Children can now be euthanized in the Netherlands.

Seeing as how the thread about The lawsuit to include religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers has turned toward the issue of abortion, I felt this news might be of interest.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) – A hospital in the Netherlands – the first nation to permit euthanasia – recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

Full Story

Personally I believe that everyone should be privy to euthanasia and seeing as an infant has only his parents to rely upon for such judgments, this would be a very humane way to eliminate the pain and agony that goes along with these types of births.  As long as the parents and doctors are working together I see no reason why The Groningen Protocol could not be implemented on a global scale.

As you can imagine, this has several anti-choiceabortion activists up in arms.  The issue has also attracted broader interest from groups claiming that this is a covert attempt to develop a supreme race or a slippery slope toward it at best.  Needless to say, these claims are extremely exaggerated as the legality of terminating and infants life is still the responsibility of the doctor and can only be carried out in terminal or severely debilitating cases.

While reading up on this issue I also discovered an article on why Abortion is biblical.  The author makes some very interesting points that those who have not fully read the bible will find interesting.

Oddly enough, the Vatican is none too pleased.

68 thoughts on “Children can now be euthanized in the Netherlands.

  1. Considering the Vatican issued a statement saying AIDS is a pathology of the soul, the Vatican can kiss my ass. Feh.

  2. The Christian fundamentalists have been ignoring mentions of abortion in Mosaic law for years and years now, as it doesn’t suit their Far Right political agenda.  This is type of ignorance is typical of this generally non-scholarly bunch.  Christians, by and large, tend to be uneducated in even the most basic history of their religion, never mind precepts.

    I peg this ignorance up with the same “Gee, you mean the Christian bible has grammatical errors in the original language?”  Yes, Christian, yes.

    Christians learn something new about their religion almost every day, often from non-Christian sources.  It’d be funny, if it weren’t so pathetic and dangerous to society at large.

    This is why Christians are a dangerous social group.

    rob@egoz.org

  3. One should keep in mind though that some of the people who oppose the euthanasia of infants with severe disorders are disabled rights groups.  Indeed, they also oppose abortions that are the result of prenatal tests.  They argue that ending the life (or potential life) of someone because they have a condition that we (abled body people) see as making life not worth living takes away from the value of those who live with disabilities.  I’m not sure I agree with that thesis but it’s one to consider.  It’s not just the religious right that are bitching about this one.

  4. I cannot for the life of me waste another second of my time reading elroy’s worthless agenda.  & you accuse me of reading the Bible with an agenda?!  I notice no one has even bothered to take the time to refute him it’s so ridiculous.

    I don’t see this having much to do with pro-choice, abortion issues.  These are fully formed babies & there is no way to measure their suffering.  What has always bothered me about this left/liberal rhetoric is that there’s an assumtion that there is no hope, & the government knows what’s best.

  5. I didn’t talk about McKinley because I thought Deadscot was just posting his views because they were funny.  Also, I grant that this issue isn’t about abortion.  I did suggest that it was a matter of the rights of the disabled and that there is some reason to consider it problematic to end the life of someone solely because we don’t think that life is worth living.

    I agree with you that McKinley is reading the bible with an agenda.  However, I do think that independent of what the bible says or doesn’t say there are other reasons to think that one should be able to choose whether one wants to have an abortion or not (even though I think one should choose not to).

    As for the issue of government knows best, it is in fact currently illegal for the hospital to be doing what it is.  The Dutch government is just taking the protocol suggested by the hospital under advisement and has failed to press charges against the hospital.  So I don’t think the argument is that the government knows best.  I don’t think there’s much of an argument in this thread yet, and there’s more of a hanging question regarding whether what the hospital done is in fact right.

  6. (ellie) I notice no one has even bothered to take the time to refute him it’s so ridiculous.

    Well, he doesn’t offend our scriptoral sensibilities…

    I don’t see this having much to do with pro-choice, abortion issues.

    It has plenty to do with these issues. Some severe malformations can be detected during pregnancy…

    These are fully formed babies & there is no way to measure their suffering.

