Respectable Baby Killing - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 11-17-2006, 12:37 AM

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Q1YTk1Njk4NTA=

More from the culture wars, the slippery slope and the culture of death. Old and inform next? Or the Mentally disabled?

Quote:

The push to permit infanticide has entered the mainstream. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology (RCOG) has recommended that a debate be had about whether to permit ?deliberate interventions to kill infants.? The recommendation, which was widely reported in the media, was in response to a query from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics concerning ethical issues pertaining to health care which prolongs the life of newborns. It was at the urging of the RCOG that euthanasia of infants was added to the topics that the council would consider. As reported by the London Times, the RCOG?s recommendation states:

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late term abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

The article goes on to quote a number of British doctors and professors who support euthanasia.

Consider carefully what has happened here. A prestigious medical association has seriously suggested that killing some babies because they are seriously ill or disabled might be ethically acceptable and, at the very least, is worthy of considered and respectable debate. It is about time that people start paying attention to this. Those who think that legal infanticide is unthinkable and preposterous are being na?ve. Infanticide advocacy is no longer limited to rogue bioethicists, such as Princeton University?s notorious Peter Singer, who has famously argued that parents be given as much as a year to decide whether to keep or kill their babies

wistahpatsfan · 11-17-2006, 03:12 AM

This is interesting. Infanticide is common in cultures where the people are very poor, primitive, or under extreme duress due to things like war or severe natural disasters which cause poverty. We all have heard the stories of the children being thrown in the river if they had a disability like missing or deformed body parts, mental retardation or even of they are a girl. Many rational arguments can be made to support this practice on a case-by-case basis. The point can be stretched to ludicrous degrees like using “unwanted” children as soldiers.

Infanticide makes no sense in an “advanced society”. We are socially equipped to support the lives of these children, but the society has to agree officially to do so. That means total and unfettered support for the families of these kids. In the US, we pay outrageous rates for insurance and taxes, but when a disaster strikes, you are buried in heaps of red tape and asked to jump through ridiculous bureaucratic hoops. Yet we all sit back and claim to value each life as a “gift from god” and then say to the families “good luck!” Either a life is the most precious thing or it isn’t. Society says it wants to leave no child behind, yet they make parents of severely disabled children spend all their resources, time and all of their remaining being to keep a terminally ill or disabled child alive and well. I know many who have done so to the point of denying themselves and their other children a full life. Other people hail them as heroes or wonderful people as long as they don’t have to pony up money or time. I think the word is “hipocracy”. (No reference intended to anyone in particular, just society in general)

In the absence of the support from society (and I'm not talking about slogans on a bumper sticker), the government (society) needs to stops requiring us to pay huge taxes and insurance rates with NOTHING in return and no support when things go wrong, allowing us to keep our money and support our kids. Either that or we should be allowed to throw our unwanted infants in the river.