Dutch kill babies, the comatose and the mentally retarded!

[Gangerolf]

Savages

[Ned]

Regardless of the rabid left statements that there is nothing to be concerned about here, the article does state that the proposed deliberate killing goes beyond the terminally ill, but also extends to the malformed and braindamaged, and includes not only babies, but also the mentally retarded and comatose.

To suggest that euthanasia is commonplace in the US is a bit much. If I recall correctly, Dr. Kevorkian has been convicted of murder for assisting terminally ill people to be euthanized themselves. Suicide remains illegal in virtually every state as far as I know. Assisting people to commit suicide is illegal and is considered murder.

[Ned]

Also, if this is considered "progress" in terms of advancing the human condition, it seems that the Third Reich was not the monstrous regime that most of us think it was. It apparently was the most socially advanced regime in the history of the earth because the trend in Europe is to become more more like the Third Reich, not less. The Dutch proposal is virtually indistinguishable from what went on in the Third Reich in terms of euthanasia. Perhaps the people of that era were premature in condemning the Third Reich's euthanasia policy is as "inhumane," when the same practices today are applauded by the left as being "socially advanced."

[Pekka]

Nice. What was it that you said about left having no respect about anyone else, being savages and uncivilized? Welcome to the club baby. And if you don't see through your own stacks of reasoning and insults, good luck, because then the word hypocrite comes to play.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Supercitizen has SPOKEN!

[Pekka]

That's not what I meant really. It came of wrong. I was supposed to talk about what the hell does political stand has to do with these things. This is classical example of dog has four legs, you have for legs, you're a dog. It's just not valid in any set of circumtances. Mentioning Third Reich is just tasteless in my opinion. Either a person really thinks that or just throws that to the table to get more stronger message. Either way, it's not valid. IF you want to deliver a stronger message, then you're downplaying what Third Reich was all about. That's like claiming someone to be a terrorists if they burn down American flag. While many terrorists might do that, and while that is kind of weird and maybe even hostile, the two doesn't match.

Furthermore this is just one article. How can we trust one article this much? All I'm hearing others talking about is severe chronical pain issues with low life expentancy. I didn't hear about race manipulation and ubermen manufacturing except from Ned. There can't be this many interpretations of one article.

So what's my point? My point is, how come it's even near OK to interpret these articles this way and then claim any kind of intelligent upgrounds, or moral for that matter and pick up something like Third Reich and Nazis, lump it all up and call it a Europe. That only sends message, where it is that 'I hate Europe, I don't like europeans, I think they are closer to Nazis than anything else'. If that's not an insult in civilized discussion board than I never heard one in my life.

What good is it going to do pointing fingers all over the room and judge other people, call them Left, as if that's going to win you an argument? That's not true. YOu win arguments by debating and basing your arguments on facts and showing the false logics of the other one. And prove your own point to be superior. If your point is this is Third Reich, babies are going down to the grim reaper like in a factory because they are retarded or not like us, well, that's impossible to argue about, because it's not a fact. It's more like an illusion.

Just read the topic. What do you make of that. Throw in the Third Reich thing. Are we supposed to thing you're not a fanatic, and why not?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
Nice. What was it that you said about left having no respect about anyone else, being savages and uncivilized? Welcome to the club baby. And if you don't see through your own stacks of reasoning and insults, good luck, because then the word hypocrite comes to play.

Pekka, hah. I said the liberals in the US were uncivilized because they refused to let their critics speak on FOX and CNN. They would shout them down, speak over them, interrupt them and whatever. This was not only the liberal guests, but it was the hosts that did this.

That was what I was complaining about, Pekka.

Being in favor of something, or being against something, is the very essence of the world's politics. One does not achieve the label "barbaric" by criticising the opposing party's position. One does achieve that distinction, though, when one refuses to let the opponent speak at all, in some fashion, or instead of meeting the arguments head on, attacks them personally.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Regardless of the rabid left statements that there is nothing to be concerned about here, the article does state that the proposed deliberate killing goes beyond the terminally ill,

Liar. It explicitley says that it is referring to the terminally ill in all instances. I've read it several times and only by quoting out of context could you arrive at this conclusion.

but also extends to the malformed and braindamaged, and includes not only babies, but also the mentally retarded and comatose.

