Say Anything Blog

That’s the type of "infanticide" I advocate. Wouldn’t it have made a lot more sense to do this the day of the infant’s birth, rather than extend its suffering and inevitable death for seven months?

What ever happened to hope?  Perseverence?  Optimism?  Determination?

This wasn’t about the child suffering, this was about the parents not wanting to deal with the child suffering. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Who was the convenience for?  The child?  The parents?  Society?

Death ultimately takes away every chance this child ever would have.  There are all kinds of people that are born with traits or diseases or conditions that put them at a disadvantage.  Some even painful.

When we start justifying the "humane" process of putting a person down, ultimately we make the determination that killing of infants is justified under certain conditions.  Maybe instead of being born with a genetic disease, the baby is simply born with darkly pigmented skin.  Maybe the baby is simply Jewish.  Downs Syndrome?  Sickle Cell Anemia?  Gay?  Cleft Pallette?  Six Fingers on their Right Hand?  "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya…"  Nevermind.

Is it just infants that suffer from a condition that is going to make their life more difficult?  Let’s kill everyone that suffers from something that might put them at a disadvantage or give them a difficult life.

Rob…There will be a time for all of us to die. My sister Nancy, was in a car wreck over 2 decades ago leaving her with brain damage. She is unable to walk and she is very much like Teri Schiavo was. Nancy is her name. She is not in pain and she laughs at the appropriate times and is aware of her surroundings. She has around the clock nurses and she is very well taken care of! If Nancy were in pain and cried and seemed unhappy? I would want her to be able to go ahead and die. Many people believe it would be better for us to let her die. She is very happy though and it is not up to us to starve or dehydrate her to death. I understand that these parents are faced with a terrible ordeal. I don’t wish that on anyone! There is a difference between killing someone and letting someone die…Teri Schiavo was sentenced to death by the state of Florida by Judge Greer. Her mother and Father wanted to care for her and that case is really a shame! Teri was not in pain. She was awarded money from a law suite to CARE FOR HER MEDICAL CARE! That money was used on legal fees… I guess what I would like to say is there is a time to die and if the parents and doctors agree in certain cases it might be OK to help a person in pain that is terminal…However, Nancy is not terminal. Neither was Teri.

I should have checked my spelling. Sorry!

This wasn’t about the child suffering, this was about the parents not wanting to deal with the child suffering.

What’s that mean? What’s the difference?

This must have been a terrible ordeal and decision for the parents.  I wouldn’t have wanted to make that kind of a decision.  But these parents knew their child and didn’t want her to suffer any longer knowing that there was no cure.  We can sit in the third chair and second guess, but I think the end of the article says it:

"Does the child have to sit it out until the end? We think that the answer is no. There can be circumstances where, under very strict conditions, if all the requirements are fulfilled, active ending of life can be an option — but only in cases of untreatable disease and unbearable suffering.”

This child was unable to keep down basic sustenance, would have probably starved to death.  I think this happens out of humaneness not out of convenience.  And I don’t believe that this is where abortion got us.  These parents wanted this child, gave birth to this child and then to be told that the child has an incurable illness and will die and then to have to watch the child suffer endlessly.

I think the parents, the doctors and other health experts and ethicists are the ones to make this determination. 

Rob, there was no hope, perseverance, optimism or determination.  A child, with an incurable disease, unable to eat, in pain.  I’m with the parents and the doctors on this one.

I guess what I would like to say is there is a time to die and if the parents and doctors agree in certain cases it might be OK to help a person in pain that is terminal

To quote Rob Port…

What is left to say about a society that has stopped looking for answers and cures and started looking toward death?

What’s that mean? What’s the difference?

The child can’t communicate.  It can’t express its wishes.  It can’t talk about how much pain it is in and when that pain becomes unbearable.  So the parents made the decision for it.  They were tired of seeing the child in pain, so they killed it.

Problem solved.  Now they can go on with their lives.  Of course, we never find out what would have happened in the end.  Maybe a new treatment could have started working.  Who knows.

I just don’t like where this trend is heading.  If a woman gets pregnant in a tough spot, she kills the baby.  Some parents have a kid who is having a rough time early on, they kill it.  No persevernce.  No hope.  No optimism.

