You Absolute, Utter Fucking Bastards. I Hope Every One Of You Dies Slowly, Starting Today
Murdering newborn babies is 'widening the management option.'
There are simply no words for how casually and callously evil these people are. None at all.
There are simply no words for how casually and callously evil these people are. None at all.
Labels: Pure Evil
posted by Dangerouslysubversivedad at 9:12 PM
14 Comments:
I think this demonstrates just how far abortion has progressed - to the point where they will terminate AFTER the birth.
They can't even cover this with the fig leaf of "it's only a fetus, not a real baby!".
Death sentences for innocent children. Early release and a support network costing thousands of pounds a year for convicted child killers.
Welcoome to the world of liberal progressives.
"There are simply no words for how casually and callously evil these people are. None at all."
Sure there are. But in case this is a familty blog, I won't mention them.... ;)
Off course, over on Tim Worstall's site, his post on this drew the usual suspects out from under their rocks. One lackwit objected to the reports because it 'wasn't news', having been debated in 2005. Like that made it somehow better....
In the interest of debate I should point out that, as I understand it, the idea is that this would only be done in cases where the life lived would be one of extreme discomfort and pain. I happened to watch the mother of the 'boy whose skin fell off' on This Morning. She was in favour of the proposal. Apparently the lad was desperate to die to escape the intense pain, embarassment and all round difficulty of day to day living. These doctors find themselves in the position where they have the ability to extend a life that not so long ago would automatically have ended at birth or soon after. It seems to me they have an unenviable job to do and awkward decisions to make. I find myself unable to decide either way. I suspect this can only done case by case. Even then it's far from simple.
Ah, what you mean cases like Charlte Wyatt where the doctors were SOOOOOOO sure this would be the case, and who is now making steady progress and totally confounding all the predictions the doctors made when they went to Court for the right to fucking murder her?
You are talking about euthanasia for a lad who presumably is now old enough to rationalise that decision. This proposal is talking about murdering newborn babies who would have their lives snuffed out before they got the chance to say 'I want to live'.
"I should point out that, as I understand it, the idea is that this would only be done in cases where the life lived would be one of extreme discomfort and pain.."
It may start out that way, because who could argue against it? But then, abortion was never intended for such 'major defects' as cleft palate either, and I'm sure we all remember the recent case of the vicar going to court to protest about the procedure being carried out for this reason.
It's called a 'slippery slope' for a reason....
"It seems to me they have an unenviable job to do and awkward decisions to make."
Indeed. Let's leave them to make those medical decisions that they are trained for, and not those on moral (or, dare I say it, cost!) grounds that they are not trained for.
And never forget, as DSD has pointed out, in the case of Charlotte Wyatt, they aren't always right.
They are human, just like you and me. They make mistakes, sometimes blinded by their own beliefs and prejudices. Don't elevate them into something they are not.
I don't agree that the doctors have "awkward" decisions to make as guardian apostate suggested.
Their decisions are relatively straightforward - what is the best treatment for a patient. The answer, surely, can never be "kill them"? We're talking about human beings here - not horses shot to put them out of their misery.
When it comes to who lives and who dies it simply is not their decision to make!
Then, of course, there is the point that medicine advances in such a way that there is no way of knowing what treatments may be available 5, 10 or 15 years down the line. Kill the baby at birth and 5 years later there may be a cure for their illness. You can't bring them back, though.
If it's just a moral question of ending human suffering then, by extension, why not apply that same principle to all incurable illnesses - even those that afflict adults. Should we start executing MS sufferers? What about those suffering incurable back pain? Should we just shoot paraplegics and put them out of their misery?
The whole idea is a bit like suggesting the cure for acne is decapitation.
What is there to debate?
Like I said this is an extremely complex and difficult question that I can't pretend I have any clear answers to. What happens in the case of a boy like Jonny 'the boy whose skin fell off' Kennedy if he says 'I don't want to live'?
GA,
Do you have a link to any info about the 'Boy...' in question please. I dont mind venturing an opinion but I have no knowledge of this case so I cant comment.
However as I say once again, such a case is emphatically NOT either what I posted about or what the report is recommending about.
