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?
Dave - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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.
Rob - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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.
Justin B - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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.
Zsa Zsa - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
I should have checked my spelling. Sorry!
Zsa Zsa - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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?
Dave - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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.
Puzzlefeet - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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?
Dave - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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.
Rob - 03:03pm on 03/05/2006
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!
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.
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!
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.
To quote Rob Port…
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 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!