Belgium's parliament votes through child euthanasia


#1

I am speechless with revulsion and horror at this new degree of inhumanity…

BBC - Belgium’s parliament votes through child euthanasia

Parliament in Belgium has passed a bill allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children without any age limit, by 86 votes to 44, with 12 abstentions.

When, as expected, the bill is signed by the king, Belgium will become the first country in the world to remove any age limit on the practice.

It may be requested by terminally ill children who are in great pain and who have no treatment available.

Opponents argue children cannot make such a difficult decision.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26181615


#2

Nazi Germany has returned…good job Belguim! :mad::mad::mad:


#3

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Peace


#4

Unquestionably demonic. Ba’al is hard at work in Europe demanding his infant sacrifices.


#5

This is an abomination. :mad: :crying: :banghead: :signofcross:


#6

I wonder if they will try something here in the US regarding this? Seems plasible given our “desires” to think all things European are hip and happening :shrug:

I hardly have words anymore to describe the utter horror at what I see in our world.

St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and
snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God, thrust into hell satan,
and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.


#7

This is the logical result of abortion.

This will more often than not be parents forcing there children to be euthanized, or the state doing it.

Hitler would be proud.

Lord, have mercy on us.


#8

This is sick. So a toddler is supposed to be able to decide if he wants to live or not? Or is it now the parents who get to decide that? What if the parents are ill informed by the doctor, or the doctor is mistaken? The kid will get killed for no reason! (Not that killing him if he really is terminal is a good reason. Both are disgusting. :mad:)

And what’s to stop it from going from the parents decision to solely the doctors decision? The doctor might decide this child won’t live anyway, so no point treating him. Where do we draw the line! :mad: :banghead:

What about the fact that terminally ill children sometimes do get better!? I know. I was one myself. The doctors told my parents I wouldn’t survive past three years old. What if they had decided they didn’t want me to suffer anymore? Would they have killed me? I know at that age I wasn’t capable of deciding what I wanted, I didn’t even know what death was!

Agh! What are we coming to! Life means nothing anymore. Not even our children’s lives. :frowning: Pure evil.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world. :signofcross: :gopray:


#9

Wish we could declare war on Belgium and force them to recant. Of course, we’d need to be a good, moral country to even want to do that in the first place.

God help the kids. God help them all. I hate humanity sometimes.


#10

:thumbsup:


#11

As in Nazi Germany, it begins with “freely chosen” adult euthanasia as part of so-called “mercy killings” and ends with the state-sanctioned killing of children. This tragic outcome was inevitable once Belgium chose to go down the slippery slope.

Consider the “nice” way in which the National Socialists in the Third Reich tried to portray Euthanasia, so as to convince the German people that it was an act of mercy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_klage_an

Ich klage an (Eng: I Accuse) is a 1941 German pro-euthanasia propaganda film directed by Wolfgang Liebeneiner.[1]

It was banned by Allied powers after the war

A woman suffering from multiple sclerosis pleads with doctors to kill her.[3] Her husband gives her a fatal overdose, and is put on trial, where arguments are put forth that prolonging life is sometimes contrary to nature, and that death is a right as well as a duty.[4] It culminates in the husband’s declaration that he is accusing them of cruelty for trying to prevent such deaths.[5]

This film was commissioned by Goebbels at the suggestion of Karl Brandt to make the public more supportive of the Reich’s T4 euthanasia program, and presented simultaneously with the practice of euthanasia in Nazi Germany.[6] The actual victims of the Nazi euthanasia program Action T4 were in fact killed without their consent, in the absence of their families.[7] Indeed, one cinema goer compared it to the program and asked how abuses could be prevented from creeping in.[8]

SS reported that the churches were uniformly negative on the movie, with Catholics expressing it more strongly but Protestants being equally negative.[9] Opinion in medical circles was rather positive, though bringing up cases where patients thought to be incurable had recovered.[10] Legal professions were anxious that it be placed on legal ground, and the general population was supportive.[11]

If this film were produced today, it would probably become an international box-office hit; with critics praising it for its “deep, heartfelt, compassionate message” or such like.

In fact, only last month there was a plotline in the UK soap “Coronation Street” that provoked outrage (thankfully) from British audiences. One of the well-loved characters was diagnosed with terminal cancer and decided to take her own life by poisoning herself, with her “loving” husband’s support. I am glad to say that viewers phoned in to complain in droves.

I thought that the Second World War was supposed to have abolished forever such abominable “Nazi-style” medical practices? :frowning:


#12

More:

…What important lessons can the Nazi euthanasia program of children during the 1930s teach health care decision makers and practicing physicians in the 21st century? In the article published in the Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health in October 2011 "From small beginnings: The euthanasia of children with disabilities in Nazi Germany", Dr. Lee Hudson estimates between 5000 and 8000 children with physical and intellectual disabilities were killed in Nazi Germany under the euthanasia program. The program involved medical staff, including pediatricians.

At Nuremberg, the American psychiatrist Dr. Leo Alexander gave his medical expertise which was published in the July 14, 1949 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. He recalled that in Nazi Germany, crimes and atrocities began "from small beginnings". Questioning the value of the life of certain individuals provided the framework for doctors to kill severely disabled children. Eventually, the program expanded to include older children with disabilities, sick adults, socially unproductive citizens, and, finally, all the perceived opponents of the regime.

