SkyDekker 1,141 #26 December 1, 2004 QuoteWell, as you know PK, movements start out small, and then become "normal and accepted" Then people push the envelope just a bit... then that become accepted and the Norm..... Then they push it again. Exactly, firstly they will want guns to protect themselves. Then they will want bigger guns to kill animals. Then they will puch it a bit more and they'll want more guns to start killing some of the people society doesn't like. We all know it is a slippery slope and that basic gun ownership will eventually lead to all gun owners turning into uncontrollable murderers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #27 December 1, 2004 QuoteVery true.... and many of them within our borders. When are we over turning Roe vs. Wade???? Never mind the unborn child. I was talking after delivery.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #28 December 1, 2004 QuoteWouldn't surprize me if in 20-50 years then are killing "retarded children". I seriously doubt that. As stated in the first part of this thread several doctors were involved as were the parents. Any society that address such a sensitive topic as this would not apply it to mentally retarded kids. Look at their society in general, overall very proggresive. Now what I see happening in the next 20+ years is genetics rearing its head into this picture. I could easily see parents with enough money saying 'I want my kid to be 6 foot +, blue eyed, brown hair' or genetic testing of certain diseases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rfaberh 0 #29 December 1, 2004 I think that this discussion is so hard because we stand between two important arguments; the rights to autonomy and the human inviolability. The first comes from an individualistic thought (we are in the best right to decide what is best for ourself) and the other argument is very religious (the fifth Commandments;Thou shalt not kill.) You can also discuss this in a philosophical way; utilitarianism and deontology (I don´t know the english word for this?). The point is that it´s a question about what we believe in. I have written a report about this subject and I find it very hard myself to decide whether it is right or wrong. I´m not against people who decide to get euthanasia, but I think persons who get it shall be terminally ill. I also think that if a terminally ill baby will suffer a painful death (which also is very hard for the parents)then it´s okay to hasten the death....which in fact is already done in a legally form as morphine. Sorry this is really hard for me to explain in english. I hope you understand my point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #30 December 1, 2004 Quote You and I differ on when we believe a fetus is a human life. But we can both agree that there's no room for discussion regarding a baby that's already been born. Ahhhh.... see you are wrong !!!!! I am Pro-choice!!!! I know, conservative republican, but yes it is true.... I am pro life. DAMN I have to stop agreeing with PK ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #31 December 1, 2004 QuoteI am Pro-choice!!!! I know, conservative republican, but yes it is true.... I am pro life. Uhmmm, so are you pro-choice or pro-life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #32 December 2, 2004 A loud BANG, versus a quiet slip of a needle in the middle of the night. Interesting comparison, but totally without merit in my opinion. Maybe we should let doctors euthanize with guns. That ought to be interesting. mh . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #33 December 2, 2004 QuoteA loud BANG, versus a quiet slip of a needle in the middle of the night. Interesting comparison, but totally without merit in my opinion. Maybe we should let doctors euthanize with guns. That ought to be interesting. I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. I responded to storm's suggestion that it is a slippery slope and that it will lead to euthanizing unwanted babies, or those with unwanted physical traits. Because people would keep pushing the envelope. My reply was on the same stupidity level as that idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #34 December 3, 2004 QuoteQuote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, as you know PK, movements start out small, and then become "normal and accepted" Then people push the envelope just a bit... then that become accepted and the Norm..... Then they push it again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exactly, firstly they will want guns to protect themselves. Then they will want bigger guns to kill animals. Then they will puch it a bit more and they'll want more guns to start killing some of the people society doesn't like. We all know it is a slippery slope and that basic gun ownership will eventually lead to all gun owners turning into uncontrollable murderers. the "slippery slope" mentality in action: stolen from Scott Adams: "If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he'll be lopping off your limbs!" Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lou_lou 0 #35 December 4, 2004 It's not a nice thought but after having worked with children who were born with various problems and disabilities I have to say that some children do have no kind of life no matter how much their parents love them. Sad but true. I agree with the doctors. Also, the Netherlands are pretty sorted on the euthanasia issue. I agree with a lot of what they do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ripple 0 #36 December 6, 2004 QuoteI don’t agree that it boils down to removing imperfections from the population.Ok, and I think it does. Not only this case, but the general desire for non-disabled people to not have to 'accept', 'cope' with disabled people, sometimes, admittedly, for very sound reasons. QuoteI grew up in the countryside at the height of Britain’s myxomatosis epidemic. From an early age I was acutely aware of the humanity inherent in a well-placed boot atop the head of a suffering bunny. As a child I dispatched many such a wretched creature. My action wasn’t motivated at all by a desire to eliminate myxi from the rabbit population, or because the animal was in any way host to undesirable, weak myxi-susceptible genes. I did it because the poor fucker was dying a slow, painful and miserable death – one which I would not have wish upon it. Removing it from the mortal coil in as quick a way as possible was the [I]most[/I] humane thing I could do. Even as an 8 year old child I understood the concept and without glee, embraced the practicality of it on a relatively regular basis. Absolutely the right thing to do, I've done the same. Infact, just the other week I wrung the neck of a pheasant that had been run over but not killed. However, I don't see how that compares to a disabled child's potential suffering. Nightingale's post was very enlightening.Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,141 #37 December 6, 2004 Quote, I don't see how that compares to a disabled child's potential suffering. IN the Dutch case this thread is about, it is not potential suffering it is actual suffering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #38 December 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am Pro-choice!!!! I know, conservative republican, but yes it is true.... I am pro life. Uhmmm, so are you pro-choice or pro-life? I have been away a few days... Didn't even notice I did that Dekker!!!! Thanks for picking it up! PRO-CHOICE is what I meant to say.... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #39 December 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am Pro-choice!!!! I know, conservative republican, but yes it is true.... I am pro life. Uhmmm, so are you pro-choice or pro-life? I have been away a few days... Didn't even notice I did that Dekker!!!! Thanks for picking it up! PRO-CHOICE is what I meant to say.... I really hate the play on words. You can change one's perception of something based simply on the way you say what it is. The "pro-choice" position implies that there isn't freedom of "choice" otherwise. There is always a choice and a decision to be made even with the "pro-life" stance. "Pro-choice" just removes the personal responsibility for a new human life from the equation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #40 December 6, 2004 Quote I really hate the play on words. You can change one's perception of something based simply on the way you say what it is. The "pro-choice" position implies that there isn't freedom of "choice" otherwise. There is always a choice and a decision to be made even with the "pro-life" stance. "Pro-choice" just removes the personal responsibility for a new human life from the equation. I agree with you. My conservative friends find my stance on abortion strange... as do my parents, since I am adopted and a conservative myself. I never really liked the term "Choice" but I can't think of a better term. My true belief is that I for one would not support an abortion with my Fiance' , but I for one won't stop someone else from making that decision for their own situation. That said, I think there are a lot of FUCKED UP laws out there that should be gotten rid of. First of all, if you are under 18 I think parental notification is a MUST! Also IMO second or Third term abortions are a no no... Obviously in some rare cases there are exceptions to the rule, but Once you know you are pregnant, and there is a question as to whether you will have that child, a decision needs to be made in a timely fashion. I am not one who believes life begins birth, but I am also not someone who believes live begins at conseption. Anyway... That is the catagory I fit in. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #41 December 6, 2004 QuoteHowever, I don't see how that compares to a disabled child's potential suffering. You don’t know it was only potential suffering. I don’t know it was definite. The only people who do know for sure are the doctors involved with that specific case. That’s the point – each of these are individual cases for which a blanket rule does not work; only a system that is flexible enough to empower physicians to do what is right in each instance. That child may well have been guaranteed a life of only a couple of weeks of agonizing pain. In which case my analogy is very apt and euthanasia should be a decision open to the parents and doctors. If the child could have lived much longer as in Nightingale’s links, then euthanasia will not have been the right call. Thing is, we weren’t there. We don’t have the info to second guess the doctor’s decision in that one particular case so we’re not able to sit here and condemn the actions taken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,147 #42 December 6, 2004 Pro-life is definitely one of those phrases. Because, well, it's really anti-abortion. It's what defines the group -- they are against legal abortions (with different exigent circumstances being the exception). Why is pro-life (which is far more all-encompassing as a term) more accurate? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #43 December 6, 2004 QuotePro-life is definitely one of those phrases. Because, well, it's really anti-abortion. It's what defines the group -- they are against legal abortions (with different exigent circumstances being the exception). Why is pro-life (which is far more all-encompassing as a term) more accurate? One promotes a culture of life with responsibility (i.e. Pro-life). The other promotes a culture of death and irresponsibility (i.e. Pro-choice). It is misleading. There is always a choice. A person “chooses” to have sex with the possibility of pregnancy. That’s the case whether you’re “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” It should also be pointed out that the developing human didn’t get a choice in the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #44 December 6, 2004 >It is misleading. There is always a choice. Most people understand that allowing people choice is "pro-choice", acting to remove their choices by making them illegal is "anti-choice." If I wanted to outlaw handguns, and called my stance a "pro-gun-choice" stance, would you agree with my moniker? After all, you could still CHOOSE to get a hunting rifle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #45 December 6, 2004 Quote>It is misleading. There is always a choice. Most people understand that allowing people choice is "pro-choice", acting to remove their choices by making them illegal is "anti-choice." If I wanted to outlaw handguns, and called my stance a "pro-gun-choice" stance, would you agree with my moniker? After all, you could still CHOOSE to get a hunting rifle. The baby killed in the process didn't get a choice in that "pro-choice" stance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #46 December 6, 2004 >The baby killed in the process didn't get a choice in that "pro-choice" stance. Nor do they get a choice if they are born with a fatal or crippling disease. The "choice" we are referring to is the choice of the woman carrying the fetus to determine what to do with it. I am in favor of the woman having that choice; you are against it. There are many good arguments to be made both ways, but trying to concoct new definitions to put your particular spin on the subject does not further any of those arguments. It would be like me calling you "pro-crippled-kids" because you advocate carrying hideously crippled fetuses to term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #47 December 6, 2004 QuoteNor do they get a choice if they are born with a fatal or crippling disease. The "choice" we are referring to is the choice of the woman carrying the fetus to determine what to do with it. I am in favor of the woman having that choice; you are against it. There are many good arguments to be made both ways, but trying to concoct new definitions to put your particular spin on the subject does not further any of those arguments. It would be like me calling you "pro-crippled-kids" because you advocate carrying hideously crippled fetuses to term. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in the term used. You're right. They don't get the "choice" not to be born crippled or with a terminal illness. That's not up to us. Neither should be the termination of their lives. In that, they have no "choice." That's not a really good comparison, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,147 #48 December 6, 2004 The hypocrisy of the term "pro-life" is at least as strong, and it works much harder at painting people who disagree in a negative light (am I really anti-life?). "Pro-life" are for the choice of limiting access to some forms of birth control, and limiting or eliminating abortions. You are for immature children with less-than-adequate parenting paying for their, and their parents', mistakes. Fine. But don't say that the people who disagree with you are anti-life. Life is precious, but we differ on when life really begins. I DO NOT BELIEVE LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. THERE IS PLENTY OF RATIONALE FOR THAT BELIEF. The potential for developing brain waves is there for every embryo and fertilized egg, but we don't count, monitor, and mourn every heavy period. We differ on what means a quality life. I might be wrong, I might be right. It might be that there's some overlap. But legislating it with linguistics is still manipulative. Pro-choice doesn't mean that you're pro-irresponsibility. Is it more responsible for a 14-year-old girl to raise a baby "because it loves me?" What good will that do the baby? Really responsible looks farther than the moment of birth for decisions. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Ripple 0 #36 December 6, 2004 QuoteI don’t agree that it boils down to removing imperfections from the population.Ok, and I think it does. Not only this case, but the general desire for non-disabled people to not have to 'accept', 'cope' with disabled people, sometimes, admittedly, for very sound reasons. QuoteI grew up in the countryside at the height of Britain’s myxomatosis epidemic. From an early age I was acutely aware of the humanity inherent in a well-placed boot atop the head of a suffering bunny. As a child I dispatched many such a wretched creature. My action wasn’t motivated at all by a desire to eliminate myxi from the rabbit population, or because the animal was in any way host to undesirable, weak myxi-susceptible genes. I did it because the poor fucker was dying a slow, painful and miserable death – one which I would not have wish upon it. Removing it from the mortal coil in as quick a way as possible was the [I]most[/I] humane thing I could do. Even as an 8 year old child I understood the concept and without glee, embraced the practicality of it on a relatively regular basis. Absolutely the right thing to do, I've done the same. Infact, just the other week I wrung the neck of a pheasant that had been run over but not killed. However, I don't see how that compares to a disabled child's potential suffering. Nightingale's post was very enlightening.Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #37 December 6, 2004 Quote, I don't see how that compares to a disabled child's potential suffering. IN the Dutch case this thread is about, it is not potential suffering it is actual suffering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #38 December 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am Pro-choice!!!! I know, conservative republican, but yes it is true.... I am pro life. Uhmmm, so are you pro-choice or pro-life? I have been away a few days... Didn't even notice I did that Dekker!!!! Thanks for picking it up! PRO-CHOICE is what I meant to say.... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #39 December 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am Pro-choice!!!! I know, conservative republican, but yes it is true.... I am pro life. Uhmmm, so are you pro-choice or pro-life? I have been away a few days... Didn't even notice I did that Dekker!!!! Thanks for picking it up! PRO-CHOICE is what I meant to say.... I really hate the play on words. You can change one's perception of something based simply on the way you say what it is. The "pro-choice" position implies that there isn't freedom of "choice" otherwise. There is always a choice and a decision to be made even with the "pro-life" stance. "Pro-choice" just removes the personal responsibility for a new human life from the equation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #40 December 6, 2004 Quote I really hate the play on words. You can change one's perception of something based simply on the way you say what it is. The "pro-choice" position implies that there isn't freedom of "choice" otherwise. There is always a choice and a decision to be made even with the "pro-life" stance. "Pro-choice" just removes the personal responsibility for a new human life from the equation. I agree with you. My conservative friends find my stance on abortion strange... as do my parents, since I am adopted and a conservative myself. I never really liked the term "Choice" but I can't think of a better term. My true belief is that I for one would not support an abortion with my Fiance' , but I for one won't stop someone else from making that decision for their own situation. That said, I think there are a lot of FUCKED UP laws out there that should be gotten rid of. First of all, if you are under 18 I think parental notification is a MUST! Also IMO second or Third term abortions are a no no... Obviously in some rare cases there are exceptions to the rule, but Once you know you are pregnant, and there is a question as to whether you will have that child, a decision needs to be made in a timely fashion. I am not one who believes life begins birth, but I am also not someone who believes live begins at conseption. Anyway... That is the catagory I fit in. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #41 December 6, 2004 QuoteHowever, I don't see how that compares to a disabled child's potential suffering. You don’t know it was only potential suffering. I don’t know it was definite. The only people who do know for sure are the doctors involved with that specific case. That’s the point – each of these are individual cases for which a blanket rule does not work; only a system that is flexible enough to empower physicians to do what is right in each instance. That child may well have been guaranteed a life of only a couple of weeks of agonizing pain. In which case my analogy is very apt and euthanasia should be a decision open to the parents and doctors. If the child could have lived much longer as in Nightingale’s links, then euthanasia will not have been the right call. Thing is, we weren’t there. We don’t have the info to second guess the doctor’s decision in that one particular case so we’re not able to sit here and condemn the actions taken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,147 #42 December 6, 2004 Pro-life is definitely one of those phrases. Because, well, it's really anti-abortion. It's what defines the group -- they are against legal abortions (with different exigent circumstances being the exception). Why is pro-life (which is far more all-encompassing as a term) more accurate? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #43 December 6, 2004 QuotePro-life is definitely one of those phrases. Because, well, it's really anti-abortion. It's what defines the group -- they are against legal abortions (with different exigent circumstances being the exception). Why is pro-life (which is far more all-encompassing as a term) more accurate? One promotes a culture of life with responsibility (i.e. Pro-life). The other promotes a culture of death and irresponsibility (i.e. Pro-choice). It is misleading. There is always a choice. A person “chooses” to have sex with the possibility of pregnancy. That’s the case whether you’re “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” It should also be pointed out that the developing human didn’t get a choice in the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #44 December 6, 2004 >It is misleading. There is always a choice. Most people understand that allowing people choice is "pro-choice", acting to remove their choices by making them illegal is "anti-choice." If I wanted to outlaw handguns, and called my stance a "pro-gun-choice" stance, would you agree with my moniker? After all, you could still CHOOSE to get a hunting rifle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #45 December 6, 2004 Quote>It is misleading. There is always a choice. Most people understand that allowing people choice is "pro-choice", acting to remove their choices by making them illegal is "anti-choice." If I wanted to outlaw handguns, and called my stance a "pro-gun-choice" stance, would you agree with my moniker? After all, you could still CHOOSE to get a hunting rifle. The baby killed in the process didn't get a choice in that "pro-choice" stance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #46 December 6, 2004 >The baby killed in the process didn't get a choice in that "pro-choice" stance. Nor do they get a choice if they are born with a fatal or crippling disease. The "choice" we are referring to is the choice of the woman carrying the fetus to determine what to do with it. I am in favor of the woman having that choice; you are against it. There are many good arguments to be made both ways, but trying to concoct new definitions to put your particular spin on the subject does not further any of those arguments. It would be like me calling you "pro-crippled-kids" because you advocate carrying hideously crippled fetuses to term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #47 December 6, 2004 QuoteNor do they get a choice if they are born with a fatal or crippling disease. The "choice" we are referring to is the choice of the woman carrying the fetus to determine what to do with it. I am in favor of the woman having that choice; you are against it. There are many good arguments to be made both ways, but trying to concoct new definitions to put your particular spin on the subject does not further any of those arguments. It would be like me calling you "pro-crippled-kids" because you advocate carrying hideously crippled fetuses to term. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in the term used. You're right. They don't get the "choice" not to be born crippled or with a terminal illness. That's not up to us. Neither should be the termination of their lives. In that, they have no "choice." That's not a really good comparison, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,147 #48 December 6, 2004 The hypocrisy of the term "pro-life" is at least as strong, and it works much harder at painting people who disagree in a negative light (am I really anti-life?). "Pro-life" are for the choice of limiting access to some forms of birth control, and limiting or eliminating abortions. You are for immature children with less-than-adequate parenting paying for their, and their parents', mistakes. Fine. But don't say that the people who disagree with you are anti-life. Life is precious, but we differ on when life really begins. I DO NOT BELIEVE LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. THERE IS PLENTY OF RATIONALE FOR THAT BELIEF. The potential for developing brain waves is there for every embryo and fertilized egg, but we don't count, monitor, and mourn every heavy period. We differ on what means a quality life. I might be wrong, I might be right. It might be that there's some overlap. But legislating it with linguistics is still manipulative. Pro-choice doesn't mean that you're pro-irresponsibility. Is it more responsible for a 14-year-old girl to raise a baby "because it loves me?" What good will that do the baby? Really responsible looks farther than the moment of birth for decisions. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