When things get tough, everybody is always looking for the easy way out these days.  I find that abhorrent.  The doctors said this was incurable, that the child wouldn’t make it.  Maybe they’re right.  But then again, doctors making prognostications have been wrong in the past.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

The thing about this issue is that it would be typical for people to use this kind of power to end a life that is inconvenient for a care giver! Instead of trying to make that person comfortable or trying to find a cure! ...There is a time to live and a time to die. All to many times people are eager to be rid of the person who is ill because it is inconvenient! That is where it gets to be not a good policy to allow care givers to take a life!

Rob, these parents didn’t take the easy way out.  You wrote: "Some parents have a kid who is having a rough time early on, they kill it.  No persevernce.  No hope.  No optimism."  There was no hope, no cure, since when do you know more than the parents or the doctors or the experts who worked with this family.  I doubt that a cure was right around the corner.  Don’t you think if the parents thought that they still would have made the decision they did, I doubt it. 

And just for the record, the child is not an "it". But I’m sure you wrote that for effect.

There was no hope, no cure, since when do you know more than the parents or the doctors or the experts who worked with this family.Since

Since when are parents and doctors infallible?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

And just for the record, the child is not an "it". But I’m sure you wrote that for effect.

Great.  You recognize the child as human.  Now can we agree that no human should be denied their life without due process of law? 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Since when are parents and doctors infallible?

Never. Neither are judges, neither are juries, neither are police officers, neither are weapons inspectors, and, most importantly, neither are you. Perhaps we should never make any important decisions, because they might be wrong.

After all, we’re all fallible; we might screw up.

Doctors and parents aren’t infallible. But we make decisions based on the best information we have at the time.  But again, I don’t believe the parents made this decision lightly or out of convenience.  nothing in life is 100% sure and while medicine is a science, it is not perfect.  I am quite sure that numerous experts examined this child if they diagnosed this rare terminal disorder.

I pray that the parents find some peace in that their precious child is no longer suffering and is in heaven with Jesus Christ, free of  pain and suffering. 

In my own experience Doctors don’t know everything! Although they try to act like they do. Unfortunately most of the medical world will milk every dime of insurance on x-rays etc. When the insurance runs out they are nowhere to be found!... I am unable to talk about it right now because I have to go BUT, I’ll be back in the morning!

Never. Neither are judges, neither are juries, neither are police officers, neither are weapons inspectors, and, most importantly, neither are you. Perhaps we should never make any important decisions, because they might be wrong.

But we don’t have to make that decision.  If the child is going to die, it will die.  Why kill it when we don’t have to?

I pray that the parents find some peace in that their precious child is no longer suffering and is in heaven with Jesus Christ, free of  pain and suffering.

Of course, the child might have made it.  Might have gotten a year or so of fulfilling life out of this world.  Of course, we’ll never know now.

And what part of "nor shall any person…be deprived of life…without due process of law" do you guys not understand?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Dave asked, What’s that mean? What’s the difference?

The difference is black and white.

This wasn’t about the child suffering, this was about the parents not wanting to deal with the child suffering.

Difference: very possibly intent.

This wasn’t about the child suffering, this was about the parents not wanting to deal with the child suffering.

Difference: who makes the decision. The subject of the story isn’t making the decision, the people who are supposedly "caregivers" are the ones making the decision.

The differences are plain.

Well I guess we’re seeing some of the first cases resulting from the Gronigen (spelling?) Protocol.

I’m curious to know what metabolic disorder the infant sufferred from.

Well I guess we’re seeing some of the first cases resulting from the Gronigen (spelling?) Protocol.

Good memory. The Groningen Protocol and the problem with it.

Good memory.

I only remember it because of the lengthy debate you and I had over it. Not completely sure what my arguements were, but I’m pretty sure they’ve changed since them.

Parents make life and death decisions for their children all the time.  They have the legal right to make those decisions in our country.  Since this case is in Holland, I’m going to assume the parents had that right as well. 

Rob, of course the child is human and the parents made a humane decision, one that was tough and gut wrenching I’m sure for those parents.  I will never agree that this was done out of convenience for the parents.  I just hope that I never have to be in that situation.  I certainly know of two close friends who had a child and knew was going to die due to a congenital disorder within a short time and asked that no life sustaining methods be used.  It was gut wrenching and after trying for another child was, again born and died with the same disorder, there were no other kids and they adopted.  But it was a horrible ordeal for the family and no amount of hope, perseverence, optimism or determination would have saved those two children. And these two friends are very pro-life but knew there was nothing that could be done to prolong the lives of their children.

Until I walk in these parents’ shoes, I am not going to second guess their decision.