    I believe you are speaking from ignorance. To remind you: “Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

    Perhaps we can’t measure their suffering, but only because the amount of it defies our imagination.

    Are you saying these newborns do not suffer?

    What has always bothered me about this left/liberal rhetoric is that there’s an assumtion that there is no hope, & the government knows what’s best.

    While this another one of these statements that doesn’t really deserve an answer, we are talking about decisions reached jointly by medical professionals and parents in The Netherlands, in a handful of cases each year.

  7. Swine – I tried to touch on the fact that more than just anti-abortion activists are rallying against this but thanks for reinforcing that point.

    I cannot for the life of me waste another second of my time reading elroy’s worthless agenda.  & you accuse me of reading the Bible with an agenda?!  I notice no one has even bothered to take the time to refute him it’s so ridiculous.

    Actually several people have taken the time to refute his position.  Obviously he had an agenda when composing the article but it’s no more worthless than a Christian Pastor using the bible to compose a sermon against abortion.

    I was merely trying to get across the point that multiple sides of an issue can be supported by scripture and one shouldn’t just assume that abortion isn’t biblical.  Two many people pick and choose scripture to fit their agenda instead of reading the entire book.

    I don’t see this having much to do with pro-choice, abortion issues.  These are fully formed babies & there is no way to measure their suffering.  What has always bothered me about this left/liberal rhetoric is that there’s an assumption that there is no hope, & the government knows what’s best.

    First off, there are many ways to measure pain and suffering with infants.

    As far as rhetoric, I really don’t see it here.  If the parents, working with their doctor, come to the conclusion that there is no hope for the child they are allowed to euthanize the child if the wish.  No one is forcing them to do so.  That would be a whole new thread.

    So, in your opinion, would you allow the child to suffer for weeks on end before their short life came to halt?  I also don’t see much hope for severely retarded child if the parents do not want him.  I haven’t been able to locate any statistics on the adoption rates for the severely handicapped but I would venture to guess that they’re rather low.

  8. elwe,

    diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

    As for spina bifida, I know some people who have had severe spina bifida who live very fulfilling lives despite the obstacles they face.  I’m not sure if spina bifida should be considered as sufficient reason for euthanasia.  On the other hand epidermosis bullosa is terrible and if I had it I would want someone to put me out of my misery.

  9. As for spina bifida, I know some people who have had severe spina bifida who live very fulfilling lives despite the obstacles they face. I’m not sure if spina bifida should be considered as sufficient reason for euthanasia.

    Granted, but I don’t believe anybody is making a blanket judgement. The question is whether or not the obstacles deem unsurmountable in a particular case.

  10. The problem I see is that someone has to make that judgment for someone else.  I’m not sure that parents should have the right to decide whether their child’s quality of life will be so bad that it is better for them to die.  I do grant that families do have some rights regarding the fate of the terminally ill, if the terminally ill person cannot make their wishes known.  However, when the person is just severely disabled and not at risk of or facing immanent unavoidable death I’m not sure that families, and I am certain that doctors, are in the position to make those life and death kind of choices.  Anyhow, I’m just talking out of my ass, I don’t really have any reason for holding the view that I do, it’s just my pre-critical opinion.

  11. As for spina bifida, I know some people who have had severe spina bifida who live very fulfilling lives despite the obstacles they face.

    Pig, I agree with you that these are difficult decisions to make, and I don’t envy anyone put in that position.  I would say there’s no hard and fast line one can draw- it’s a continuum, and that makes it difficult.  I don’t believe there even exists “the best thing to do” sometimes- how can we say just how much pain is necessary before a life is not worth living?  As far as spina bifida goes, my POSSLQ works with handicapped kids, including some with spina bifida.  Mild forms are manageable, but the really severe cases don’t survive infancy.  The most extreme form is anencephaly, where most of the brain is absent at birth.  A continuum.  No easy answers.