Sorry, I don't have a link I'm afraid. I only decided to post on this because I'd happened to watch 'This Morning' where this subject was being discussed. On it the mother of Jonny Kennedy (TBWSFO) was relating how truly awful his life had been and how he wished he'd never been born. Despite the emotional attachment she'd made with her son it was with his interests in mind that she was in favour of the proposal. Watching her son live with the constant and inescapapabale pain and suffering had obviously taken its toll. I'm only playing devil's advocate here. I find this a very difficult subject to come to any firm conclusion about. It is someting I haven't given as much thought to as I probably should have.
I don't like doctors killing babies, born or unborn. But DSD I think the issue is not as simple as you suggest, with modern advanced technology doctors can keep people alive who would have simply died 'naturally' only a few years ago.
Its emotive to talk about babies, but if for example I was left bed ridden and unable to speak or communicate or evem 'think' properly after a car accident I would not want to be kept 'alive' because imo it would not be living.
I would personally consider it barbaric to keep someone alive in that kind of condition, if there was no chance of recovery.
Some people must be let to rest.
"What happens in the case of a boy like Jonny 'the boy whose skin fell off' Kennedy if he says 'I don't want to live'?"
DSD - details of the show are here - http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/B/boy_whose_skin_fell_off/index.html
I didn't watch the show, but the quote "..the film was also a celebration of a life lived to the full" doesn't seem to me to hold up the premise that he 'was desperate to die to escape'.
A documentary I did watch (long ago, dates me I know!) was Simon Weston's treatment for his burns. The scenes were bloodcurdling, and I've no doubt he wished to die at the time, and who could blame him? Would he hold that view now? Does he have a life not worth living (he's a tireless campaigner for various charities)?
The point I'm making is that these are grown adults (Johnny Kennedy died at 36!) - not the same argument for killing a newborn before it has had a chance to live and express a wish either way.
It seems to me that Hot-Button issue of this post is that the college called for a wider debate on infant euthanasia as a management option.
The subject of abortion can be very emotive anyway, coupled with manage-droid speak and we have an image of guys in shirt n tie heading out of an upstairs office shouldering on a lab coat as they rush to condemn a tiny broken baby to sudden death.
Given the angle and title of the post, is it really the place to have a full and frank unbiased discussion... though I cannot think of a venue where such debate would not turn into a shout-fest.
There are many people alive today that would not be if it wasn't for the advancement of neo-natal medicine and the sheer bloody commitment of doctors and nurses and support staff, performed against the odds.
When your baby has even the slightest flaw all kinds of emotions and thoughts are unleashed at a very personal level which informs a kind of inner sanctum with doctors/nurses, people outside this pseudo-sanctum should think carefully before imposing any kind of broad-brush principles upon it.
The question is not 'what should be done' but 'what would I do'.?
What would I do if my baby had Downs Syndrome diagnosed in utero?
What would I do if my baby was born with only a brain-stem and no eyes and was obviously in severe pain?
Do you expound the ideology of Life at all costs with zero exceptions?
Regards
"What would I do if my baby had Downs Syndrome diagnosed in utero?"
Well on that one specifically my daughter's best friend has Downs and is a perfectly healthy and happy little girl.
Yes I know the title is emotive - it was meant to grab the attention and bring people into this thread. Seems to be working so far too! :)
My position on abortion isnt exactly a secret - I simply believe we should do something really revolutionary and actually uphold the Law as it stands - abortions only in the event of a clear threat to the physical and/or mental health of the mother. I dont know if that makes me a 'pro-lifer', it certainly doesnt stem from any religious convictions because I dont have any...
Our daughter, now 7, was given a 50-50 chance of having Downs' Syndrome. I wouldn't wish the decision we faced on my worst enemy. We decided to let the pregnancy continue, or perhaps more accurately, could not end a life, before it had even seen the light of day, based on another persons guesstimate. After all Downs' children are quite 'normal' in all other respects and are able to give and accept Gods' love.
Our daughter doesn't have Downs' Syndrome and is a perfectly 'normal' little madam.
I'm somewhat reluctant to condemn abortion outright, I am not privy the very personal processes within that arena.
One can invent many scenarios and urge a yes/no right/wrong answer. Armchair generals with 20/20 x-ray hindsight ( and I certainly do not exclude myself from that category ).
Sure, it's a terrible tragedy that many many babies are aborted for such reasons as inconvenience. It has been claimed that it is a major process for the elimination of the white race, but female infanticide is prevalent in Asia.
Nature is not perfect and can be beastly to our eyes. Man is a beast but can choose to act like a beast or a saint.
Regards
Post a Comment
<< Home