There was a small article in the papers this morning about the need for a dialogue about baby euthanasia. The idea being that it would allow for parents to remove severely disabled children from their lives, thus saving them years of financial and emotional stress. Having the option to kill the child once born would also reduce the stress upon the woman's body from abortion and suchlike terminations, allowing the birth to complete before decisions are made.

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong. On the other hand, there are those who believe talks need to be had on allowing it into law (in the UK), basically a mix of doctors and, in some cases, those who have had their lives ruined by bringing up disabled children.

Personally, I would support it. I don't see why people should have to spend years catering for someone that puts such stress on the parent(s) both financial and emotional, not to mention probably physical stress and lack of social interaction. If the parents have the child, then terminating the severely disabled child should be an option available to them.

Anyone else?

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong.

Let's hear your opinion but if you disagree with the premise then you're a nut-job. No thanks :rolleyes:

Let's hear your opinion but if you disagree with the premise then you're a nut-job. No thanks :rolleyes:

I agree with you on this one Dan. Why would any opinion other than a UK one be of any value?

Let's hear your opinion but if you disagree with the premise then you're a nut-job. No thanks :rolleyes:

Well put :)

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong.


Comment on the way the subject was broached, NOT the topic itself:

I think the fact that people think it's wrong pretty much guarantees that they'd be against it (when have you ever heard someone argue against something that they think is right?). The use of the word 'nutjobs' to describe them, however, has already unfortunately set the tone for the rest of whatever 'discussion' follows.

I'm British and so can categorically say that the opinion stated is definitely not indicative of every British person's attitude toward the subject. Nor does it have anything to do with religion, before any inferences are made by anyone.

That said, I've seen how easily some people on the forum get riled about pretty meaningless subjects. Given how serious and sensitive this topic is, I'm not touching it with a barge pole.

End of my two cents' worth.

You can't put a monetary value on love, although it's I suspect every parent's worst nightmare, simply because a child is born disabled doesn't lessen the parents love for it. In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.:mad:

In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.:mad:

Interestingly, some of that society met up recently (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6117744.stm).

You can't put a monetary value on love, although it's I suspect every parent's worst nightmare, simply because a child is born disabled doesn't lessen the parents love for it. In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.:mad:

Well done Rich. I think that makes a grand total of two things we agree on. ;)

You can't put a monetary value on love, although it's I suspect every parent's worst nightmare, simply because a child is born disabled doesn't lessen the parents love for it. In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.:mad:

Damn Rich,

There's hope for you yet.

No I suspect you lot are looking at it from the religious angle, mine's purely on moral grounds:p

You can't put a monetary value on love,

Now that's a truism...:cool:

http://www.dermon.com/Beatles/images/beatles/commercial/sleeves/PS_cant.jpg

There was a small article in the papers this morning about the need for a dialogue about baby euthanasia. The idea being that it would allow for parents to remove severely disabled children from their lives, thus saving them years of financial and emotional stress. Having the option to kill the child once born would also reduce the stress upon the woman's body from abortion and suchlike terminations, allowing the birth to complete before decisions are made.

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong. On the other hand, there are those who believe talks need to be had on allowing it into law (in the UK), basically a mix of doctors and, in some cases, those who have had their lives ruined by bringing up disabled children.

Personally, I would support it. I don't see why people should have to spend years catering for someone that puts such stress on the parent(s) both financial and emotional, not to mention probably physical stress and lack of social interaction. If the parents have the child, then terminating the severely disabled child should be an option available to them.

Anyone else?

This has to be a wind up - I may be reading it wrong but you agree with this - and that anyone opposed to this idea is the nutjob????????

anyone opposed to this idea is the nutjob????????

No. I was just calling pro-lifers nutjobs. This is my thoughts on them, regardless of the subject.

Now that's a truism...:cool:

http://www.dermon.com/Beatles/images/beatles/commercial/sleeves/PS_cant.jpg

Preferred the B side myself:D

No. I was just calling pro-lifers nutjobs. This is my thoughts on them, regardless of the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Preferred the B side myself:D

We'd hate for you to conform to the norm :p

No I suspect you lot are looking at it from the religious angle, mine's purely on moral grounds:p

Even when we are all agreeing with Rich he still looks for a fight. :(

Brian

No I suspect you lot are looking at it from the religious angle, mine's purely on moral grounds:p

And in your estimation they are not compatible?

Your view of Christianity is so skewed by your hatred of Georgie Boy; you would have a better chance of enlightening us if you weren’t so predictable.