  12. Pig, what zilch said.

    The hardest things for a parent to take is to see your child in pain. The young ones have no clue what’s happening to them, have only limited facility to communicate their problem, and rely completely on you to fix things for them.

    Now, if you are saying that parents should not have a say in the amount of needless suffering they expose their children and themselves to, I would have to conclude that you are not a parent yourself.

    There is clearly a continuum and we seem to be addressing different ends of it…

  13. CWA has some (mis)information concerning this article as well:

    Experts in euthanasia and assisted suicide were not surprised by the news. The fact is that a 1997 study in the British medial journal, the Lancet, revealed that doctors in the Netherlands were killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who die each year. One-fifth of these killings were done without the consent of the parents. The study found that 45 percent of neonatologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.

    Another study revealed that in 1990 an average of three people per day were actively killed by doctors without the patients’ knowledge or consent.

    “The Netherlands’ slide into the bottom of this immoral abyss should set off alarms in every state against enacting a so-called Death with Dignity Act, such as Oregon has done,

  14. i don’t even know where to start. i am as left wing as it gets. i am 110% for a woman’s right to choose and 110% AGAINST organized religion. those are not the issues here. granted, abortion holds a certain relevance, but still, let’s focus.

    here’s the deal; there is a BIG difference between killing babies with DISABILITIES, (physical OR mental,) and EUTHANIZING babies with conditions that are KNOWN TO BE TERMINAL, and/or physically excruciating. i believe the only reason we as human beings should ever end a baby, child, person’s life, is to alleviate their unimaginable physical pain. that is merciful, not murderous. in a situation like that, such a decision should be left up to the family and doctors. it’s no one’s business but their own. that being said, ending a baby’s life merely on the basis of physical imperfections, i.e. deformities, spina bifida, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, etc, is completely and utterly immoral and repulsive. i’m sorry your child isn’t perfect. being a parent isn’t about only loving and taking care of your kid if they’re healthy. shit happens, and if you chose to have the baby in the first place, you should damn well take care of him or her through think and thin. children deserve that. or, hell, you can give them up for adoption. foster care, group homes, anything. there are loving people out there who are looking to foster a special needs child. my point is this: parents should not be allowed to say, “oh, man, our kid has this really weird spine thing. he’ll never be able to walk. because of this, he will probably suffer greatly later in life and things would just be too hard for him. let’s put him out of his misery.” that isn’t their choice to make, and it pisses me off just thinking about it. HOWEVER, i COMPLETELY support a parent/caregiver’s right to end a child’s suffering in certain cases, as i mentioned previously. It just seems to me, as someone who’s had a disease that sucks a whole lot, that life, as shitty as it is sometimes, is ultimately a gift. disgustingly cliché as it is, I still hold it to be true. I think babies, unless there is no hope for them to ever lead a life without insurmountable pain and suffering, should have a chance to grow up and experience life for themselves before they croak

    it’s a terribly complicated subject. nothing is black and white…

  15. zilch, elwe,

    Maybe you guys are right.  I just sort of have an immediate response of “that’s just wrong!” when I hear about cases where people are being euthanized without their explicit consent (even in the case of infants).  I think it just seems to me that everyone has a right to autonomy (even those who are unable to express those rights), then again I do grant that parents should have some rights to make decisions for their children, and perhaps those rights even extend to cases that we’re discussing.  I just have a gut reaction against it.

  16. Laurenzo said: there is a BIG difference between killing babies with DISABILITIES, (physical OR mental,) and EUTHANIZING babies with conditions that are KNOWN TO BE TERMINAL, and/or physically excruciating.

    Laurenzo, I’m very left too- in fact, I’m so left that I’m right and then left again.  And I basically agree with the tenor of what you said.  However, your drawing of a line between the disabled and the terminal babies is, unfortunately, not always possible.  Would that it were so easy!  As I said, there is a continuum here, and there are cases where it’s not at all obvious what the “better” course of action is, or if it’s even meaningful to say what’s “better”.  I wouldn’t presume to draw a line.  Hard choices are unavoidable.

