My wife's mother had sever spina bifita. She was retarded and handicapped, but a contributing member of our society. So that means my kids would not be here right? They would have killed my mother inlaw, and then no daughter for me to marry, and no kids from that marrage, and no grandkids from my kids.


A society is judged by how it cares for its indegent, the unborn, and elderly.

 

while I don't agree with any of this, I can see sparing a child the pain and anguish of living life with a horrible disease, or illness. However, who is to say the parents aren't just taking an easy way out of a very difficult situation. I have never dealt with any of this and hopefully never have to when I have children of my own, but should that day come I don't think I could take the easy way out.

 

THAT is the point! It is not CONVEINENT for the parents to have a less than perfect child? What will the other soccer moms say? How can I walk up and down the isles of Walmart with a retarded kid? Can I just start over? Can't we just kill this one so I can try again? I really wanted one with blue eyes, can I kill this one and try again?

Hitler started "eliminating" the retarded, insane, handicapped, then the deaf, then the blind well before he started on the Jews to perfect his master race.

This is just another step in the same direction.

 

Actually, Begle1 and AlpineRAM genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
One could argue that these newborns are part of a cultural group and there is no doubt that it is deliberate and systematic. If the term genocide bothers you so much perhaps we could agree to call it extermination? In any case it's wrong in my opinion.....

 

Ohio Joe: "the deliberate an systematic destruction" meaning that you have to kill enough to make the group diminish in numbers. Where the group is a racial, poloitical or cultural group. - I don't see any one of these groups in the cases here. The numbers don't add up for a reduction of the population of the group(that I didn't find).
The term genocide is bothering me since I think that the terms are very important. I have seen attempted genocide with my own eyes some hundred miles south of where I live now and I don't think you can even start to compare what's happening in Holland today with that.
I think that this kind of killing has happened and will happen in the USA too- just not discussed in public. Not controlled.
My question is: Is it worse to do it in secrecy or in the public, documented and free to be scrutinized?
AlpineRAM

 

Babies are a cultural group. Right... And Hollands trying to go out of their way and wipe this "cultural group" off the face of the Earth... It's not right, but it's not genocide. If they were all Jewish babies, maybe. But this dosn't support genocide; thats a pretty big leap.

Also, I don't feel it is right to criticize Holland for what they are doing. That is somewhat hypocritical- I get frustrated listening to Eurpoeans attempting to critique and solve all of our problems, and I don't feel that is right for us to be doing likewise to them. We don't know the full story, just as they can't fully comprehend America's problems. If we lived in Holland, our points of view would be radically different.

A certain Atticus Finch comes to mind...

 

Begle1: I think that the so called suggestions of Europeans on how the US should solve their problems is sometimes blown out of proportion. In many cases the actions of the US do directly influence the life over here- so I feel that it's right that we have and mouth our opinions on that.
On the decision in Holland: The real problem IMHO is that the laws have to be made to be applicable for everybody- there can't be much of individuality in laws. But these situations are highly individual- I think there's no situation where the decision is more individual and definite.
I followed up on reading more publications about the situation that lead to the decision. The literature says that there have been cases where doctors were in the trap to balance between easing the pain while reducing the life expectancy and increasing life ecpectancy for the price of major pain. In situations where the patient can not be asked to take the decision himself it shurely becomes the decision of the relatives and the doctors. I think it's a step into the right direction to make a rigid framework of laws for this situation instead of placing it in the hands of people who will have no guidance, have to cover up every evidence afterwards and always live in the fear of being accused of murder and being imprisoned.
The main part of the euthanasy discussion in Holland is now the way to legalise what has been accepted since the 80s- helping with suicide. Grown up people who have visited a psychiatrist who attests them that they are mentally sane who want to die. Persons who will help them committing suicide by giving information. (That was legal all the time) But now it's also about providing the means to do it.
The discussion about babies is just a subset of the whole complex here- naturally the one that raises most emotions.
Naturally there are massive moral problems surrounding this complex. But I think it's very difficult to try to judge this after reading an article that concerns itself only with a small part of the whole juristic scenario.

AlpineRAM

 

Diminishing a group in numbers is merely the end result of a"deliberate and systematic destruction" not the definition of.. and the argument of the babies being a cutural group, though a thin argument it may be, is that they, from what I gather, are all Hollanders and not a random cutural mix. Call it what you will, but under any definition I believe it to be wrong.
I think that arguing that since it is being done in the open somehow makes it ok or less wrong is absolutely absurd.
I also think the Europeans believe everything the US does is, at minimum, questionable, yet when something like this happens in thier own back yard they try to justify it, I am not directing this comment at you AlpineRAM, so dont take it personally.

 

Ohio Joe: The quote about deliberate etc is cut out of context because it's from a discussion about genocide. Another point to be fulfilled for being genocide would be that the people committing it must be from a different ethnic or cultural group than the ones being genocided. AFAIK according to international law a people can't genocide itself.
I didn't argue that it becomes less wrong when done in the open- I just wanted to question if killing people being done in secrecy is less wrong than doing it in the open? I want to apologise if I got this worded in a wrong way.
As on "the Europeans" believing etc... It's IMHO the same as with "the Americans" over here- we only hear the loudmouths and only those that do say stuff that will raise the quotes of the TV shows or newspapers etc. I believe that many US citizens would be quite surprised if they visited eg Austria and got to know more people from over here and would actually compare the moral values they live according to with the own ones. I see a good bit of similarity there.
I'm in no way taking it personally Ohio Joe, I hope that my arguments and questions did not come along as being directed against anybody in particular or against a lifestyle in the US.
I feel that the USA being a leading player in the global politics has a lot of influence on the life of people in other countries. Naturally this will lead to these people forming opinions on the US- another factor is that IMO it's good to look across borders and see how it's done somewhere else. And then see what is good for me as it is, what is good for me after I have adapted it and what is simply and plainly wrong for me. The differences between the cultures is IMHO a good thing it keeps the world from being monotone.
AlpineRAM

 

Alpine, I will concede the definition, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on moral implications of this one...
Austria is on my wish list of European destinations to visit one day, I am sure it is wonderful..