective infants to the honorable group of murderers.

THEIR lives, of course, must be protected at all costs to show our "humanity" and that we "reject barbarism".

And where did I ever mention "mentally retarded"?

They suffer from their mental incompetence, do they not? Their parents suffer from seeing them like that, do they not? They don't contribute to society much, do they? It's expensive to raise them, is it not?

C'mon, let's get on with the program! Surely you don't want people like THAT around, with a worthless, expensive life? Don't they have the RIGHT to be "released from their suffering", the poor things?

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Yes, we're arguing about whether killing babies who are "inferior" should be legal.No. Once again, we are discussing whether or not the option of infant euthanasia should be legal. We have so far not delineated the criteria for when it should be an option, although the underlying assumption has been that the baby suffered in some way. No one, except you, has brought up the term "inferior".
If it is legal, it means they don't have an inalianable right to life like other people do.Which other people? Those sentenced by the state (without their consent :)) to the death penalty? Those shot by an officer of the state for not following orders under combat? Those poor unborn humans who were aborted?

The "inalienable" right to life isn't inalienable.
Which means you think they don't have human rights because they are not up to par. Which is fascism writ large.I declare a shanek, sorry, a strawman.
Indeed so. An argument can also be made for total eradication of humanity: that sure as hell will help the biosphere, THAT'S for sure.What are you talking about?
As for the cost/benefit to society argument, it is yet again the fascist argument: some people are "worth" enough for society to have a right to live... and others don't.Nothing fascist about it. Every state decides under which circumstances it is "right" to take the life of a citizen. See my examples above.
Let's call a spade a spade here, DD. Yes, let's.
What you call the "right not to suffer" merely means the "right" to be murdered by the "compassionate protectors of their rights".That would be calling a spade an Uzi.

Earlier in this thread, I asked you:

Would you have a problem putting down a suffering kitten/puppy/etc with no prospects of getting better? If yes, why? If no, why would you not extend the same pity to members of your own species?

I haven't seen your reply.
Do these infants have OTHER rights? Like the right for life? Or for a fair trial before they are executed? No, the ONLY "right" you think they have is the "right" of other people to kill them. Which shows how much you are really concerned about their rights quite well.They have the "right" not to live an entire life of suffering. Tell me Skeptic, why is the "right to life" so important if it just a period of suffering?
Well, since the parents have a right not to suffer, how about euthenaizing THEM? And no need to ask, either--you're doing them a favor, right, by releasing them from the horrible suffering?I could release them from suffering by simply releasing their baby from suffering.
(Yeah, yeah, yeah: you advocate killing babies and the next thing you know, people call you a Nazi. How unfair).Are you attempting to invoke Godwin's Law?
Alas, he cannot; for if he could brutally murder somebody before you come after him with the lethal injection, suddenly he would change his designation from the disposable group of defective infants to the honorable group of murderers.

THEIR lives, of course, must be protected at all costs to show our "humanity" and that we "reject barbarism".
*Sigh*

Is this a red herring or a strawman? Someone enlighten me.
They suffer from their mental incompetence, do they not?Do they? Where has this been stated as a criteria?
Their parents suffer from seeing them like that, do they not? They don't contribute to society much, do they? It's expensive to raise them, is it not? See above.
C'mon, let's get on with the program! Surely you don't want people like THAT around, with a worthless, expensive life? Don't they have the RIGHT to be "released from their suffering", the poor things? Yes, if someone was suffering without any prospects of improvement, the humane thing to do would be to end that suffering. Apparently, you wish to prolong it.

[zultr]

A couple of pointers I picked up while scanning this thread:

1. If a squirrel can leave its baby to die, then humans are justified in doing the same.

2. One person’s individual and subjective perceptions of what makes another’s life worthwhile should be applied to all persons, even on matters of life and death.

3. Irrelevant answers to non-existent hypothetical situations should be the basis upon which the policy that governs humanity is made.

I have been enlightened. Many parents decide to abort their fetuses when they are discovered to have the same congenital birth defect that I was born with. They act for the children with no voice of their own so as to limit the pain and anguish the parents – er, I mean children would have to face. I now rue the day my parents chose to let me live instead of deciding that it was in my best interests to have me killed. Sorry, I mean “euthanized.”

[Tmy]

Lets saythey did abort you. Would you care? No, cause youd be dead. You might even have been in a better place than you are right now. I say call up mom and pop and scream at them for not aborting you!

