Say Anything Blog

As medical science progresses the number of seriously disabled babies that survive is growing - we should therefore consider having a debate on allowing active euthanasia, for the good of families, says the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology. The College explains families who have the most severely disabled babies, babies who until recently would not have survived, are suffering enormously, both emotionally and financially.

This makes perfect sense to me. If the parents can replace their seriously disabled children with non-disabled children, the total amount of happiness will increase.

“We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.”

This is really what the “infanticide” debate is all about (infant euthenasia is a more appropriate term for what we’re describing). Instead of withdrawing treatment for these severely disabled infants--infants with things like spina bifida--which results in an extremely long, drawn out death full of a great deal of suffering, these doctors want to do the less cruel option of euthenasia--actively killing the infant rather than passively killing it through a withdrawal of treatment (like removing medication and waiting for a deadly infection to start).

I don’t understand why so many people--especially those on the left who support abortion--have such strong problems with infanticide. There are no significant moral differences between a fetus and an infant.

I nominate you, Dave, for the first participant in the retroactive infant euthanasia program.  You should volunteer!

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Babies on the barbie! I must admit, I was drooling when I started thinking about all those fleshy, tastey babies they’ll be offing in Britain. I sat, caressing a bottle of Lee & Perrins, while I read that article.
PS - Dave_Comet: Singer has emotionally charged reasons to liberate animals so I know you are at least sympathetic to the emotionally charged reasons not to kill babies.

---

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I don’t understand why so many people--have such strong problems with infanticide....the total amount of happiness will increase.
Dave_Comet on November 6, 2006 at 12:26 pm

Maybe the total amount of happiness would also be increased if you were euthanized too.

---

Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.

There are no significant moral differences between a fetus and an infant.

That is the slippery slope that makes it necessary for anyone caring about life to fight using taxpayer money for abortion.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Dave_Comet
Utilitarianism is a foolish moral stance. Let’s suppose we could inslave just a few people, causing some suffering, but increasing the total amount of happiness more than would be so without those people enslaved. Should we just go ahead and enslave them?

---

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie:

Singer has emotionally charged reasons to liberate animals

What are they? (You’ve obviously never read him.)

Should we just go ahead and enslave them?

No, becuase “inslaving” them would usurp their rights.

I’m relatively certain that euthenizing infants results in far less pain than aborting late-term fetuses (based on our current methods of doing it). It seems like you would support these mothers who are holding their child the extra few months to give birth to it to ensure its death is as painless as possible.

I’m relatively certain that euthenizing infants results in far less pain than aborting late-term fetuses (based on our current methods of doing it).

So what? Your point being?

And don’t pick on en/in slaving if you can’t spell because correctly.

---

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Peter Singer is a bona fide gonzo crackpot.
Read This

---

Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.

Let’s suppose we could inslave just a few people, causing some suffering, but increasing the total amount of happiness more than would be so without those people enslaved. Should we just go ahead and enslave them?

It is foolish and idiotic to claim that doing something wrong can somehow increase happiness.  Duh

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I don’t understand why so many people--especially those on the left who support abortion--have such strong problems with infanticide. There are no significant moral differences between a fetus and an infant.

That’s right. And that’s one of the biggest problems with the left. Their inability to grasp right from wrong in even this very black and white issue is appalling.

You know, Dave....I wonder sometimes if you are simply doing parody of the left’s position on things because I truly hate the thought that anyone can be this stupid.

---

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

Pilgrim: A hint: Dave’s a Peter Singer parrot.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Let’s suppose we could enslave just a few people, causing some suffering, but increasing the total amount of happiness more than would be so without those people enslaved. Should we just go ahead and enslave them?

It is foolish and idiotic to claim that doing something wrong can somehow increase happiness.  Duh

Sorry. I was just countering the idea that because something causes less suffering or more happiness it is the right thing to do.
Dave_Comet assumes in one case that that particular argument makes his ideas about infanticide just, and in another case complains about the ‘justness’ of the scenario. I don’t find it coherent.

---

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Yikes!!!!

If even Sparky finds an argument incoherent it must be pretty crappy indeed.

Way to go Sparky...you’re showing a hint of perception. There may be hope for you yet!

---

The future ain’t what it used to be.....

Sparkie: Only in the obscene, twisted, perverted mind of Peter Singer can killing children be considered any form of Utilitarianism.  John Stuart Mill would probably “euthanize” Singer, if he had the chance, for calling his murderous philosophy anything resembling Utilitarianism.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

You know, Dave....I wonder sometimes if you are simply doing parody of the left’s position on things because I truly hate the thought that anyone can be this stupid.

Leftists, I assume, would hate my argument. I would really like to see an actual pro-choice liberal explain to me how he can support abortion but oppose infanticide. I’d like for a pro-choice poster to explain the morally significant differences between a fetus and an infant, because I do not believe there are any.

Also, contrary to what some notoriously dishonest poster may have said, I’m not a Peter Singer “parrot,” and in fact disagree with him on numerous issues. We agree on most ethical issues (not all), but have huge disagreements on politics, as he is a liberal and I am a libertarian. This difference becomes extremely important on animal liberation issues. We both agree that non-human animals lack rights. His liberalism would lead him to support legislation that bans cruelty to them, whereas my libertarianism leads me to oppose this, as I beleive the only purpose of government is to prevent the usurpation of rights. The difference between our views is monumental--my views put me in disagreement with the vast majority of animal liberation advocates, including Mr. Singer.

Sparkie writes, in response to my claim that infanticide causes less pain than late-term abortions:

So what? Your point being?

That we should choose the option that results in less pain (in this case, painless infanticide). No one would be harmed in this case.

Dave,

I agree with Robert108:

I nominate you, Dave, for the first participant in the retroactive infant euthanasia program.

...as he is a liberal and I am a libertarian.

This is a joke, right?  You are as extreme a leftie as we have on this blog.
I honestly regard you as a Peter Singer parrot; no dishonesty involved at all.  Sorry you aren’t man enough to admit it, but if you were, you might choose to not be a parrot for his ideas about infanticide, “animal liberation” and all the rest of his garbage.  I never claimed you believed in everything he said, only that you parrot his ideas on those subjects as your own.  You are the dishonest one, for plagiarizing his work in your comments here.

---

Save America; boycott the MSM.

bak: Again, not an infant.

Obviously none of you are mothers! It is ridiculous for you tho think there is no difference between a fetus and an infant. You obviously never heard that babies first cry when they laid the body on your chest for the first time. I could never have done that to my child. Although I would not want them to suffer. There are ways to test for problems when they are a fetus. I think a whole lot of motheres would rather not hear or see those signs of life before taking action to end or prevent the beginning of suffering.

You obviously never heard that babies first cry when they laid the body on your chest for the first time.

The ability to make vocalizations is not morally significant, or else we’d be justified in killing mutes.

No one is saying that the ability to vocalize is “morally significant.” The inference is the resulting realization of humanity ensuing from the vocalization. At least that is what I understood Carrie to mean. If I’ve mischaracterized you, Carrie, I apoligize.

That we should choose the option that results in less pain (in this case, painless infanticide). No one would be harmed in this case.

If we are talking about something this grave I think that the amount of pain involved is a minor motovator. Furthermore, I think infanticide is obviously painful - it would be fallacious to only consider physical pain.

---

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Furthermore, I think infanticide is obviously painful - it would be fallacious to only consider physical pain.

What type of “intangible” pain occurs when two parents decide to painlessly kill their newborn child?

You’re exactly right Rose.