Say Anything Blog

Why do you want to increase these patients’ pain?

To give you something to bitch and moan about, Dave.  Seriously, why do you and realitybasedbob put these stupid questions in all your posts and comments?

Why do you hate not being a douchebag?

Fileitunder.com

What is the morally significant difference between withholding treatment necessary for the disabled infant’s survival and actively giving it a lethal injection?

***************FUCK OFF DAVE***********************

"Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Why do you so gleefully advocate killing babies? Is that the only way you can achieve sexual gratification, thinking about dead babies? That is sick. You need help.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Dave....

The title of your post is a Simple Infanticide Question.

The is no such thing as a simple question concerning infanticide. The very thought of killing disabled babies conjurs up images of Hitler’s Master Race fantasy. On the other hand the very thought of dooming a severely disabled child to a life of pain and suffering is just as grim.

But...who gets to decide? You? Me? Do we draw lots to see which ones we kil today or do we just kill them all? Ans where do we draw the line. How disabled does a child have to be to draw a death sentence?

No simple questions. And no simple answers.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

The is no such thing as a simple question concerning infanticide.

It’s right here:

What is the morally significant difference between withholding treatment necessary for the disabled infant’s survival and actively giving it a lethal injection?

dave,

Try answering some of the questions I posted above. You have a simplistic approach to this issue that borders on callous.

With regard to your above post and your “simple” question, I say again, who gets to decide? Who sets the standard for the legalized murder of the most innocent?

The very essence of civilization is reflected in how we care for the weakest among us.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Dave
It seems to me you really are fixated on killing some babies. That aside, why don’t you try to push your ideas in this vein in some arena where they will meet with perhaps more contemplative dissent?

The very essence of civilization is reflected in how we care for the weakest among us.

Oh shit! We’re done for!

Oh shit! We’re done for!

Ha! Well, Sparkie, you probably are, anyway. I didn’t have you in mind when I wrote that but - now that you mention it.....

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Dave is a Peter Singer parrot.  The ideas he puts out aren’t even his own.  He is the epitome of the insincere troll.  Arguing with him is like talking to a cardboard cutout.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

With regard to your above post and your “simple” question, I say again, who gets to decide?

Pilgrim, this is a very simple problem. Why is it better for doctors to refuse to treat deadly illnesses on disabled infants (leading to long, painful deaths), when they could simply give the infant a lethal injection (leading to a short, painless death)?

So, Dave....you expect doctors who won’t give a lethal injection to convicted killers based on moral and ethical grounds to give one to a baby?

Yeah, I suppose you do. And, sad to say, I suppose they would. The usual backasswards thinking of the left.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim: I believe the doctors and parents who already agree to deny treatment to terminally ill patients would--if it was made legal--choose to actively and painlessly end the patient’s life via lethal injection, yes.

Over 70 million animals are killed for food each day in the United States; in the time it takes you to read this, 15,000 innocent animals will be killed.

Damn tasty they are, too. Had a steak last night. Fried chicken? Yummmm. I’m such a barbarian. Maybe I should repent my evil ways and stop eating all those innocent animals.

YES!!! I’ll do it! I’ll help stop the slaughter. Maybe. Not right now, though. After lunch. I’m hungry. I think a nice shrimp po-boy with about 40 butchered innocent shrimp (deep fried) on it would be really good right now.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

And again:

“Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.”

You really can’t stay on topic? It’s really easy.

Many social conservatives and religious types just want people to suffer. Christianity is all about suffering. Afterall, if god wanted them to die, he wouldn’t have invented life support machines.

Humans invented life support machinery.  Your obvious anti-Christian bigotry makes you unqualified to describe what Christianity is all about.  You are ignorant.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Dave_Parrot: Your original post was an exercise in trolling, and you know it.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert108: I’m upset when people act in a way that increases the amount of pain in the world. That’s it.

Again: “If doctors are letting those with terminal diseases die anyway, why shouldn’t we allow them to do it in a way that involves as little pain and suffering as possible?”

I’m upset when people act in a way that increases the amount of pain in the world. That’s it.

Your posts make my head hurt, Dave.  That’s pain.

Why do you hate me, Dave?

Fileitunder.com

Robert108: I’m upset when people act in a way that increases the amount of pain in the world. That’s it.

I have asked you this before, and never got an answer: By what standard do you measure pain?  Why should you decide what is painful or not painful for the rest of us?  I fully support your right to die, but deny you the right to determine that for anyone else.

Again: “If doctors are letting those with terminal diseases die anyway, why shouldn’t we allow them to do it in a way that involves as little pain and suffering as possible?”

It’s illegal to withhold treatment that way, unless the patient or proxy has signed a DNR.  It is illegal to kill children, no matter what your personal judgement about their quality of life.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

You really can’t stay on topic? It’s really easy.

Was it something I said. Or ate?

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Sorry, Dave, but you just don’t lend yourself to credible debate with your off the wall stances. I came, I saw, (bullshit), and I ridiculed.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Of course you ridicule, Pilgrim. You know you can’t refute my points with logic.

Again:  “Although withholding treatment is already allowed in the UK, the debate will center on whether or not active infanticide of disabled babies should be legalized.”