Dave: You wrote: "What’s that mean? What’s the difference?"  The difference is responsibility.  The parents are responsible, the child isn’t.

P:  What’s next?  Killing the kid because it has a bad cold and a fever?   Where do you draw the line?  That is a real question, not a rhetorical one.  I would like to hear your answer to when it is OK to kill a kid;  not some generaized BS, but the real dividing line between "It’s OK to kill this one." and "It’s OK for this one to live."  Welcome to Hell.

Robert108, you take it to a ridiculous, a cold, a fever?  That was not the case here and you know it.  The fact of the matter is we make life and death decisions every day.  There are DNR orders on patients in nursing homes, the patient themselves making the decision that life sustaining treatment be given.

I draw the line at allowing the parents, doctors and ethicists making these decisions.  They are there, I am not.  But you take it to the utterly ridiculous with the cold and fever analogy.  Not even close to the case at hand.  These decisions will continue to be made by doctors and families and as new treatments are developed decisions may change but for now, in an imprecise and uncertain world, I trust parents and their doctors to do the right thing.  In a case like this, I think the parents did the right thing.  In the case of my friends having to make a similar decision, they did the right thing as well.  You’re right, it is hell for those families who have to go through this.

I would like to hear your answer to when it is OK to kill a kid;  not some generaized BS, but the real dividing line between "It’s OK to kill this one." and "It’s OK for this one to live." 

When he’s committed 1st degree murder, kidnapping, or bankrobbery, "it’s OK to kill this one." When he’s committed rape, grand theft auto, or adultery, "It’s OK for this one to live."

We do that ALL THE TIME, robert108.

Puzzle, again what part of "nor shall any person…be deprived of life…without due process of law" do you guys not understand?  Now because the parents are in charge of the child the child doesn’t get protection from the law?

And this is absolutely a decision made out of convenience.  Read the article again.  What reason did the parents give for killing their child?  They didn’t want to see it suffer any more.

We never get to hear the child’s opinion on this.  We never get to know what would have happened had the child been given a chance to fight this disease to the end.  Nope, death is the easy way out.  Kill the kid and move on.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Puzzle, again what part of "nor shall any person…be deprived of life…without due process of law" do you guys not understand?  Now because the parents are in charge of the child the child doesn’t get protection from the law?

This is Holland though, so US laws don’t really apply.

Right, Andrew, but Puzzle and Davey are demonstrating support for infanticide so clearly they wouldn’t mind seeing the practice brought over here.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Its people like robert108 that make this whole issue a mess.If you dont know what something is like don’t judge! If you have never been to a war don’t EVER say I support it!! Its too easy to put perfect pictures of babies on trucks and drive around. Try putting pictures of severe deformities where you can hardly tell its human. As for talking to children as to how they feel, well some can talk and I can tell you from interviewing many kids with severe deformities that MANY wish they had never been born. BUt, for brainwashed people, their (kids’) life has meaning its just that their low IQ (kids’ again) prevents it from understanding it. Genuine abortion debate should start only if name Jesus does not  EVER show up. If this is all in the name of religion then to hell with it!

If you dont know what something is like don’t judge! If you have never been to a war don’t EVER say I support it!!

Huh? There goes making mature decisions.

Genuine abortion debate should start only if name Jesus does not EVER show up. If this is all in the name of religion then to hell with it!

Um…yeah. Only one person brought up Jesus’ name and it was brought up in such a context that in no way affected the point of her arguments.

P: You didn’t answer the question.  You decide;  please tell us where the dividing line is to be.  Specifics, now.

Dave: I talk about kids, you distract with criminals.  Non sequitur

Dexter: Maybe you would like to decide who lives and who dies.  Please be specific.  It’s easy to spout you philosophy and your ill-tempered putdowns, but you avoid the real issue.  Tell us, please;  who lives and who dies? 

Dexter: Maybe you would like to decide who lives and who dies.  Please be specific.  It’s easy to spout you philosophy and your ill-tempered putdowns, but you avoid the real issue.  Tell us, please;  who lives and who dies?

Dexter can’t answer. He has removed himself from the argument. Remember, he said, "If you dont know what something is like don’t judge! If you have never been to a war don’t EVER say I support it!!" By saying that, Dexter is essentially removing morality and decision from any subject that isn’t personally experienced.

Easy, huh? Sit on the sidelines and make assertive comments all the while claiming that nobody has a right to an opinion.

