1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYep, that's what the story said. Their end of life plan means simply stop feeding the people an letting them starve to death. That's even cheaper than a bullet.
Wow, you took all this out of a Daily Mail story? Tell us more about this UK government's programme to slaughter babies to save money yet apparently does not seem to bother the British people.
Originally posted by EladarThe title of this thread is hysterical and evidences an underlying motive to use dead babies as an opportunity to take cheap shots at the tenets of socialism, which as a theory of economics has nothing to say about dead babies. Ergo, you're full of s**t.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D
Originally posted by SoothfastEladar once said on this forum that he would have no problem if the government of the country he was living in executed homosexuals for being homosexuals, and on another occasion people had to point out to him that his opinions about gypsies in Europe were the same as the Nazis in the 1930s. So I think 'Eladar being hysterical' is no great surprise.
The title of this thread is hysterical and evidences an underlying motive to use dead babies as an opportunity to take cheap shots at the tenets of socialism, which as a theory of economics has nothing to say about dead babies. Ergo, you're full of s**t.
Originally posted by sasquatch672If you address my second post I will take it back, or you could carry on being a disingenuous wind up whose game is getting tired.
I should be banned from owning a dog because I wouldn't leave it to die a horrible, agonizing death from dehydration and starvation.
Anybody else want to help me understand the logic here?
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57Seeing as how I already own two dogs, and am not interested in acquiring a third, I fail to see why investing effort that would be rewarded by you "taking it back" (whatever you were planning on recovering) is in my immediate interests.
If you address my second post I will take it back, or you could carry on being a disingenuous wind up whose game is getting tired.
EDIT: But I've never been called a "wind-up" before. I'm not sure what that is, but it sounds vaguely industrial. Which I like. So here goes. I think that people have te right to self-determination. That includes, if quality of life is deteriorating, the decision over when to end one's life with dignity and in comfort.
Now with regard to the proper place of religion in society, my country teaches that people have the right to practice their religion without fear of persecution. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I find regrettable the fervor of the social conservatives in my country, and some of their more extreme beliefs. However, I also find them to be a necessary counterbalance to the atheist crowd that worships man and the power of the state.
A trip to Hungary and East Berlin helped inform my views on socialism, communism, and atheism. Budapest has districts that were built during the era of Soviet rule, and the differences between those parts of the city and the parts that had been built when God was worshipped could not be more different. The Soviet-era Budapest had squat, featureless, barely functional buildings. The absence (or more accurately, the rejection) of God was tangible. So too it was in East Berlin; but nowhere on earth have I felt a more thorough rejection of God than Dachau.
Religion gives us fits, certainly, and has caused its fair share of wars, suffering, and death. But at its best, religion also gives us reverence for life. It is the Godless policy that is the topic of this thread, not the abstraction of religion, that stains society.
Originally posted by sasquatch672In socialist Britain we would say you just 'bottled it'. but I will persevere, so given that you are unhappy with the sometimes 'Ghoulish' pathway results, do you agree with active euthanasia, where the medical practitioners take active measures to end life with as little pain and as much dignity as possible?
Seeing as how I already own two dogs, and am not interested in acquiring a third, I fail to see why investing effort that would be rewarded by you "taking it back" (whatever you were planning on recovering) is in my immediate interests.
Originally posted by kevcvs57More vocabulary. This is good. I perceive that "bottling it" is vaguely negative; if you could explain "bottling it", I would be both more enlightened and in your debt.
In socialist Britain we would say you just 'bottled it'. but I will persevere, so given that you are unhappy with the sometimes 'Ghoulish' pathway results, do you agree with active euthanasia, where the medical practitioners take active measures to end life with as little pain and as much dignity as possible?
The question of practitioners taking active measures - on whom? On adults with terminal illnesses? That's one issue. On babies born with Down's Syndrome? That's another issue altogether.
My next-door neighbor has a son that was born without part of his brain. This child will require a lifetime of care and will never be close to functional. In that instance, I would consider undertaking this gravest of personal decisions.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672'Bottling it' = 'Taking a dive' or avoiding a confrontation with an adversary or, as in this case, an issue.
More vocabulary. This is good. I perceive that "bottling it" is vaguely negative; if you could explain "bottling it", I would be both more enlightened and in your debt.
The question of practitioners taking active measures - on whom? On adults with terminal illnesses? That's one issue. On babies born with Down's Syndrome? That's another issue al ...[text shortened]... onal. In that instance, I would consider undertaking this gravest of personal decisions.
"The question of practitioners taking active measures - on whom?"
On the kind of terminal babies cited in the 'Daily Moan' who have no quality of life and would only be kept alive long enough to die under their own steam, thus appeasing the sensitivities of the Gods will at any price (for someone else) brigade.
Adults with chronically debilitating or pain inducing ailments should be able to choose their own fate, and expect support from society whatever option they take.
I am pretty sure I would have heard if we had instigated a program of euthanasia for children with Down's syndrome given the relatively joyful life experience they can expect to have.
Any issues arising?
2 edits
Originally posted by kevcvs57You do recognize the slippery slope?
'Bottling it' = 'Taking a dive' or avoiding a confrontation with an adversary or, as in this case, an issue.
"The question of practitioners taking active measures - on whom?"
On the kind of terminal babies cited in the 'Daily Moan' who have no quality of life and would only be kept alive long enough to die under their own steam, thus appeasing the sen n the relatively joyful life experience they can expect to have.
Any issues arising?
EDIT: I wouldn't call it "bottling it"; you're a thoughtful person, so I'll address you in a thoughtful manner. People that demonstrate they deserve less get less.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Yes I believe we could see it a mile off, that is why I am not so terrified of it that I would deny someone else the right to chose as dignified and pain free end to life as possible.
You do recognize the slippery slope?
My Mum died of stomach cancer, for as long as she could, she shuttled between the hospice and short stays at Home, both with adequate pain control, but there comes a point when the Dr has to up the Palliative care to the point where it is drastically shortening the recipients life, but hey, we all shook the Dr's hand when we left the Hospice for the last time.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Having lost my mother to lung cancer, I fully appreciate what you went through and what informs your beliefs. I was in a very similar situation, and if one of my mother's doctors had, in an attempt to keep her comfortable, accidentally overdosed her I would not have been extremely angry with him.
Yes I believe we could see it a mile off, that is why I am not so terrified of it that I would deny someone else the right to chose as dignified and pain free end to life as possible.
My Mum died of stomach cancer, for as long as she could, she shuttled between the hospice and short stays at Home, both with adequate pain control, but there comes a point ...[text shortened]... ecipients life, but hey, we all shook the Dr's hand when we left the Hospice for the last time.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Yeah it's never a good day, the only saving grace of these big bad life events is that they happen to us all, and tend to be bigger than politics, or apolitical for that reason.
Having lost my mother to lung cancer, I fully appreciate what you went through and what informs your beliefs. I was in a very similar situation, and if one of my mother's doctors had, in an attempt to keep her comfortable, accidentally overdosed her I would not have been extremely angry with him.
Originally posted by FMFI said one country at one time, Biblical times in Israel because those were God's instructions. No other time and in no other place would that be acceptable in my point of view. So what you are saying, as usual, is hog wash.
Eladar once said on this forum that he would have no problem if the government of the country he was living in executed homosexuals for being homosexuals, and on another occasion people had to point out to him that his opinions about gypsies in Europe were the same as the Nazis in the 1930s. So I think 'Eladar being hysterical' is no great surprise.