Europe is becoming NAZI

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
It seems to me that the article didn't really say much. The paper states that withdrawal of care might be appropriate in some cases, but the article doesn't clarify what criteria would be used. Further more while cost is mentioned as a possible factor the Right Rev'd contradicts himself by stating that great care must be taken when even considering cost, then he turns around and suggests that justice demands that the extra cost of caring for a deformed baby should be taken into consideration when deciding upon the continuation of care. IMHO either the reviewer didn't do a very good job of summarizing the paper or the paper's conclusions are so vague as to be nearly useless.

When the Judge decided the Schiavo matter, he was much more concerned about "quality of life" than any other issue. I am sure that the decision is multi-faceted, taking into consideration not only cost to society, but the relative quality of life the concerned infant can be expected to have.

If the decision were wholly a private matter, the concerned family will consider quality of life, cost to the family as well. But they will also add "love" of their family member, as we saw in the Schiavo case. Love can trump all other considerations.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm sorry. I apologize for not communicating in English. I was trying to get across the fact that there is too little substance in the article upon which to judge the recommendations of the bishop's committee. It's not clear what level of care the committee is recommending that the state consider witholding and on what level of deformity this consideration would be made.

I've worked with some severely retarded people. In my assessment those who do not develop beyond a "12 month old level", i.e. who are minimally mobile or not mobile, have no communicative capability and essentially the ability to do absolutely nothing live a life of continuing hell. Some have the ability to utter sounds, some do not. Those who are able to make sounds make it pretty clear that what they experience is an unimaginable horror. Unlike infants they do not look out at the world in wonder and delight at the new sounds, sights, tastes and smells, nor do they experience the consolation of a parent's loving care. They don't have the mental capacity to do either. Instead they have the capacity to feel pain, fear and frustration, all without the ability to at least comprehend their torture or to be comforted.

[Sandman]

What do you consider the correct thing to do in cases of premature birth at 22 weeks, Doc? Ned is outraged that some bioethicists have suggested witholding treatment.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned
There was no really good reason for that war when viewed ab initio. The war crimes trials, in a way, provided us a post hoc justification for our participation in WWII.

If by "ab initio" you count from 1939 the US wasn't participating then. And later Germany DOWed the US right after Pearl Harbour, so there wasn't much choice. Therefore the US certainly didn't need any post-war justification.

*Warning: WWII thread ahead*

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
What do you consider the correct thing to do in cases of premature birth at 22 weeks, Doc? Ned is outraged that some bioethicists have suggested witholding treatment.

Where did I express outrage?

[Ned]

Originally posted by BeBro


If by "ab initio" you count from 1939 the US wasn't participating then. And later Germany DOWed the US right after Pearl Harbour, so there wasn't much choice. Therefore the US certainly didn't need any post-war justification.

*Warning: WWII thread ahead*

Germany's declaration of war on the US was almost a formality given the hostile maneuvering Roosevelt had conducted against Germany in the preceding year. Roosevelt's problem was that he had to provoke Germany in to a declaration of war as he could not get Congress to do so.

So, we get back to the question: what justification did Roosevelt have in allying the US so firmly with Britain and the USSR in 1941? The best answer, I suppose, is Germany's alliance with Japan in Sept. 1940. But, that was a defensive alliance. Still over the year succeeding that date, Roosevelt did everything in his power to provoke Japan as well.

So, in truth, we poked our noses into other peoples conflicts. We did not wage war against Germany to protect democracy, to rescue Poland, to protect the Jews, to anything that had any justification in Germany's hostile action against the US save for one item: that treaty with Japan.

[Ned]

BTW, I downloaded today's Limbaugh podcast. He spent the majority of his time discussing this issue.

One of his observations: many, if not most, of the time the parents of the deformed or retarded child will terminate it life for their own convenience.

""Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die. And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions. The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled." Well, too bad, disabled. This has been coming, it's been coming for years and years and year -- and they're just now getting brave enough to openly admit what they think is proper here.

This is all based on the convenience of the living, and it's what I said many, many, many moons ago. It's just going to end up the continuation of the cheapening of life, the degrading of the quality and sanctity of life, and who knows where this stuff is going to end, but it's certainly on a fast track, and it's heading down that track, and there's really not much to stop it out there, especially in Great Britain, I mean, with the society they have there. Much probably the same thing here. All of this is going to be cloaked in compassion. All this is going to be cloaked in love and devotion and caring and we only want to do the right thing here. Keep a sharp eye on this because I mentioned to you long ago that this was headed your way, and it is.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Here's the money quote, by the way. I want to go back to this baby story, because this says it all, and it makes my point from a couple or three weeks before the election all over again. This is a quote from a parent who's going through this screening to determine whether or not her embryos contain "flaws," if you will. "Unless you have lived with a child that has a terrible disability or disease then you can't speak about it." So once again we have the introduction of the innocent suffering victim, in this case the parent of a child who suffers from something, and we are supposed to identify with the child suffering, we are supposed to identify with the suffering of the living who are made inconvenient by this -- and you can't comment, folks.

You can't say a word unless you've been in her bra or her shoes. You have no right. You can't comment on the ethics, and this is the way the left shuts down debate, they shut down argument, and they attempt to discredit anyone who would be critical of what they do by claiming, "You have no shame. You would enforce suffering on people! You should die, you should get the disease, you should find out what it's like, you are evil, you are the devil personified." That's the way they react, and it is to stifle debate -- and most people, who lack any guts at all, who lack any courage at all, will sit around and say, "Okay. Okay. I don't want to offend you! I really don't to want offend you. If it's that bad, then yes, I have no right. You're right. I have not walked in your shoes or worn your bra. I do not know. It must be so. I won't say a word."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111406/content/see_i_told_you_so.guest.html

[Kuciwalker]

So, we get back to the question: what justification did Roosevelt have in allying the US so firmly with Britain and the USSR in 1941?

Britain was the last free nation in Europe (Finland and Switzerland and Sweden don't count) and the USSR happened to be on their side.

[Ned]

Freedom? Britain was fighting to destroy Germany. It had many times opportunities to end the conflict. But it chose to continue the war. The issue of freedom in Europe was not on the table.

[DAVOUT]

what justification did Roosevelt have in allying the US so firmly with Britain and the USSR in 1941?

If Roosevelt did not have allied so firmly with the United Kingdom and the USSR, it can be assumed that they both would have fallen. It is much more difficult to believe that without any help from the USA, UK and USSR could have prevented the NAZIS to dominate the European continent, and possibly more. This perspective is alone a perfect justification.
Now, after the war, the NAZI crimes were a complementary, but not necessary, argument to justify Roosevelt decision.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Freedom? Britain was fighting to destroy Germany. It had many times opportunities to end the conflict. But it chose to continue the war. The issue of freedom in Europe was not on the table.

I suppose Poland and Denmark and the Netherlands and Belgium all could have just ended the war too...

[Elok]

WTF? Is Ned playing apologist for HITLER???

[Spiffor]

Ned is becoming NAZI

[TheStinger]

Ah poor little germany they just needed a bit more room and anybody who sought to challenge that were evil warmongers.

The UK eneterd the war knowing they couldn't afford it and that their army couldn't match the germans for another 2 years at least. There motives were honourable. That hasn't always been the case with UK foreign policy but it was here.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
Where did I express outrage?

When don't you express outrage? You just make stuff up and roll with it.

the deliberate killing of deformed babies