Dave: I talk about kids, you distract with criminals.  Non sequitur

Robert108: I’m just establishing that we both believe in a "real dividing line between ‘It’s OK to kill this one.’ and ‘It’s OK for this one to live,’" meaning it’s not a radical concept. You support it for adults who may be criminals, I support it for infants who may be suffering from terminal diseases.  

I don’t see why your line ("Yes, kill him on first degree murder; no, let him live on aggravated manslaughter") is any less arbitrary or capricious than mine.

In society, we are forced to make distinctions that may appear arbitrary. There’s no real difference between my drinking alcohol the day before my 21st birthday or the day after it; however, there must be a line, and society judges the former to be illegal. Likewise, there’s no reason why I rape my girlfriend by having sex the day before her 18th birthday, but have consensual sex with her the day afterwards—the act was the same, but, again, society must draw these lines. I didn’t acquire a new understanding of democracy when I turned 18, but I was suddenly allowed to vote. This is nothing new; we see it every day.

We see it in life-and-death situations regarding capital punishment; why should you be surprised when we assign it to euthenasia?

Dave: Wrong again.  I am not a supporter of capital punishment, so that line is not from me.  Once again, you assume from stereotyping, or prejudice, whichever.  I am speaking strictly about killing kids, so please stay on the subject, if you can.  Where would you draw the line?  Who gets to live, and who must die, according to you?  Please be specific.  The lines you discuss don’t involve life and death, so they are also not relevant to this discussion.  Try again.

Where would you draw the line?  Who gets to live, and who must die, according to you?  Please be specific. 

I wouldn’t draw the line anywhere, because I do not believe in usurping other people’s rights. I’m not an authoritarian.

And lots of conservatives support capital punishment, so take the things I ascribed to you and put them on Bush. Happy? We draw lines in society all the time.

Dave: As usual, you distract and dodge the question.  Where is your line?  Stop dissembling.

You were wrong about my belief system.  You should apologize, if only to reduce the suffering caused by your prejudice.  "We"?  You got a mouse in your pocket?

You support infanticide, you say, but you don’t have the cojones to draw the line that determines which infants die and which infants live? Ever hear the term "Courage of your Convictions"?  You are for killing kids, but you just don’t want to be the one who does it?  That is pretty squishy.

You are for killing kids

No I’m not. And you should apologize, you big meany!!! WAHHH!!!

You support infanticide, you say, but you don’t have the cojones to draw the line that determines which infants die and which infants live?

I support the decriminalization of infanticide. I don’t think there should be a line. I support leaving this up to individual families. You may enjoy forcing your morality on other people; I consider that to be a vice, and thus choose not to do it. My personal view is that killing a child is in almost all situations immoral—however, I think it’s wrong to force others to follow my ethical philosophy. (This is probably a good thing for you, as I view the killing of non-human animals to be immoral in almost all situations as well.) As long as it doesn’t usurp anyone’s rights, an action should be legal.

You are for killing kids, but you just don’t want to be the one who does it? 

I’m for the decriminalization of infanticide. I’m also for the decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution. Somehow I manage to do so without participating in any of those actions. Amazing, huh?

We have only your word about the last two.  Infanticide is killing kids, by definition.  You just support it when someone else does it, which according to you, makes it OK.  You then adopt an air of moral superiority by asserting that you don’t force your moral code on others.  That is some real twisting and turning.  I admire your flexibility, which I guess comes from not having much of a spine.  Oh, well.

Dave said: My personal view is that killing a child is in almost all situations immoral—however, I think it’s wrong to force others to follow my ethical philosophy.  As long as it doesn’t usurp anyone’s rights, an action should be legal.

Just so I am clear here, Dave.  At what age does the CHILD have rights that can not be usurped by the parent looking to end that child’s life?  Can it be either parent, or just the Mother?  

I think you have not thought through this enough…  and I say that because I once held your opinion.  

Regardless of the age of consciousness, a parent took actions that resulted in the creation of life.  This creation is a great responsibility and should be treated as such.  Abortion allows the responsibility to be cheapened and thus the decision to have sex in the first place is far less weighty (bad word, too early to think of a better one).

Rob, the so-called "practice" is already here.  It is practiced each and every day in this country.  There are "do not resuscitate" orders on patients each and every day.

robert 108, I gave you my answer, you just don’t like it.  It’s not black and white, the circumstances of each case must be looked at by doctors, parents and ethicists. That is my answer.