Read more: digitaljournal.com/pr/1611465#ixzz2lxH3Fgys

One of the “liberals” in the Belgian parliament tried to frame this legalization of child euthanasia in terms of “mercy”. Yeah, and where have we heard that before?

In 1933 most Germans rejected so called “Mercy killings” (euthanasia). Then Goebbels produced a movie called “I Accuse.” In this emotive feature film an intelligent, talented, beautiful woman involved in a love triangle is dying of an incurable disease. She begs to be allowed to commit suicide. Her husband assists her and is charged with murder. The film ends with the man in court making an impassioned plea for the law to be changed to accept euthanasia. After the release of this film, which most Germans saw, public opinion in Germany shifted to where the majority now supported euthanasia (the killing of the aged or infirm).

As a result, Hitler ordered the killing of mentally and physically disabled patients. Hitler termed them “life unworthy of life.” One of his justifications was that the cost of keeping them alive in asylums and hospitals was too great.

It is in situations like this that one understands the grave need for a strong and effective pro-life movement to remind people of the inalienable dignity of human persons from a culture of death.


#13

That’s interesting.

I’m hoping that this doesn’t come up again for awhile here in MA. It barely got voted down. I was a bit worried. The campaign also focused on mercy and compasion. I think it was called the Death with Dignity act or something like that.


#14

We have a Democrat in Las Vegas working to get a so called Death with Dignity act passed here.:mad:

We live in a tragic world. God help us.


#15

:sad_yes:


#16

Belgium is literally digging its own grave. Lord have mercy!


#17

I sympathise entirely with your point and agree with you in principle, although I doubt that even more slaying of innocent lives through the evil of war would help the deteriorating situation of our world any more. Violence begets violence.

Nevertheless, you remind me of something Churchill once said. While he supported sterilization of certain people in 1910 when he was young and impressionable, like many among the elite of his time, Winston Churchill later changed his mind entirely and became very cognisant not only of the promises but of the danger posed by modern science, especially Nazi “perverted science”.

To this end, I was reminded for the purposes of this discussion of Churchill’s great “Finest Hour” speech of 1940, when he attempted to rally the British people to continue the war against Nazi Germany. He wanted to let them know that as a nation they had a civilization and a culture to protect that a German victory would forever destroy. He emphasised the Nazi misuse of science for inhumane ends as one of the reasons why Britain had to fight and win at all costs:

"…I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. **Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science**. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour…"

- Winston Churchill, “Finest Hour” speech, delivered to the British Parliament on the 18th June 1940

One of his biographers noted:

“…To Churchill, the advances in science were a mixed blessing…As Churchill put it, “On the one hand, science opens up a chasm of self-destruction. On the other hand, she displays a vision of plenty and comfort”. It was Churchill’s appreciation of the potential benefit and misuse of modern science that led him to make one of his starkest warnings about the spectre of a Nazi triumph, in his “Finest Hour” speech of 1940…He had worried about “the sombre path of destructive science” as early as 1925, long before Hitler and his perverted scientists arrived on the scene…Churchill returned to this theme again and again. In the 1946 Iron Curtain speech he said, “The Dark Ages may return - the Stone Age may return on the gleaming wings of science”…”

- James C. Humes, Churchill: The Prophetic Statesman

Another intriguing titbit about that speech (which happens to be my favourite ever speech by any war leader ever) is this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_was_their_finest_hour

…even at a moment of great apparent danger to British national survival talks not only of national survival and national interest, but of noble causes (freedom, ‘Christian civilisation’, the rights of small nations) for which Britain was fighting and for which Churchill thought the United States should – and given time would – fight…

The speech was delivered to the Commons at 3:49 pm,[6] and lasted 36 minutes. Churchill – as was his habit – made revisions to his 23-page typescript right up to and during the speech. The final passage of his typescript was laid out in blank verse format, which Churchill scholars consider reflective of the influence of Old Testament psalms on his oratory style


#18

the words child and euthanasia shoudl never appear side by side in the ssame sentence.

just when people claim that the developed world is more civilized than it was in the past, i’m honestly not sure about that.

but sadly, not surprised, this is the expansion of abortion and the result it was eventually going to lead to. i’m sure i’m not the only one who saw this coming?

lord please have mercy, i have no idea how he stands us humans sometimes.

and the rest of you are right, it won’t stop here, who deccided that they had the right to decide which person’s life was valuable or not? all for money’s sake usually?

oh and one more thing, doctors make mistakes, maybe they’ll realize that before they start taking lives that were going to be fine? just like how healthy children get aborted because doctors “think” they might turn out disabled.

i’ve said this before, as a person with a disability, it’s almost personal. it’s like i’m being told that i’m not worthy to live, thankfully i’m glad God has other plans.

please let’s pray hard, and keep fighting


#19

Praying…
+

O most beautiful Flower of Mount Carmel, Fruitful Vine, Splendor of Heaven, who brought forth the Son of God, still remaining a Virgin, assist us in this necessity. O Star of the Sea, help us, and show us that you are our Mother.

O Holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and earth, I humbly ask you from the depths of my heart to help in this necessity. There are none who can withstand your power. O show us that you are our Mother. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.

Sweet Mother, I place this cause in your hands. Amen


#20

…we need to bring back the Crusades. Just saying.

I’d march in the front lines, too.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.