  17. I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe life is a gift and an opportunity.  I believe children are meant to be a blessing, even when the incredible cruelties of life make it difficult sometimes (and for some, often) to perceive what the blessing is meant to be. 

    Having said that, the decision to prolong or shorten a child’s suffering (not disability) rests solely with the parent.  Too many doctors are willing to take on that responsibility, and allow someone else to live with the result.  Doctors know a lot of stuff, and should share the benefit of that knowlege with the parent(s), even to the point of “informed consent.”  But the choice is up to the parent.

    Too many parents are willing to cede their responsibility to the smart doctor in the white coat, without acknowleging docs can make mistakes and the family may have to live with the consequences.  Parents should be willing to become informed enough to make the hard decisions.

    Who is my kids’ primary health care provider?  I am – I’m there every day, aware of what they eat, how they go about hygiene, what healthy/at risk behaviors I model/teach/expect.  Should something go terribly wrong with their health, then we as a family will have to deal with it.  And we should make the choices that affect what we have to live with.

  18. I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe life is a gift and an opportunity.  I believe children are meant to be a blessing, even when the incredible cruelties of life make it difficult sometimes (and for some, often) to perceive what the blessing is meant to be.

    Blessing is a very subjective word.  Couldn’t it be construed as a blessing by some parents that they had a doctor that was willing to perform this type of procedure so that they would be able to move on with their lives?

    Too many doctors are willing to take on that responsibility, and allow someone else to live with the result.

    I wondered about that when writing this entry and I was only to find anecdotal evidence.  If you have found more compelling evidence to support that opinion I would be excited to see it.

  19. Kelly,

    Too many parents are willing to cede their responsibility to the smart doctor in the white coat, without acknowleging docs can make mistakes and the family may have to live with the consequences.  Parents should be willing to become informed enough to make the hard decisions.

    Now there’s something I’d sign my name to in a heartbeat.

  20. Couldn’t it be construed as a blessing by some parents that they had a doctor that was willing to perform this type of procedure so that they would be able to move on with their lives?

    Yes.
    That’s my answer. Although I (personally) find the phrase “be able to move on with their lives” distateful, I don’t argue or disagree that such an attitude exists, but neither would I choose to minimize the pain of losing a child, irrespective of circumstances.

    Too many doctors are willing to take on that responsibility, and allow someone else to live with the result.

    I’m not sure the intent of your question, so forgive me if what I provide misses the mark. An unsatisfactory answer is found earlier in this thread, in Brock’s quote from CWA…

    One-fifth of these killings were done without the consent of the parents.

    But here is link to several other examples, portions of which are excerpted below:
    http://www.righttoliferoch.org/weuth01.htm

    Based on their findings, they estimated that 1. percent of all deaths in Belgium could be directly attributed to euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, 3.2 percent were as a result of lethal injections without the patient’s explicit request, and 5.8 percent were the result of a doctor withholding treatment with the intention of ending the patient’s life.

    “I have witnessed doctors who want to keep beds clear by withdrawing treatment or actively assisting in death to the point where it becomes involuntary euthanasia,’’ a junior doctor told the Sunday London Times.

    Some elderly patients were allowed to die merely on the basis of their age, while others were given high doses of diamorphine, a heroin-based drug, to accelerate their death, Rita Pal, 28, told the newspaper. Pal said she was leaving the profession because of such practices, and said she intended to present the General Medical Council with a dossier listing several incidents of abuse and neglect of elderly patients.

    deadscot:
    Actually several people have taken the time to refute his position.  Obviously he had an agenda when composing the article but it’s no more worthless than a Christian Pastor using the bible to compose a sermon against abortion.

    May I trouble you to point me to some links?  Thanks! I have my own opinion as to how to refute some of his arguments, but it doesn’t appear to be relevant to the bulk of this thread.  Just as well; I need to sleep more often, I’m thinking.