Rob why is that the parents don’t get a say in this but yet you all support the informing of parents when a 16 year old wants an abortion.  Seems a bit hypocritical that the parents can make that decision but are not capable of making the decision about the child in this case.

First Dave says, I wouldn’t draw the line anywhere, because I do not believe in usurping other people’s rights. I’m not an authoritarian.

And then he turns around and says, I support the decriminalization of infanticide. I don’t think there should be a line. I support leaving this up to individual families. You may enjoy forcing your morality on other people; I consider that to be a vice, and thus choose not to do it.

Dave = Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

I do like how he says that recognizing murder and acting against it is "forcing your morality on other people". That is evil so tasty that if Lucifer where here, he’d go up and give Dave a big kiss.

As long as it doesn’t usurp anyone’s rights, an action should be legal.

That’s beautiful. Evil without a conscious and using psuedo-logical sounding arguments to back it up. Dave is a dictator’s best friend.

Puzzlefeet misses the blindingly obvious, Rob why is that the parents don’t get a say in this but yet you all support the informing of parents when a 16 year old wants an abortion.  Seems a bit hypocritical that the parents can make that decision but are not capable of making the decision about the child in this case.

No hypocrisy. Rob’s positions on both matters side on life. Yours sides on death.

Perhaps you should think about that.

Does anyone remember the story of the grandmother who went into the hospital and had minor surgery and had some trouble coming out of the anesthetic? The grandchild and the elderly care home were eager to see the woman die for money reasons. Unfortunately caregivers are in it for the money instead of the care and benefit of the person much of the time. Sad but true. Ethics do play a big role in life and death decisions. Doctors and family members don’t always have the best ethics. In the case I was speaking of the grandmother came out of the anesthietic and now is healthy! Elderly and other people who are ill have the unfortunate circumstance of being an inconvenience to family members. A baby who is sick is never enjoyable to be around. BUT, there are ways. Protecting an individuals life and right to medical care is important! Leaving it up to the ethics of a doctor or care giver is questionable ??? If the person is not on a machine that their life would depend on other than a feeding tube? I say if the parent and doctors decide to take them off a machine that is different. However starving and dehydrating a person until they are dead is not acceptable! It is irresponsible and unethical. That is why in Teri Schiavo’s case it was wrong! She was sentenced to death by judge Greer for being inconvenient to her so called husband! A feeding tube is not unusual life support. We all have to eat and have water to live. Babies have to be fed it would be wrong and it would be murder for a parent not to feed their child!

Parents should get a say… BUT, not to starve or dehydrate their child until they are dead! If the child is on a respirator it should be left up to the doctors and parent to take them off a machine. If you believe that a person should starve to death? I would suggest you try it out on yourself first!...

Rob why is that the parents don’t get a say in this but yet you all support the informing of parents when a 16 year old wants an abortion.  Seems a bit hypocritical that the parents can make that decision but are not capable of making the decision about the child in this case.

I am consitently in favor of not killing children.  No hypocrisy there at all.

As for DNR’s, we’re not talking about letting the baby die here.  They "helped" it die.  They injected it with morphine and watched it die.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Parents should be empowered again like they were in the 50s.  There were less premature deaths, not many abortions and generally, children grew up knowing right from wrong.  The federal government then got involved through 5 justices on the Supreme Court and it was downhill from there.

Lethal injection for a baby is rather extreme…! I would question the ethics of the doctor and the oath he took to protect the lives of his patients.

likwidshoe: Yes, you can have opinions but unless you experience a bit of the issue it is meaningless for me, let alone to enforce it on me! It is all too common that people who had strong opinions about "hot issues" (say war or death penatly) got converted once they started to "feel" the problem.I never fall for this morality bogus argument. Many of the people who fight for rights of 2-week old cell conglomerate have no problem nuking half the world  or killing animals for fun. Morality is a malleable product and has changed throughut history.

Abortion is a truly individual issue, those who are involved have the most say. Neither state nor self-proclaimed moralists have any say whatsoever.And if you are worried about depopulation of the Earth, sleep well, it is not on the horizon anytime soon.

Cheers! 

Chief, Ah the Fifties . . . I’m nostalgic for the era of personal empowerment and responsibility, aren’t you?

An age where pregnant girls who didn’t want their babies were given shock treatments, because               the failure to want a baby was considered to signify dangerous               emotional disturbance. And as for the myth of ‘50s-style deferred               sexual gratification, in 1957, more than 97 out of every 1,000               girls aged 15 to 19 gave birth. (By the by, sexual morality               wasn’t so pristine at other times in American history either.              In the 20 years prior to the revolution, one-third of all               children born were conceived out of wedlock.)

those were the days . . .  