All of which must be terminally ill to qualify, as the article says several times.

To suggest that euthanasia is commonplace in the US is a bit much. If I recall correctly, Dr. Kevorkian has been convicted of murder for assisting terminally ill people to be euthanized themselves. Suicide remains illegal in virtually every state as far as I know. Assisting people to commit suicide is illegal and is considered murder.

Whether or not it is illegal isn't the point, nobody suggested otherwise. The article was explicit in stating that it was only legal in Holland. The point was that people are doing it anyway, even in the U.S., because they believe it to be the humane thing to do.

The Dutch proposal is virtually indistinguishable from what went on in the Third Reich in terms of euthanasia.

Care to back this up with a mission statement for the Third Reich? I was under the impression the Nazi's goal was to stamp out "faults" in the purity of the Aryan people, to breed the Master Race. I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the Dutch proposal.

It's amazing how you can Godwinize your own thread, as someone pointed out earlier. Hey, the Nazis also had campaigns to discourage smoking. So are anti-smoking campaigns to be considered relatives of the Nazi cause? Are antismoking health advocates just the same as Nazis? Your logic amazes!

[Pekka]

Ok, I thought you said everyone but republicans were uncivilized and savage. I guess I was wrong.

I've seen FOX. Not letting someone speak is common in there, not just by the liberals. A certain name pops to my mind. Oh yeah, O'Reilly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's amazing how you can Godwinize your own thread, as someone pointed out earlier. Hey, the Nazis also had campaigns to discourage smoking. So are anti-smoking campaigns to be considered relatives of the Nazi cause? Are antismoking health advocates just the same as Nazis? Your logic amazes!

That was me , and of course anti-smoking campaigns are Nazi-ish! And vegetarians? That's Hitler-talk .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
One does achieve that distinction, though, when one refuses to let the opponent speak at all, in some fashion, or instead of meeting the arguments head on, attacks them personally.

You mean like such liberals as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, etc.? I've watched them all, and all they do is shout down those they disagree with. Try and get a word edgewise in on Hannity!

Given your Coulterlust, this is pretty ironic! All she deals in is personal attacks.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Liar. It explicitley says that it is referring to the terminally ill in all instances. I've read it several times and only by quoting out of context could you arrive at this conclusion.

"Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041130/D86MFKG80.html

There is no requirement that the illness be immediately terminal. There is a lot more emphasis on "pain" from incurable diseases (not necessarily terminal), from premature births, from brain damage, and from deformaties.

The proposals would also extend the same benefits of doctors taking matters into their own hands to adults who are retarded and comatose.

[Ned]

This list is just about as far as the Nazi's got before the German people called a halt. When the Nazi's tried to euthanize the elderly, they found that the German people would not accept this.

Still, when I was a kid, I was told of this Nazi practice as one example of their barbarism. I am not sure, but could some of the Nuremberg charges agains the Nazi leadership have included this euthanasia practice?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You mean like such liberals as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, etc.? I've watched them all, and all they do is shout down those they disagree with. Try and get a word edgewise in on Hannity!

Given your Coulterlust, this is pretty ironic! All she deals in is personal attacks.

I take it that you disapprove of rude practices such as I describe only when conducted by the likes of O'Reilly, et al.

[Pekka]

No, his point was, that since you claim moral upgrounds, that some liberals are uncivilized because of this behaviour, he made a point that other people do this too, not just liberals. So, we're all savages or we're not savages. Take your pick. You can't call someone on something and pretend it doesn't happen on the own side when it does.

You keep on making the Nazi references. I can not take that seriously. I claim you have failed to show the patterns between Third Reich, Nazis, and the Dutch. Your proof is not complete, and it's inconsistent at its best.