euthanasia for sick newborns

DeeJay · Nov 15, 2006

Another slip down that slippery slope

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,20704878-5001028,00.html

College urges euthanasia for sickest newborns

BRITAIN'S Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is reportedly calling on doctors to consider euthanasing "the sickest of newborns" which it says can disable healthy families.....

The college argued "active euthanasia" should be considered for the good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.
Click to expand...

This is the logical next step to aborting unwanted babies in the womb. Is it not? Why not abort unwanted infants outside of the womb? After all we are only talking about hours and inches of difference. How much difference is there between killing a baby inside of the mother and killing one once it has been born?

What will the next step be?

hillclimber1 · Nov 15, 2006

Healthy people at age 75, or 70 or 60? Too much bother and they soak up so many resources that the young could have and enjoy.

How long till that's proposed?

Pete · Nov 16, 2006

SOURCE

......If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

When we had lunch a month after our initial interview and I read back his answers to him, he said he would be "concerned about a society where the role of some women was to breed children for that purpose," but he stood by his statements. He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth."

These proposals are biblically and historically monstrous, but Mr. Singer is a soft-spoken Princeton professor. Whittaker Chambers a half-century ago wrote, "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness," but part of Mr. Singer's effectiveness in teaching "Practical Ethics" to Princeton undergraduates is that he does not come across personally as beastly......
Click to expand...

2 Timothy 3:13 :tear: :tear: :tear:

Not_hard_to_find · Nov 16, 2006

hillclimber1 said:

Healthy people at age 75, or 70 or 60? Too much bother and they soak up so many resources that the young could have and enjoy.

How long till that's proposed?
Click to expand...

Minutes after the good of the many override the rights of the one.

Joshua Rhodes · Nov 16, 2006

I'll tell you this... I wouldn't have given up even a day with my living daughter, no matter how sick she was. I held my stillborn daughter for an hour. If she had died after being born, I could have held her while she was alive... that, my friends, would have been a most precious gift. This is an atrocious suggestion, and one that will NEVER get my support. How sad that some "can't be burdened financially or emotionally" with these children, when some would give so much just to get that much.

Pete... 2 Tim 3:13 indeed applies. :tear:

euthanasia for sick newborns

DeeJay New Member

hillclimber1 Active Member
Site Supporter

Pete New Member

Not_hard_to_find Member
Site Supporter

Joshua Rhodes <img src=/jrhodes.jpg>

Useful Searches

euthanasia for sick newborns

DeeJay New Member

hillclimber1 Active Member Site Supporter

Pete New Member

Not_hard_to_find Member Site Supporter

Joshua Rhodes <img src=/jrhodes.jpg>

hillclimber1 Active Member
Site Supporter

Not_hard_to_find Member
Site Supporter