ZsaZsa, the child was starving, unable to be fed even through a feeding.  I think the article was clear:

“If a child is untreatably ill,” Verhagen explained, “there can be horrendous suffering that makes the last few days or weeks of this child’s life unbearable. Now the question is: are you going to leave the child like that or are you going to prevent that suffering?” He went on: “Does the child have to sit it out until the end? We think that the answer is no. There can be circumstances where, under very strict conditions, if all the requirements are fulfilled, active ending of life can be an option — but only in cases of untreatable disease and unbearable suffering.”

There are strict conditions and only those cases of untreatable disease and unbearable suffering. So Robert 108, I can live with those guidelines and conditions.

And Rob DNR orders also withhold sustenance. As I said this is already occurring in our country.  All we have to do is look to the Terry Schiavo case and how angry the country was when the federal government intervened in the matter to stop a private matter between spouses and doctors.  The overwhelming view of the country is that these decisions are private between families and not for governmental intervention.

Dexter…It is too bad that abortion is a decision anyone would ever even think of making when contraseption is so available! Abortion is a pathetic means of birth control. Contraception should be the decision not abortion! Abortion is truly not a idividuals issue. There is another entity involved which makes time to quit thinking as if it is an individuals issue??? Perhaps if people were made to be more responsible for their actions? They just might not be so self centered?...

Wow.  Just Wow.  Apparently Rob is in favor of prolonging an infants pain and suffering for a FULL 30 months.  Seven months ?  Bah, that’s nothing.  We can make that baby scream in agony for FOUR TIMES that long.

Optimism ?  Of what, miraculously finding a cure for an incurable genetic disorder ?  Come on.  People that believe that way are delusional.  Thank goodness this family was able to make their decision on their own without the moral preanings of those that think they know best. 

Puzzle…A feeding tube can always be inserted into the stomach. BUT, IF that were really true? I would think it would be more humane than to starve and dehydrate the child until they are dead. Teri Schiavo didn’t even get that much consideration. I think that judge Greer is an inconsiderate worthless scum bag, for sentencing her to die like she did. Anyway why couldn’t a feeding tube work for the baby? I am well aware feeding tubes can be inserted wrong other than that it sounds like an excuse. Puzzle,...I do agree that it would be better to die by lethal injection than the other!...Believe me when I say I don’t ever think that suffering is good. But, I don’t think killing a child because they have an illness is the way to treat it??? Sometimes it is easier to discard a life than to let it die naturally…I have seen the medical world and what they are about! To relieve the child or relieve the parents are the real questions.

P:  I got your answer: You would shirk any responsibility and leave it up to others.  Not surprising.  Whether or not I like it is immaterial, and none of your business.  This is an exchange of ideas, not an exchange of personal attacks based on emotions.  A DNR order is an act of an adult who makes a choice in the matter.  A child has no choice, as it typical with you pro-abortionists.

Doc…That is so true! IF, this is legal? It would just make it that much easier for people to abuse the convenience issue of a lethal injection to end a life. It is definately something to take a look at??? There are too many ways to aleviate pain to just say ,OK they are suffering so let’s give them a lethal injection! It is too easy to do…

At what age does the CHILD have rights that can not be usurped by the parent looking to end that child’s life? 

A child has rights when it has the ability to understand how his actions affect other people. I can’t get any more specific than that. 

Can it be either parent, or just the Mother?  

If the parents have entered into a contract (ie, marriage), it would have to be both (as if just one parent killed the baby, s/he would be indirectly usurping the parental rights of hir spouse). If not, just the mother.

ZsaZsa, that’s the point, there was no treatment and the feeding tube wasn’t working.  Don’t you think the doctors tried everything?  I think these doctors clearly knew who the patient was.  It was an incurable disease, no hope. I can’t that a parent would not hold out for treatment or a cure if it was possible, but in this case, it doesn’t look like it.  I’m not going to be an armchair quarterback here.  As far as Schiavo, there were numerous court rulings finding for  Mr. Schiavo and witnesses who testified what the wishes of his wife were.  Who are we to second guess, or do what others wanted to have done especially the government interventionist.  The country overwhelming disaproved of the government intervention in the Schiavo case.