My parents had me circumcised when I was a wee infant. I havent held that against them my whole................that is until this Thanksgiving, WHEN VENGENCE WILL BE MINE!!!!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by zultr
A couple of pointers I picked up while scanning this thread:

1. If a squirrel can leave its baby to die, then humans are justified in doing the same.

2. One person’s individual and subjective perceptions of what makes another’s life worthwhile should be applied to all persons, even on matters of life and death.

3. Irrelevant answers to non-existent hypothetical situations should be the basis upon which the policy that governs humanity is made.

I have been enlightened. Many parents decide to abort their fetuses when they are discovered to have the same congenital birth defect that I was born with. They act for the children with no voice of their own so as to limit the pain and anguish the parents – er, I mean children would have to face. I now rue the day my parents chose to let me live instead of deciding that it was in my best interests to have me killed. Sorry, I mean “euthanized.”

Post of the month, if not the year.

[DanishDynamite]

zultr:A couple of pointers I picked up while scanning this thread:

1. If a squirrel can leave its baby to die, then humans are justified in doing the same. How did you reach this conclusion?
2. One person’s individual and subjective perceptions of what makes another’s life worthwhile should be applied to all persons, even on matters of life and death.No. The criteria for infant euthanasia have yet to be determined.
3. Irrelevant answers to non-existent hypothetical situations should be the basis upon which the policy that governs humanity is made.No idea what you are talking about. Could you clarify?
I have been enlightened. Many parents decide to abort their fetuses when they are discovered to have the same congenital birth defect that I was born with.Although I have no idea what your congenital defect is, do you have a problem with this option being available?
They act for the children with no voice of their own so as to limit the pain and anguish the parents – er, I mean children would have to face. I now rue the day my parents chose to let me live instead of deciding that it was in my best interests to have me killed. Sorry, I mean “euthanized.” Lovely sarcasm. Really.

Still, perhaps you could expound on your pros and cons for the topic in question.

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
No. The criteria for infant euthanasia have yet to be determined.

El Greco gave his criteria some pages back. Perhaps you would like to give yours after all I have givern mine.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Lets saythey did abort you. Would you care? No, cause youd be dead. You might even have been in a better place than you are right now.

This must be the most heartless, cruel, and haughty single sentence I've ever read.

Let's say I killed you yesterday, Tmy. Would you care? No, because you'd be dead. You might even have been in a better place than you are right now.

The nazis killed six millions jews. Do they care? No, because they're dead. They might even be in a better place than if they had continued to live.

What's all this big fuss about murder and genocide, I have no idea...

Oh lighten up Skep, it was tounge in cheek.
As for the nazi thing, well those jews didnt want to die and they were fine not dying of horribel diseases beforeteh nazis came in.



"They act for the children with no voice of their own so as to limit the pain and anguish the parents – er, I mean children would have to face."

Whos more selfish. The parent who kills the suffering child OR the parent who lets them suffer.

[DanishDynamite]

geni:El Greco gave his criteria some pages back. Perhaps you would like to give yours after all I have givern mine. Could you post his and your criteria? Thanks.

As I said before, I'm not an expert in congenital defects or their longterm prognosis. Still, I suppose I could make a layman's stab at the criteria.

[Skeptic]

Oh lighten up Skep, it was tounge in cheek.

To be fair, the "VENGENCE WOULD BE MINE!!!" in thanksgiving should have tipped me off. I erased my post.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic,

A cat got your tongue? Do you have a rebuttal to my post, or are you just gonna stick with the easy one-line rebuttals?

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
geni:Could you post his and your criteria? Thanks.



El Greco's; I said above where I would draw the line. A group of specialists would decide on a limited number of syndromes with extremely poor prognosis (maybe 100% death in the first year). Another prerequisite is that the children would suffer daily. In such cases euthanasia should be legal, if the parents select it. The list would be updated as medical progress improves the prognosis of certain syndromes (which I find rather improbable for such syndromes, but anyway).

Mine; If keeping the child alive would lead to the death of other humans.

[DanishDynamite]

geni:El Greco's; I said above where I would draw the line. A group of specialists would decide on a limited number of syndromes with extremely poor prognosis (maybe 100% death in the first year). Another prerequisite is that the children would suffer daily. In such cases euthanasia should be legal, if the parents select it. The list would be updated as medical progress improves the prognosis of certain syndromes (which I find rather improbable for such syndromes, but anyway).

Mine; If keeping the child alive would lead to the death of other humans. Thanks, geni.

However, those two sets of criteria are completely incompatible.

[geni]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
geni:Thanks, geni.

However, those two sets of criteria are completely incompatible.

I know. That is why there is a debate on this thread.