Even when we are all agreeing with Rich he still looks for a fight. :(

Brian



As usual we can count on you for wisdom, and gentlemanly conduct.

No. I was just calling pro-lifers nutjobs. This is my thoughts on them, regardless of the subject.



I’m not sure I understand the meaning of “nutjobs” in this context.

Pro-lifers certainly have valid arguments.

Now the nutty part is that for so many Americans (and Italians it seams) this one issue is the deciding vote.

We have elected our worst government in my lifetime, as a result of this short sidedness.

The not so funny part of it; is that nothing has been done to change our laws and the very people that have voted for it, have been let down by the ones they elected.

And they still support them.

Now that’s a nutjob.

Even when we are all agreeing with Rich he still looks for a fight. :(

Brian
I'm not looking for anything Brian, I just made a statement of fact!

on a religous angle - anything done with true compassion, God will forgive - he/she looks at the movite behind the act - their are grey area's in religion -
from my school days (junior school Cof E and secondard RC ) - God is meant to be greater than any man/woman theirfore their understanding and forgivness is also greater (probably leaning towards the Cof E side on this bit )
but remender the Church of England has a Bishops who actual does not belive in God

I know a lady who cares for a very handicap person and both of them enjoy their lifes togther -
It come down to how less able are we talking about and where do we draw the line.
I think its more quality of life rather than disablity
(I am not a soft touch, as i do belive in the death penatly but not as a punishiment or as a threat - merely as a means of cleaning the gene pool ) although this does go in some way against what I had said above

I'm not looking for anything Brian, I just made a statement of fact!

But to what point? How does a moral judgement based on a persons religion differ from a moral judgement based on what- gut feeling, natural instincts.?

And are you saying if a Moslem, a Jew, and a Christian all agreed on something because their religion said it was so, then that would be no good because their religions are different?

Just trying to understand your thinking, but I think I'll stick with my gut feeling for the moment:D

Brian

I'd rather let people make up their own minds, the "pro lifers" want it forced on others. ;)

I'd rather let people make up their own minds, the "pro lifers" want it forced on others. ;)

I thought that was what they are trying to prevent :confused:

I don't want the bible pushers to have a say in the debate, hardly anybody goes to church here anymore and yet the Bishops etc. still want to Lord it over us. Anyway the right to terminate already exists

I don't want the bible pushers to have a say in the debate, hardly anybody goes to church here anymore and yet the Bishops etc. still want to Lord it over us. Anyway the right to terminate already exists

You’ve changed the question as usual. It’s not about abortion. It’s about you saying that religious people can’t be moral.

That’s the question you’re evading. How can you accuse others of evading questions, when that’s what you do all the time?

It’s not about abortion. It’s about you saying that religious people can’t be moral.


Where did I say that?

How about, if the Government that wants to make the Law, take all the financial responsibility, thus relieving a major burden on the Parent. ... and further more if the Parent can't cope other wise, provide a Public facility for them to be looked after. This could be run by Goverment employees or caring members of the Public.:)

I'm certainly not pro-life as I feel that abortions are fine if done within a certain time frame before any real development of thought comes into play, but are we actually talking about aborting a baby after it's been born? How can that be morally accepted? If you've already gone though the labor, you might as well hand the baby over to adoption clinics or at least give the baby a fighting chance, no matter how severly disabled the baby may be.

If we legalize this, where do we draw the line? One person's opinion may differ from another's.

I'm certainly not pro-life as I feel that abortions are fine if done within a certain time frame before any real development of thought comes into play, but are we actually talking about aborting a baby after it's been born? How can that be morally accepted? If you've already gone though the labor, you might as well hand the baby over to adoption clinics or at least give the baby a fighting chance, no matter how severly disabled the baby may be.

If we legalize this, where do we draw the line? One person's opinion may differ from another's.

That "where does it end business", was my first thought as well, but I couldn't imagine anyone advocating murdering children, so I chose to banter semantics with Rich instead.

I don't want the bible pushers to have a say in the debate, hardly anybody goes to church here anymore and yet the Bishops etc. still want to Lord it over us. Anyway the right to terminate already exists

So in your not-so-humble opinion, the over one billion Christians, and one Billion Muslims, and the only God know how many Hindus, should not have a say in the moral issues of the world?

Only the atheist should be able to decide? And that is because of their obviously higher moral ground.

Huh, and you say atheists aren’t religious.

So in your not-so-humble opinion, the over one billion Christians, and one Billion Muslims, and the only God know how many Hindus, should not have a say in the moral issues of the world?
.

That's correct

Only the atheist should be able to decide? And that is because of their obviously higher moral ground.


