Originally posted by ivanhoeGood to have the ole paranoid Ivanhoe back!
You are talking now about a very different issue. What you posted is not about the moral permissibility of infanticide.
The media will brain-wash people into accepting passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia with consent and after that euthanasia without consent such as infanticide and killing severely disabled or handicapped people.
Everybody inte ...[text shortened]... u have to check out the Hollywood productions.
Propaganda ? Brainwashing ? You tell me !
Originally posted by ivanhoeDelusions of grandeur, Ivanhoe? Do you seriously believe that I am concerned about anything you could say about me on the internet? Good ahead, act the fool: it's pathetic but always amusing. Try to avoid the head-exploding stuff that gets you forum bans, though; we need the comic relief from the Bible-thumping creeps.
Be carefull no1, your innuendo, insults and your accusations are getting the upper hand .... otherwise I am forced to spend some quality time with you. Remember the last time ?
If you are able to find the exact text of the "Groningen Protocols" then I will be mightily gratefull to you.
EDIT: Can't you find your own crap? I'd never even heard of the Groningen Protocol until tonight; it's your straw man, knock it down!
Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm not sure that this is quite fair, Ivanhoe. #1 isn't suggesting that
all infants which don't meet certain criteria ought to be euthanized; he
is suggesting that the option be available to parents.
And, the idea that parents impose their beliefs on their children is a
well-sanctioned one, no? That's what parents do. They teach their
childre ...[text shortened]... asia, I am saying that the situation
is far more complicated than you are making it.
Nemesio
Nemesio: "I'm not sure that this is quite fair, Ivanhoe. #1 isn't suggesting that
all infants which don't meet certain criteria ought to be euthanized; he
is suggesting that the option be available to parents."
Exactly ... and who is going to advise the parents ..... exactly the doctors. No1 hasn't answered the question what the parents are going to do if the doctors are not prepared to help their child and they, the parents, disagree with that decision. We must acknowledge that there is a considerable discrepancy between the doctors's knowledge and the parents's medical knowledge. This creates a huge disadvantage for the parents. There is a row going on in the UK at the moment about exactly this situation. I tried to find some sites dealing with this case but I failed in finding them. Maybe some UK debaters can help out here.
Nemesio: " but who are you to tell parents what to do with their decisions."
No Nemesio, not with their decisions but what to do with their children.
Yes who am I to have the audacity to tell parents not to beat up their children ? Who am I to tell the rapist not to rape ? Who am I to tell people not to kill their children ?
You tell me Nemesio .....
Nemesio: " ...... about terminally ill children who are going to suffer for the rest of their
short lives. "
I'm afraid we are not, Nemesio ...
Nemesio: "I'm not saying I am in favor of euthanasia, I am saying that the situation
is far more complicated than you are making it."
I assure you nemesio that I can make things so complicated and according to the truth at the same time in such a way your head will explode.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat a laugh! So you don't even know what they say, but you're railing against what you IMAGINE they say???????????? Hilarious!
Please find the exact text of the Groningen protocols for me ....
You can save yourself the trouble, No1 .... they will not make them public, except the parts they want to publicise.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " ... I'd never even heard of the Groningen Protocol until tonight; ... "
Delusions of grandeur, Ivanhoe? Do you seriously believe that I am concerned about anything you could say about me on the internet? Good ahead, act the fool: it's pathetic but always amusing. Try to avoid the head-exploding stuf ...[text shortened]... ingen Protocol until tonight; it's your straw man, knock it down!
... but you know all about it , don't you No1 ? 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeI know as much as you because I found the SAME site as you EXCEPT I read the whole thing and not just the parts that agreed with my preconceived ideas (which was easy since I had none).
No1: " ... I'd never even heard of the Groningen Protocol until tonight; ... "
... but you know all about it , don't you No1 ?
