I am frankly not surprised. It was inevitable for things to head in this direction. If anyone has a a problem with their proposal, please pray. And if you disagree with the story itself, please contact times online UK. Don’t attack me, I am just the messenger.
Wasn’t this one of the things we criticize Nazi Germany for?
SIGH :nope: Why do they not see any difference between what they are proposing, and what was done during WWII? It is social engineering. Let’s just bump off everyone who is not as “perfect” as we are. At what point do you draw the line? There are laws being presented in Canada that define depression as an incurable disease which ought to be remedied by assisted suicide. Gee, I’m overweight…hemlock anyone???
“Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not
adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered
What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what
men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the
sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live
than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear
the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life
among his hungry brothers in the dust!”
---- Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Ghost of Christmas Present to Scrooge.
Does Edward Woodward nail that scene or what? Gives me chills just thinking about it.
The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said.
Hmmm, isn’t this the same question the prolife groups ask? Now the pro-abortion groups are trying to use this same question as a justification so that a baby can be killed at all stages of development?
Lord have mercy us on us! :(:crossrc:
Someone on this forum has criticized the present healthcare system because some of his friends have incurable diseases and [he says] can’t get healthcare.
Yet, under the proposed system, the only thing they COULD get would be some form of compulsory euthanasia … “mercy killing”.
Doesn’t? / Didn’t Oregon offer the same deal to someone with cancer?
And didn’t the pharmaceutical company provide the meds for free?
Seems like there is something right with the present system.
"Initially, the inquiry did not address euthanasia of newborns as this is illegal in Britain. The college has succeeded in having it considered. Although it says it is not formally calling for active euthanasia to be introduced, it wants the mercy killing of newborn babies to be debated by society."This simply extends the logic of abortion. If we can legally kill defective children before birth, the doctors argue, why are we not allowed to kill them after birth? The reasons are, after all, the same.
And people wonder why I say society is imploding from the plagues of Relativism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
Emotional burden! So murdering their children isn’t an emotional burden? Things like this just make me downright angry…
“If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”
The article argues that having the option to kill newborns is going to reduce late term abortions and then in the same article claim that the child is the same before and after birth. So why do they want to reduce late term abortions?
This just makes me so mad.:mad::mad:
Apparently, the argument is this: if we had the option to kill them after birth, we wouldn’t have to kill them before birth, because sometimes, before birth, we might make a mistake and kill one who is not defective.
Princeton professor Peter Singer has made a similar argument, saying that parents should have a grace period of several months after birth in which the newborn could be rejected. In effect, he proposes late-term abortion be extended to 3 or 4 months after birth. This might reduce pre-birth abortion, because there would always be the option of post-birth abortion.
Yes, I know, it sounds crazy. Because it is. But he is a professor of ethics!
I remember Peter Singer from university … one of my professors knew him and lets just say he does not live up to all that he talks about esp about poverty and donating money.
On a side note our planet esp the western world is becoming more and more like that film Gattaca where the parents genetically modify all kids so they are perfect and anyone who is not is a second class citizen. In our case however they will simply kill everyone who does not meet their criteria.
It is a sick, sick world we live in.
I believe this was the very first step on the long, horrible path that concluded w/ medical experiments and the holocaust.
Oh Boy, Jesus please hurry!!!:gopray2:
I’m not sure I have words to express my feelings after reading the article. Reading the article was just so disheartening. Is this where we are going? What has happened to us? How have we come to this point to embrace such evil? How many people think that killing a baby outright is okay? I am so angry, sad, upset, stunned. It is just so awful.:(:mad::sad_yes::bighanky:
I can’t even read this article. This is so disturbing. What should I do? I have fallen out of practice praying the rosary every day. I must start this again. :mad:
Honey, if this makes you tweaky, just wait until the “Catholic” progressives start talking proximate evil of waterboarding and this horror…:eek:
Please, My Lord?
To do evil so as to bring good out of it is evil.
I couldn’t read the article. Apparently it has been pulled – got 404 “File Not Found” errors.
I can image what it said, however, as I’m sure we all could.
Pope John Paul II laid all this out with his Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) encyclical with great and remarkable clarity. We have the old “Two Ways” duality at play here, that of the culture of life vs. the culture of death.
Our opponents not only want us to kill babies who are inconvenient, they also want us to kill old folks who become burdensome. That’s just the way it is. Their sense of “social responsibility” mandates these kinds of outcomes as they strive toward their ideal of humanly perfected society.
We’re up against these kinds of forces, folks, with this kind of arrogant mentality. That’s the shame that is the lay of the land these days.