Dutch kill babies, the comatose and the mentally retarded!

[Pekka]

Nacht, ahh ok..

the way it was posted I thought it was about just retarded little babies. That would seem extremely .. evil and bad, not to mention very wrong.

But I see now that the PAIN is the main issue. It still is a tough question for me. I don't want to say to anyone they can't do that if it's possible and they all want to and doctors agree, if the little baby is in horrific pains and can never get any relief from it and it's just horrible and there's no chance and the baby will die soon anyway. i don't want to forbid it from anyone. I might be in that situation myself some day. pray to God I won't. That would be a horrible decision to make, but maybe I would think differently, seeing that little baby in horrific pains in front of my eyes knowing this is it and it ain't going to be any better at all. I don't know. I would have to make a tough call, either way.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Would you say doctors might be in a position to determine this? I certainly do.

No I don't. Doctors are humans too, and have all of humans biases. Recall that doctors are the ones who did the tests on blacks in the 50s.

Note, I think I am OK with Euthanasia.

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
For example Ramo. I think that being an Anarchist is a retarded position. Therefore I think that you are retarded (this here is a fallacy, and so just bear with me for arguments sake). As a ****** you should be put out of your misery, because your life would just be meaningless pain. As a ******, what you say would be pretty meaningless and can be ignored.

Jon Miller

Irrelevant, as they aren't killing all retarded children in the Netherlands. Boy, when you guys latch on to a strawman, you're like dobermans, aren't you?

[Jon Miller]

There is a similiarity here. The point is killing people because we know what is better for them when they can't give consent.

The same can be said for retarded people.

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No I don't. Doctors are humans too, and have all of humans biases. Recall that doctors are the ones who did the tests on blacks in the 50s.

That's why this isn't one doctor or only doctors who make the decision. It has to be a unanimous decision between many medical professionals AND the parents.

And I think doctors are plenty qualified--certainly more so than you and I--to diagnose their patients and how much pain they are in. Especially when it comes to the most extreme cases (which is what we're talking about here).

[Jon Miller]

I am not OK with the concept, as put in my post above yours.

And it is a bunch of doctors who did those tests.

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
There is a similiarity here. The point is killing people because we know what is better for them when they can't give consent.

The same can be said for retarded people.

Jon Miller

Except that this law is about euthanizing the most extreme cases wherein there is no hope for longterm survival and there is real suffering going on.

You might as well cited euthanizing pets as your strawman, it would have had the same relevance.

[Ramo]

For example Ramo. I think that being an Anarchist is a retarded position. Therefore I think that you are retarded (this here is a fallacy, and so just bear with me for arguments sake). As a ****** you should be put out of your misery, because your life would just be meaningless pain. As a ******, what you say would be pretty meaningless and can be ignored.

So you believe that infants should be able to smoke crack. Since who are you to say that you know what is better for the infant than the infant?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
And it is a bunch of doctors who did those tests.

So? Are you now villifying doctors as blood-thirsty baby killers who are eager to murder infants at the first chance they get? That's what it sounds like. That you'd so dismiss the sentiments of doctors in this is really offensive to me. As if they don't have an emotional stake in it. I'm sure Guynemer or Doc S would be glad to read such sentiments.

And do you have any valid reasons to criticize those tests, or are you just offended by their outcome?

[Jon Miller]

Anytime that you start saying that something that is human is less than human you run into problems. Be they slavery or the holocaust. That is what you are doing by saying that I might as well be arguing about pets. It is different, we are dealing with human being here.

And yes, I have a valid reason to criticize the tests. To not tell someone that they have a disease, and treat it, and allow them to pass it on to others is beyond just criminal.

Ramo, I am saying that be killed is a very different level of decision than smoking crack. But you being an anarchist I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand that.

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

Yes, I'm just a ****** that can't understand your superior ethics.

[Jon Miller]

No, but some sort of logic circuit does seem to not be working right if you can determine the difference between smoking crack and deciding to be killed. Also, note that we don't allow infants to smoke crack either (Actually we don't allow anyone to, and we are only beginning to allow some to kill themselves).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Note that I did say that going from your position being retarded to you being retarded was false. And I don't think that you are a ******. I just find your logic very suspect in any discussion of politics or ethics.

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

I'm using the same logical fallacy that you were using. That making decisions for those who are incompetent to make such decisions is somehow wrong. You haven't demonstrated why this argument applies to the decision of whether to live or die, and not to any other decisions.

Also, note that we don't allow infants to smoke crack either

Yes, that's the point. We make decisions for them, because they are not competent to make such decisions themselves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Anytime that you start saying that something that is human is less than human you run into problems. Be they slavery or the holocaust. That is what you are doing by saying that I might as well be arguing about pets. It is different, we are dealing with human being here.

I didn't say the babies were less than human. I don't think pets are just mere dumb animals we should kill on a whim, though. Another strawman. And, I suppose, an interesting look at our perspectives.

And yes, I have a valid reason to criticize the tests. To not tell someone that they have a disease, and treat it, and allow them to pass it on to others is beyond just criminal.

What the hell are you talking about? This isn't about a "disease" that can be "cured." We're back to the strawman that doctors are going to be slaughtering the weak and helpless who could otherwise go on to live just fine. That's not what these cases are about--they're about the very extreme situations. The article says it explicitely several times: the terminally ill.

This isn't a valid reason, regardless. I want a valid scientific reason why the medical knowledge of doctors shouldn't be trusted to determine the pain and suffering of an infant. I'm sure Ben Kenobi can furnish you with lots of information on how even preborns can feel pain.