Get that? Again: “(W)ithholding treatment is already allowed in the UK”

Can someone say why it’s better to make the patient’s suffer a painful death rather than a painless one? That’s all I’m asking. And if you can’t, I assume you’ll concede that painless infanticide is justifiable in certain situations.

....and you’ve conceded.

The UK is obviously less moral and ethical than we are in this country.  Duh.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

The moral and ethical choice, then, it to refuse to alleviate another’s suffering, robert108?

The moral and ethical choice, then, it to refuse to alleviate another’s suffering, robert108?

To quote the Buddha: “Existence is suffering.” Your(and Peter Singer’s) meme about preventing suffering, or minimizing it, is just an excuse to run everyone’s lives and to excuse your lust for infanticide.  Besides, suffering is a matter of individual human consciousness, and isn’t under your control.
The moral and ethical choice, especially for a doctor is “First, do no harm.” Killing human babies, no matter what your rationalization, is harmful; not only that, but it’s wrong.  Sorry I have to tell you that.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Killing human babies, no matter what your rationalization, is harmful

I’m certainly not helping you and Peter Singer to kill human babies.
I notice you are rationalizing again; typical of you.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

If you have an infant who is experiencing extreme pain and has no shot at a normal life--an infant who is suffering from a painful terminal disase--who benefits by your refusal to alleviate its pain.

Who defines “normal life?” Certainly no one here.

That’s not right. Infants can feel pain--they can’t contemplate their existence.

How do you know that babies cant contemplate their existence?  What magic talking baby do you communicate with?

r108:

I notice you are rationalizing again; typical of you.

Yeah; I tend to examine problems rationally before deciding on the best course of action. I’ve found it works much better than astrology or prayer.

Free: I’m speaking of infants who can never develop into persons--they’ll never acquire self-consciousness, for example.

How do you know that babies cant contemplate their existence?

Can you tell me who benefits by forcing a terminally ill child to die a long and painful death (rather than a quick and painless one)? Thanks guys!

Free: I’m speaking of infants who can never develop into persons--they’ll never acquire self-consciousness, for example.

How do you explain away people who can recall details of something that happened when they were a baby?  Stories of people being able to recall details of something they just shouldn’t remember are very common, so what gives?

Can you tell me who benefits by forcing a terminally ill child to die a long and painful death (rather than a quick and painless one)? Thanks guys!

Right, cause that is really our decision to make right?  I’m not religious at all and even I don’t believe that.  It’s definately not a government entity’s role, and I don’t think that is a call for any person to make.

Death is ALWAYS waste.  No one benifits from pain and suffering other than those whose livelyhoods are to make the pain go away.

Death is ALWAYS waste.  No one benifits from pain and suffering other than those whose livelyhoods are to make the pain go away.

Anencephaly

is a cephalic disorder that results from a neural tube defect that occurs when the cephalic (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th day of pregnancy, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres (which include the isocortex, which is responsible for higher level cognition. I.e. thinking).

This part is key:

In almost all cases anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated since there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures and to “let nature take its course”. Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as being pointless.

Babies aborted for not being perfect

Story in the Daily Mail

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples’ desire for the ‘perfect’ baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be ‘totally shocked’ that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection.

The Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.

This slight defect can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots.

Naomi Davis, a leading pediatrician at Manchester Children’s Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: ‘I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this. It is entirely treatableStory in the

Joel: Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with this?

I wrote:

Babies were destroyed(aborted) because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.Such defects can often be easily corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy. Abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples’ desire for the ‘perfect’ baby.

Dave “Kill the babies save the animals” Comet wrote

Joel: Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with this?
Dave_Comet on November 21, 2006 at 01:41 pm

I get it: You’re incapable of rational debate, so you have no choice beyond name-calling.

You’re incapable of rational debate, so you have no choice beyond name-calling.
Dave “kill the babies save the animals” Comet Nov 21

There is NEVER the possibility of rational debate with you Bambi!

There was never anything here to debate.

Dave, you have a barbaric stance on this issue and most of the commenters here disagree with it.  That’s pretty much it.  You don’t think it’s barbaric - you find it humane.  Ok, we disagree.

No debate here.

I do agree with the early sentiment that this post was just created to incite the conservative commenters here.  Mission accomplished there, Dave.  And we know nothing we can say here will change your mind - again making a pretense of debate laughable.

And with that said, I’ll add to the name calling and call you a trolling douchebag, Dave.  And a pestering dick, to boot.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Fileitunder.com

Hoodlum: Very few people seem to be aware of the extent to which doctors deny car to terminal patients. I think if more people begin acknowledging this, they will start to reconsider the morality of euthauasia for infants. Since no one has explained how withholding treatment (leading to a slow and painful death) is more moral than euthanasia, I hope this means people are re-examining the issue.

doctors deny car to terminal patients

Deny cars to terminal patients? Why, that’s inhuman, cruel, and unjust! I protest! Those people should have cars in their last days. Why can’t they have cars? We all need cars. What? Care?[/i]

Deny cars to terminal patients? Why, that’s inhuman, cruel, and unjust! I protest! Those people should have cars in their last days. Why can’t they have cars? We all need cars. What? Care?
Pilgrim on November 21, 2006 at 06:06 pm

LT
Close the italics tag...put a in front of “care