  21. And this really is tongue in cheek, but I thought it was funny.

    Euthanasia: a choice for doctors
    by Elaine Belkind and Beverly Slapin
    copyright 1994, Mouth magazine
    When doctors graduate from medical school, who should decide if they live or die? The parents? The patients? The government?

    http://www.normemma.com/areut_fordocs.htm

  22. Deadscot,

    Too many doctors are willing to take on that responsibility, and allow someone else to live with the result.

    Ever since I started to pay attention to parenting issues, I found plenty of anecdotal evidence that parents do not sufficiently question the medical advice given to them – ourselves included, once.

    In the context of this thread, however, it is up to the party making allegations to back them up – particularly the CWA article.

  23. Kelly wrote:  May I trouble you to point me to some links?  Thanks! I have my own opinion as to how to refute some of his arguments, but it doesn’t appear to be relevant to the bulk of this thread.

    Since I did make the statement, I should have inserted a couple of links to begin with.  As you can see when reading through the rebuttals, one can extract certain portions of the bible to support both sides of the abortion issue.

  24. All, I am so left you can’t believe it, but then again, I am a European. This thread was the first I could find where euthanasia and abortion is discussed in a grown up manner.
    I don’t know how those trackback thingies work, here is what I wrote about the euthanasia discussion:
    the Dutch are not killing their babies
    It would seem like the US en the Netherlands are more than oceans apart.

  25. Man you people are twisted! Get a few things straight! Abrotion and Euthanasia are unmoral sick and agianst the universal “law of life”. Well i don’t blame you all that you are twisted, because you’ve grown up in the dirupted and ruined morally Western Europe. Abortion was idea that inspired communist to destroy the population and people in Cenral Europe and if Western Europe doesn’t understand this quickly it will eliminate dozens and dozens of human lifes. Besides only Dutch can be so idiotic and accept abortian and then say that they have too little man power to keep the economy working high. Also history teaches us(for those who learn) that killing newborns leads to distrution of any civilisation that practises this act. So people don’t say that abortion is okay and so on, because seriously, you people know jack, completely nothing, i guess you don’t even know more than 50% of your rights. Besides every thinking and intelligent human knows that killing newborns is like being an animal that eats it’s young.

  26. In what way naive max?? The way I wrote this might sound childish, but try to understand the sense. Europe is starting to have problems of a moral nature. Killing newborns, you destroy the natural system of life. Women shouldn’t have abortion on demand. Just look at the statistics, counties that haven’t accepted it have a death toll(infants) below 200 a year(mainly caused by rapes or sytuaions that could endanger the life of the mother) and countries that have it, have a death toll above a few thousand a year. Besides do we really need abortion on demand?? Does it give anyone satisfaction or anything else??

  27. Jahool, do a little research before making sweeping statements.  Here are some eye-opening statistics from 1990.

    Country Abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44* Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births
    Where abortion is legal
    United States 26 12
    England/Wales 15 9
    Netherlands 6 12
    Finland 10 11
    Japan 14 18
    Australia 17 9
    Where abortion is illegal
    Brazil 38 220
    Colombia 34 100
    Chile 45 65
    Dominican Republic 44 110
    Mexico 23 110
    Peru 52 280
    *Data are for 1990; age-group is 15-49 in countries where abortion is illegal. Sources: Abortion rates are from S. Singh and S.K. Henshaw, “The Incidence of Abortion: A Worldwide Overview Focusing on Methodology and on Latin America,” paper delivered at International Union for the Scientific Study of Population Seminar on Socio-Cultural and Political Aspects of Abortion from an Anthropological Perspective, Trivandrum, India, Mar. 25-28, 1996; maternal death rates are from P. Adamson, “A Failure of Imagination,” The Progress of Nations: 1996, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New York, 1996.

    The World Health Organization estimates that about 20 million clandestine abortions occur each year, the vast majority in South and Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Any serious efforts to reduce either the overall number of abortions in these countries or the almost 600,000 maternal deaths each year—about 80,000 as a direct result of unsafe, illegally performed abortions—cannot succeed by making abortion there “more illegal.”

