Thread: Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

Thats crazy, if you don't want the baby, then give him up for adoption. You don't need to kill it.

but HOlland is not a populated country right...why kill the infants

"""""""So let me get this straight, in Europe the death penalty is wrong, but killing a retarded infant is right? """"""""

Try reading more then the title and then post an opinion. Why would anyone think it righteous to prolong the terrible pain of a terminally ill infant when its going to die anyway? Oh and since no-one read the article several doctors and the parents all have to agree.

Its sounds like mercy and compassion to me. It is pathetic in my mind that we "force" the terminally il to linger on with their pain even when they have no chance for any kind of meaningful life. This is one, and probably the only, issues I agree with Europeans with................Rich

retardation is not a terminal illness. hopefully this will be done or is being done only in cases where it is the compassionate thing.

In this day and age:

Hitler, kills over 6,000,000 people: life in jail.
Jimmy, just a little too retarded: death

Dont' know what you mean by that.

But euthanizing babies is a good start.

The world is over-populated.

And....Jimmy isn't too retared, he is terminally ill.

whatever...if u want a less populated world..just kill people from India and China and Africa of course ( in larger proportion). Does it make sense???

Look who are really populating the world. The solution is not to kill people...but to control birth. This is a question of morale values.

Originally Posted by perfectbody

Look who are really populating the world. The solution is not to kill people...but to control birth. .

But this is not an issue of world population control.

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

"""""""So let me get this straight, in Europe the death penalty is wrong, but killing a retarded infant is right? """"""""

Try reading more then the title and then post an opinion. Why would anyone think it righteous to prolong the terrible pain of a terminally ill infant when its going to die anyway? Oh and since no-one read the article several doctors and the parents all have to agree.

Its sounds like mercy and compassion to me. It is pathetic in my mind that we "force" the terminally il to linger on with their pain even when they have no chance for any kind of meaningful life. This is one, and probably the only, issues I agree with Europeans with................Rich

You should try reading up on their law. The definition of retarded and terminally ill is very vague. When there is a law regarding death, you should be very specific. Also, their definition of "child" extends to the age of 12. But hell, why stop there?

Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu

Dont' know what you mean by that.

But euthanizing babies is a good start.

The world is over-populated.

And....Jimmy isn't too retared, he is terminally ill.

From the article:

"the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident."

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

Why would anyone think it righteous to prolong the terrible pain of a terminally ill infant when its going to die anyway?

We are all gonna die anyway.

I agree with you, but I agree with you only if it is the child's choice.

I think the point Bitch is making is that we should be able, as humane people, to allow ourselves to make the hard choices. If a child is born terminal why prolong the agony? If at my age of 45 I became painfully terminal I would not wait to live any more. If I were not able to make the choice my self I would want someone to make that hard yet humane choice for me and end my suffering.

I've have worked with severely "retarded" children and in most instances these severe cases are not even aware of themselves or their own existence. There are no solutions for the poor souls that will allow them an existence. The recources used to deal with these unhelpable people could be redirected to those mentally challanged indeviduals who do have a shot at learning living skills and having a life.

Making hard choices is what this is all about really IMHO.

Originally Posted by perfectbody

whatever...if u want a less populated world..just kill people from India and China and Africa of course ( in larger proportion). Does it make sense???

Look who are really populating the world. The solution is not to kill people...but to control birth. This is a question of morale values.

Originally Posted by perfectbody

but HOlland is not a populated country right...why kill the infants

spot the fool that completely missed the point of the whole issue

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

Its sounds like mercy and compassion to me. It is pathetic in my mind that we "force" the terminally il to linger on with their pain even when they have no chance for any kind of meaningful life.

My mother is terminally ill. She has MS. I'm glad I have her around.

Her sister, my aunt, also has MS. I would like to say that stem cell research could allow them to live normal lives.


"The value of life dimishes as you start stepping backwards and look at the crowd"

Originally Posted by rockgazer69

retardation is not a terminal illness. hopefully this will be done or is being done only in cases where it is the compassionate thing.

""""""""""""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.""""""""""""""

Originally Posted by stu21Ldn

spot the fool that completely missed the point of the whole issue

let the others talk abt main point...
if u can't give any comment go away and have some whey.

This is like arguing over obortion. You will never get people to agree one way or the other.

Originally Posted by perfectbody

let the others talk abt main point...
if u can't give any comment go away and have some whey.

Is he for real.