Since you've obviously never been there, I can tell you that relatives of patients are NOT as easily led and ordered about as you think. You might believe most people are sheep, but I assure you when it gets down to something this important people follow their own and the others they love counsel's first and always. Maybe if you ever stop being a self-righteous, control freak you might actually learn how real human beings act in the real world and it ain't like your preconceptions.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou do not read my posts. You did not find the same site. You found an article that has been quoted a lot in the discussion. That's why I gave some quotes from the article.
I know as much as you because I found the SAME site as you EXCEPT I read the whole thing and not just the parts that agreed with my preconceived ideas (which was easy since I had none).
Since you've obviously never b ...[text shortened]... ngs act in the real world and it ain't like your preconceptions.
You are too eager to scratch your opponents face, no1.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAnd you're tooooooo eager to say somebody supports the killing of disabled and handicapped children when they don't.
You do not read my posts. You did not find the same site. You found an article that has been quoted a lot in the discussion. That's why I gave some quotes from the article.
You are too eager to scratch your opponents face, no1.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I know as much as you because I found the SAME site as you EXCEPT I read the whole thing and not just the parts that agreed with my preconceived ideas (which was easy since I had none).
Since you've obviously never been there, I can tell you that relatives of patients are NOT as easily led and ordered about as you think. You might bel ...[text shortened]... ually learn how real human beings act in the real world and it ain't like your preconceptions.
There is a row in the UK at the moment about exactly such a case. It's about parents not agreeing with the doctors about the treatment, I mean the killing, of their child.
Isn't the UK a bit too exotic for you to be interested in No1. ? 😛
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Exactly ... and who is going to advise the parents ..... exactly the doctors. No1 hasn't answered the question what the parents are going to do if the doctors are not prepared to help their child and they, the parents, disagree with that decision.
Doctors are obligated to help the child by the nature of their hippocratic
oath. Ultimately, if a doctor doesn't like an accepted treatment, if a
patient insists on it, the doctor must conform to it. That is the nature
of the profession.
No parent is going to just blithely accept a doctor who says, 'Let's kill
it.' However, if all doctors say, 'There is nothing we can do to save
this child. It will die within 6 weeks and will be a state of unremitting
agnoy throughout,' we are presented with a tremendous quandry. I'm
not saying that I have the objectively right answer here, but you are.
I believe I know what I would do (and I pray that I never have to test
it), but I think it's very dangerous to demand that people adhere to my
decision either.
We must acknowledge that there is a considerable discrepancy between the doctors's knowledge and the parents's medical knowledge. This creates a huge disadvantage for the parents.
This discrepency is always there for all decisions, including many life and death
ones. It is in this sole example that you want to question and oppose any doctor's
judgment. This seems unfair; either you are going to trust the doctor, or you aren't.
No Nemesio, not with their decisions but what to do with their children.
Parents make all manner of decisions for their children, many of them
regarding their livelihood. Certainly, you aren't demanding control of all
of those decisions. Why this one? Why can you tell a parent that they
should honor your opinion about the nature of morality? I'm asking for
a rational defense for scrutiny.
Yes who am I to have the audacity to tell parents not to beat up their children ? Who am I to tell the rapist not to rape ? Who am I to tell people not to kill their children ?
These situations are not analogous. And we aren't talking about the
right for wanton infanticide here, so I don't feel that these questions
are relevant.
I'm afraid we are not, Nemesio ...
According to the article you site, we are talking about it.
I assure you nemesio that I can make things so complicated and according to the truth at the same time in such a way your head will explode.
I wish you would explain your position rather than simply asserting it.
I think it is a worthy debate, but I don't think anyone is going to be
persuaded by your passion on this issue alone. Don't worry about my
head. I'll be fine. I look forward to your rational argument and subject
it to my analysis. I assure you, if I find it sound, I will adopt it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeFind a source and I'll look the case over, but given that you've made several blatantly false statements in this thread already you'll have to excuse me for not just taking your word for it.
There is a row in the UK at the moment about exactly such a case. It's about parents not agreeing with the doctors about the treatment, I mean the killing, of their child.
Isn't the UK a bit too exotic for you to be interested in No1. ? 😛