    If the main effect of abortion’s legal status is on its safety, not its likelihood, then abortion rates of various countries must be explained by other factors. The two most important ones are the extent to which women are at risk of unwanted pregnancy (which depends largely on how many children they want and how strongly they feel about it) and the prevalence and effectiveness of contraceptive use. Abortion rates are believed to be low in some Islamic countries, for example, because couples there still want to have large families and because the consequences of sex outside marriage are very severe for women. At the opposite end of the legal and cultural spectrum, the abortion rate is low in the Netherlands, but for completely different reasons. Dutch women want very small families and high rates of premarital sexual activity prevail, but because of widespread reliance on effective contraception, abortion is uncommon.

    http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib19.html

      Now isn’t it strange that of the groupings of six countries, those where abortion is legal and those where it is not, only one of the countries where it is illegal had a lower abortion rate than the highest ranking country where it is legal.  In addition, the maternal mortality rates for those countries who had criminalized abortion were 5 to 20 times higher than the countries with legal abortion.  In 1990, 80,000 women died from having an illegal abortion in that country.  Also note that the 2005 approximated infant mortality rate for these areas is roughly 5 times more than those of America per the CIA factbook.
      Prohibition never works whether it is guns, drugs, abortions, or whatever as history has proven again and again.  The best course of action is education and offering alternatives (e.g., contraception to avoid unwanted or dangerous pregnancies).
      As for euthanasia, a pet owner who had a pet with a terminal illness or in unremitting agony with no possibility of surcease would be considered immoral and possibly even arrested for animal cruelty for failure to euthanize his pet.  Shouldn’t humans be accorded the same mercy?

  28. Jahool, childish isn’t the word I would use. Willfully uneducated and void of empathy comes closer.

    Come back when you understand that the Groningen Protocol concerns mercy killings of newborns that suffer from excruciatingly painful diseases which would require permanent sedation for what little life expectancy these children would have. The protocol has nothing to with abortion and I for one couldn’t care less about your opinions on that topic.

  29. Thank you to deadscot for posting this.

    I might have never have heard about this story otherwise.

    I think this is a wonderful thing that people are finally waking up and realizing that being merciful should always include allowing people the right to death as well as life.

    Allowing these little ones to die without suffering should be made law the world over.

    The selfish anti-choice Bible thumpers sicken me but what can we expect from a group of people who simply are incapable of empathy for others because they are obsessed with their own superior holiness.

    Great article.

    Regards,

    Deoxy.

  30. Listen i don’t know where you guys get your statistics, but from what I saw in a number of case the Netherland, had a very high rate. Hey elwedriddsche I don’t think I’m uneducated, so far I lived in 4 countries and lern’t their languages and i’m not even over 18. Maybe my English has rusted and that the reason my texts do no look vey covincing, but my knowledge is bloody rich. I can accept alto of things and i’m very tolerant, but abortion is just too drastic. When I hear that someone says it should be “fully” legal, I just don’t get it, overall it is killing a fetus-a human. And no, people haven’t got the right to diside about their death. Life is gift(btw i don’t mean a gift from God) and should be respected. Besides look again at other statistics in major archives,  very Catholic countries such as Poland and Mexico have a really low rate of abortions done legally and illegally! Below 200 like a last said. I believe that abortion can be accepted in: rape cases, heavy embryo defects and uncurable diseases and in situations that endanger the life of the mother(all proved and backed-up by qualified personnel). Like I said my views are in a way tolerant. The only thing that should not be accepted is “abortion on demand” mainly practised by people who(eg.) keep on uncontrollably jerking-off with many partners                                 and unexpectidly the flyass of the show finds out she’s pregnant and decides that an abortion is the thing to do – these types of situations are from my piont of view are unresponsible and not in place. People should know what they are doing and not behave like little senseless animals and so on…….

  31. Eric C. Paulsen:

    Mmmmmmmm…young.

    Check.

    Jahool, you are uneducated about the topic of this thread and the number of countries you claim you’ve lived in doesn’t change that. Why don’t you read up on what the Groningen Protocol is all about (hint: it’s not abortion) and come back when you have something pertinent to contribute?