Robert 108, I am not shirking any responsibility.  I do not know the specifics of this case so of course I would leave it up to the parents, the doctors and the ethicists.  That is being responsiblity.  And I’m not sure what personal attack you are accusing me of.  I don’t think I personally attacked anyone on this thread. Talk about twisting and turning.  I gave you a clear unequivocal answer and you say I am shirking my responsibility.  You clearly have only one answer and its black or white.  I, on the other hand, believe that the family and the doctors should be the ones who have to make this decision.  Only they know what it is happening and based on the circumstances of their child’s medical condition, prognosis, I trust that they will do what’s best for their child.

Having watched a couple have to go through this, I am more than comfortable with where I stand.

P: You have made the "black and white" accusation several times now.  If a question doesn’t have a definite answer, it doesn’t really resolve anything, does it? I guess I have to explain something to you.  I think this thread is about a generalized approach, and that is my objection, as well as Rob’s.  If you make a standard that it’s OK to kill a child when it is sick, in general, that is a very slippery slope.  Of course, in any individual case, it is an agonizing decision for parents to make, and we all hope that it is made for the highest of reasons and is well thought out.  The problem, IMO, is the general attitude that this is an OK way of dealing with the "inconveniences" of children in general.  Since most abortions are performed due to the "inconvenience" of having a child, there is this apparent extension of using infanticide for the same reason.  Understand now?

I understand, I just don’t agree.  The "definite answer" is between the parents, the doctors and the ethicists.  They will come up with the definite answer for that situation based on the prognosis, suffering of the child, chance of a cure, etc… I did not say that there was a standard that it is OK to "kill a child" as you put it.  I think the article set a standard, as I wrote earlier, : "Does the child have to sit it out until the end? We think that the answer is no. There can be circumstances where, under very strict conditions, if all the requirements are fulfilled, active ending of life can be an option — but only in cases of untreatable disease and unbearable suffering.”

Again, I am comfortable with the parents doctors and etihicist making the decision in the best interest of the child.

P: You are then choosing to invest those people with Godlike powers.  That is the problem.  Some of us are all too willing to avoid personal responsibility by shifting it to someone else, like the govt, for example.  This is a bad precedent, IMO.

Isn’t that the point of this post? ...People are a so compfortable with ending a life including doctors? Afterall don’t doctors still take an oath to preserve life ??? And as far as Teri Schiavo’s case goes she didn’t have a living will therefore she became executed by order of Judge Greer. Sentenced to starve and dehydrate until she was dead! I still am not compfortable with that…At least convicted murderers get a lethal injection???

Dave states: A child has rights when it has the ability to understand how his actions affect other people. I can’t get any more specific than that.

So the "right to life" begins at the age that a child can rationalize its’ impact on others?  By this then, a mother could kill her child up to (and in many cases past) age 6 (the commonly accepted age of enlightenment)?

Obviously, we could refine what you mean further with questions like: what of down children?  What of a person who once had the ability to rationalize, but lost it?  What of someone who did not rationalize an impact out far enough?

But, I’m really too stunned at your lack of forethought here.  You want to describe yourself as a libertarian, but you have decided to qualify an individuals liberties by their metal acuity.  By these standards, Dave, you would subjugate all of us to someone else’s’ rationalization of our cognition.  Perhaps you failed to elucidate your point…  In your world, that might get you killed! 

You also said: If the parents have entered into a contract (ie, marriage), it would have to be both (as if just one parent killed the baby, s/he would be indirectly usurping the parental rights of hir spouse). If not, just the mother.

Would adoptive gay parents have the right to terminate the life of their child if not married?  Which would you choose to be the Mother?  

You know what…  fer-git-it.  You’re well intentioned Dave, but lack wisdom.   You have knowledge, but need to spend some contemplative time looking out over the ocean, or mountains, or streams.  Grab some gear and go camping for a week or two by yourself.  Do this a few times a year. 

 I saw a movie a while ago that was based on a true story, this child had a disease that did not have a cure and eventually became a unable to move on his own or do anything for that matter. The parents (like those in the story) did not want their son to suffer anymore so they dedicated there lives to finding a cure when all odds were against them and guess what they did!!! I cant say i know what these parents were feeling when they decided to end there childs life but they could have done the same. They would not just be helping there child they could help millions. I do not think they should have given up so early.

Robert 108, No I am not vesting them with godlike powers but I do believe that God has given us the science that we have now to do the best we can and that the doctors and experts are using that science to the best of their abilities, those God-given abilities.  These parents didn’t shift their personal responsibility to their child.  They made a decision in consultation with doctors based on the prognosis and the science.

You want to describe yourself as a libertarian, but you have decided to qualify an individuals liberties by their metal acuity.

Not exactly; it’s not as though I feel the more intelligent a person is, the more rights he receives (like, those with IQs over 140 can vote, those with IQs over 110 can drive, etc). I just reject the notion that one can possess rights without understanding them.

Philosopher Carl Cohen writes:

"The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."

He writes that as a justification for not granting rights to non-humans. I agree with him in that regard; however, whereas he makes the common speciesist error of saying that infants and the mentally handicapped possess rights (even though they do not "have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all"), I do not. There’s no logically compelling reason to grant rights to infants or the mentally handicapped but not chimps.

Now, if you want to argue that non-human animals do possess rights, I’m willing to listen. But if you’re just going to say that all humans have rights and no non-humans do, even if there is no difference in mental acuity, there’s no point.

P: I consider the power over life and death to be a Godlike power.  The problem lies in vesting human beings with that power, especially ones who are not related to the child.

Dave: Animals are food for us.  You continue to equivalence humans and animals, which is just incorrect.  As far as Cohen is concerned, the Declaration of Independence doesn’t mention mental acuity or the ability to reason among humans; they have rights conferred on them by their Creator.  You don’t seem to get this fundamental fact. 

Robert108, judges have it so do doctors, They are doing the best they can with the science at hand.  I don’t think God would be upset with this situation in the least. 

P: That is my point.  Judges have Godlike powers over legal decisions, but it is usually up to a jury to make the life/death determination, and that is generally about an adult, not a small child.  I think it is very troubling when one or two people are vested with life and death powers over someone else’s child, which is the theme of this thread.  I don’t think “doing the best they can” qualifies them to judge whether a child should live or die.
Since I lack your knowledge of what God thinks, I will defer on your last statement.  I am saying that I am upset by this.
The next step is to leave it up to just the doctors, then maybe just a govt bureaucrat following some “standards”. It is the consequence of the abortion culture.

And I believe that parents know what is best and will work with the doctors and experts to do what is best for the child.  That is the system we have and again, it is not because of the abortion culture; that’s just a convenient excuse for you to blame it on abortion and the abortion culture.

P: You just don’t get it.  What I describe is already happening in Europe.  I’m sure the lefties over here just can’t wait to get some judge to OK it for this country.  I think we’re talking Ninth Circuit.

Robert108, what I am saying is that it is already happening here in his country.  Ordinary citizens make life and death decisions as allowed by law a juries do.  Of course Doctors make these kinds of decisions each and every day.  They make recommendations for treatment based on efficacy, prognosis, quality of life.  It is already happening here, that’s my point. 

CV-  I’ll be glad to contrast decaded with NIH or State statistics anytime, if you are serious out a factual discussion.  I will also be glad to compare personal experiences.  Yes, there may have been some people who committed suicide on themselves and their babies, but that pales to the one million plus murders annually in the United States alone.  Are we comparing just numbers, or does any life have more worth than another?

P: If what is happening in Europe(doctors making life/death decisions on their own), then it has to be stopped. I’m not talking about "recommendations for treatment".

Dave says, A child has rights when it has the ability to understand how his actions affect other people. I can’t get any more specific than that.

So what you’re saying is that a severly mentally retarded adult never has rights.

I just reject the notion that one can possess rights without understanding them.

So animals have no rights then. You’re flip-flopping Dave.

Boy,..I am so glad that we have people like Dave, CV Rick, and Puzzlefeet here to decide which babies deserve to die and who deserves life based on some ludicrously defined rights.

So animals have no rights then.

Of course not.

You’re flip-flopping Dave.

How?

So, Dave has replaced the Thought Police with the Unable To Think Police.  Good move.

Likwidshoe accused me of "flip-flopping" without justifying hir accusation. I didn’t understand how.

Chief RZ wrote: 

Parents should be empowered again like they were in the 50s.  There were less premature deaths, not many abortions and generally, children grew up knowing right from wrong.  The federal government then got involved through 5 justices on the Supreme Court and it was downhill from there.

Very interesting comments in a post in which Rob argues against parental empowerment and for intervention by the federal government.

In Dave’s mixed up world, throwing out Roe vs Wade and leaving abortion up to the voters equals intervention by the federal govt.  Weird.