    By the way, a gift can be refused by the recipient. That analogy didn’t work out too well, eh.

  32. I’ve got a question for you Jahool:

    Is a four-month pregnant woman in a carpool lane one person or two? How about at nine months? Still one, or two people?

  33. Not that this should bear explanation, but I can’t think of any country in which abortion is freely practiced (not even in the richest parts of Canada) that abortion does not have it’s costs. Abortion can both potentially be stupid and useful. Anyone who has used abortion carelessly knows that contraceptives are a lot cheaper, for instance. Gainsay who dare, the option to kill something (regardless of what that something is) has always been viable. But it’s not usually a good option and is typically avoided for obvious reasons. It depends purely on the situation and the culture at that place and time as to who gets killed, why, and what the effects are.

    That granted, this isn’t about abortion. Enough said.

  34. Brock it depends on how you look at it. If you loot at the woman as if she were somekind of physical matter then yes she is one, but if you look at how many lives she represents then she is two. You can’t look at things surounding you so materialy and externaly, because there is always more to it.

    I didn’t read the thread carefully and thought it was about abortion. Heh sorry for the the trouble wink

  35. If you loot at the woman as if she were somekind of physical matter then yes she is one, but if you look at how many lives she represents then she is two.

    I probably wouldn’t loot at the woman, instead away from her unless she wanted some of the loot.

    And yes I do consider her some kind of physical matter. In fact, depending how far along in her pregnancy she may be, she has collected more matter than earlier in her pregnancy.

    Whether she is two depends on whether the extra matter she has collected so far could survive apart from her. Just as if she were to cut off a leg to shed some matter, that leg would not survive on it’s on and neither would a fetus unless either were hooked up to some sort of mechanical life support. Of course with the leg gone, the mother would likely need to be on life support for a while too.

    You can’t look at things surounding you so materialy and externaly, because there is always more to it.

    The “more” that’s to it is only what you afford it and that’s the reason why I asked the question. Some who say life begins at inception and consider that bundle of matter a separate being would balk at a four-month pregnant woman using a carpool lane designed to encourage ride sharing. They would accuse her of circumventing the rules.

    Granted, most abortions are preformed before the third month of pregnancy, yet fetal self- survival (with mechanical life-assist) is generally not expected until the mother is well into five months of her pregnancy. The brain of the fetus is useless until the six month stage when interlinking of the brain’s neurons begins.

    So, at four months, the mother is only planning another person.

  36. Brock you still look at the woman as if she were just physical matter. Think of her like in the second part of my post: “if you look at how many lives she represents then she is two”. Like you said the interlinking of the brain’s neurons begins in the sixth month, but it still exist and it’s on the road to become a human even directly after the egg cell is fertilized. I understand your vision on this case, try to understand my side. Also keep in mind that your mother could have treated you like matter and then you wouldn’t have been here. Besides I don’t suppose you think of yourself as just plain matter.

  37. Jahool writes…

    Brock you still look at the woman as if she were just physical matter. Think of her like in the second part of my post: “if you look at how many lives she represents then she is two

  38. Thanks, Les. I can always depend on you to say it intelligently.

    To be honest, Jahool, my mom did treat me as just plain matter a lot of the time I was growing up. Either that or playing head games with me. That’s why I think a responsible abortion option is so important. My mom couldn’t have imagined that being an option for her with my dad in control.

    I asked him once why he had me when it seemed I was unwanted, at least by my mom, and his answer was that it was up to God whether I was born or not.

    No, it’s NOT up to a god. It’s up to the partners in sex. If you can’t find enough love for all your kids then use contraception. One more kid isn’t going to make things better.

    I didn’t say all this to garner sympathy but to suggest that the quality of one’s life is equally as important as one having life to begin with.

    If you want to get on a high horse about life being a gift and all, then teach others to create life responsibly. An undesired gift is worse than no gift at all and I wouldn’t have known that I wasn’t given.

  39. The problem with the so-called “pro-life” crowd is that they don’t actually VALUE life.

    To value something, you have to treat it as special; you don’t just throw it around indiscriminately.  You don’t “choose life” because it’s the default God position, whether you actually want it or not.  You don’t force people to have babies no matter whether they can give them a good life or not.  You don’t bring life into the world reflexively, just because you can, just because you weren’t thinking, just because your condom broke.  That’s not valuing life; that’s littering, and you’re doing it with innocent human beings who didn’t ask to be litter.

    In my view, human life is special enough that it should be chosen wisely and deliberately.  It shouldn’t be produced like a sneeze.  Irretrievably violent psychopaths in our society don’t deserve life; it’s too good for them.  A baby who is going to suffer horribly before dying shouldn’t have to be forced into that so-called brief “life.”  Letting someone be born and then throwing them out on the adoption trash heap (or worse, keeping them but subjecting them to an abusive life) is just plain criminal.  We’re not “gifted” with children; we create them ourselves, and we must do so knowledgeably and with full responsibility for our actions—no blaming it on an invisible deity.

    (T)he quality of one’s life is equally as important as one having life to begin with.

    Exactly.  We owe our children the responsibility to care for them and give them the best possible life that we can.

  40. People I know some situations in life are hard, but we have to be better than the average standard, show that we can do more. Our parents have made mistakes in their lives and I bet they are sorry for it(they might not show it but deep inside they are in great pain) and we also have to be better than they are. So what if our mothers might treat us like matter(yes it hurts and we feel bad about it), but should we then go in her footsteps and then treat our children like matter. I wouldn’t and could not. We are on this world to make it better for the future generations by learning from history and not making those same mistakes like in the past. Accepting and supporting the system around you just because you where born, raised and effected by it doesn’t make you a better person. Europe has ans large chance in having a growth rate crisis. Just becauise matter called the fetus is being liquidated. Every human has a chance to change things around him even if he hasn’t for eg. ever seen his parents and was treated like rubbish, even that kind of human can become a loving parent. What we do with our lives depends from us. Our mother and father will pass away leaving a positive or naegative history of their life and offspring, me, you and all of us. We can choose to continue our parents behaviour and not go foward into the future or we can create our own miniculture.

    If you want to really take a different look at her, however, then we could successfully argue that she is more than just two lives, but billions upon billions as each and every cell in her body—with the exception of the outer layers of skin, finger and toe nails, and hair—are individual living creatures

    Listen you’ve got it a bit wrong and you don’t seem seriuos about what you wrote, because a cell is an elemental structural and functional unit of an organism. A human being has a start like everything(plants, protista, mushrooms, bakteria, animals) and you can’t just say that start is a bunch of nonessential cells. They are special and have a meaning, that meaning is to breate a new life. I’m not very interested if some stupid fly-*ss or someone irresponsible gets pregnant. It’s their fault it happend and should face the consequences and troubles that lie ahead. Running, screaming, panniking and fighting is easy evryone can act so primitively. Showing you can undertake and fix up a problem silently and calmly proves you are mature. Yeah maturity – thats what todays civilization is forgeting. Eveyone wants to work and play and they forget about what is a real family not mentioning religious values.

    I didn’t say all this to garner sympathy but to suggest that the quality of one’s life is equally as important as one having life to begin with.

    Brock, I don’t think no one normal will show you sypathy after what you wrote. You have a life it might have begun horribly but you have you hands and head and the abilty to forget and go straight ahead. Many things are up to God, I just don’t understand link does this have with our birth. If abortion wasn’t an option for your mom then whats the problem. You were born. God could have desided if you were to be born dead or alive(just an example) It’s free will that gave you life(being in your parents place) Thats a pinch of what I can say for now.

  41. a cell is an elemental structural and functional unit

    that can be cloned into a full organism. It worked for Dolly and I doubt there’s a technical impediment to make it work for humans. So, don’t scrape the inside of your cheeks when you brush your teeth – you’re killing off gazillions of possible clones of yours. Potential life, in short.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.