That's correct

Huh, and you say atheists aren’t religious
That's correct, I don't know why you're getting your nickers in a twist over this, America fries it rejects daily anyway, all with God's blessing. Ever heard the word hypocrisy?:rolleyes:

There was a small article in the papers this morning about the need for a dialogue about baby euthanasia. The idea being that it would allow for parents to remove severely disabled children from their lives, thus saving them years of financial and emotional stress. Having the option to kill the child once born would also reduce the stress upon the woman's body from abortion and suchlike terminations, allowing the birth to complete before decisions are made.

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong. On the other hand, there are those who believe talks need to be had on allowing it into law (in the UK), basically a mix of doctors and, in some cases, those who have had their lives ruined by bringing up disabled children.

Personally, I would support it. I don't see why people should have to spend years catering for someone that puts such stress on the parent(s) both financial and emotional, not to mention probably physical stress and lack of social interaction. If the parents have the child, then terminating the severely disabled child should be an option available to them.

Anyone else?
I would support it too.
It is allowed and supported by the Dutch government as well

Personally, I would support it. I don't see why people should have to spend years catering for someone that puts such stress on the parent(s) both financial and emotional, not to mention probably physical stress and lack of social interaction. If the parents have the child, then terminating the severely disabled child should be an option available to them.

Anyone else?

I take it we are talking physical disabilities here, the next logical step is to remove the mentally retarded when they can be identified a few years down the line, and then the politically retarded when .... where will it end.

Brian

I'm certainly not pro-life as I feel that abortions are fine if done within a certain time frame before any real development of thought comes into play, but are we actually talking about aborting a baby after it's been born? How can that be morally accepted? If you've already gone though the labor, you might as well hand the baby over to adoption clinics or at least give the baby a fighting chance, no matter how severly disabled the baby may be.

If we legalize this, where do we draw the line? One person's opinion may differ from another's.

Peoples' opinions differ on this time frame, do you feel 100% confident that you can precisely define the correct moment in all cases?

Brian

Ever heard the word hypocrisy?:rolleyes:

Ah! but do YOU know what it means?;)

Brian

Hmmm

Any body been reasonably close to the situation ?.

What are their thoughts

Cousin of mine

Son was born

spina bifida, spastic, a number of other abnormalities both physical and mental

What should be done ?.

Oh yes

First borne was a daughter. Spina bifida, hydro cafalours (cannot spell it). Died at about 16 weeks
Second borne daughter absolutely fine

What do you say should be done and bear in mind this would be something you need to say to the parents.

Len

I take it we are talking physical disabilities here
Severely disabled. Not just anyone born with a general handicap. One person suggesting talks need to be aired on the subject is the mother of Jonny Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Kennedy), who died in 2003 having suffered all his life from dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

From Wikipedia, he had this to say:

At the time Kennedy was born, there was no prenatal test for EB. By the time he grew up, such a test existed, and Kennedy had extremely negative views of EB pregnancy. When asked whether he would carry on with a birth, knowing that an EB child would be born, he said "No. I would terminate. It's not just a disabled child that's being born. It's disabling a whole family."

Ah! but do YOU know what it means?;)

Brian
Of course, I don't support either this or the death penalty:confused:

Stewart, the problem I would see is who decides on what constitutes severley disabled.

Brian

Stewart, the problem I would see is who decides on what constitutes severley disabled.

That's the purpose of law, to define such things. In much the same way that murder is a concept of law.

who decides on what constitutes severley disabled.



Dr. Joseph Mengele?

It is allowed and supported by the Dutch government as well

He ? Only under very stringent conditions. Abortion can only be done legally
if 50 or more papers are filled out and authorization is given by the appropriate parties. :mad:
The legallity in Ireland, Poland and some other countries is less restricting than that with us, dutchies.

He ? Only under very stringent conditions. Abortion can only be done legally
if 50 or more papers are filled out and authorization is given by the appropriate parties. :mad:
The legallity in Ireland, Poland and some other countries is less restricting than that with us, dutchies.

This post is about baby euthanas not abortion!!

This post is about baby euthanas not abortion!!

In that case it's even worse, there is no legal euthanasie in the Netherlands.

He ? Only under very stringent conditions. Abortion can only be done legally
if 50 or more papers are filled out and authorization is given by the appropriate parties. :mad:
The legallity in Ireland, Poland and some other countries is less restricting than that with us, dutchies.
I think you'll find that abortion is illegal in Ireland

I think you'll find that abortion is illegal in Ireland


Got this from a respectfull site :

In theory, abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a risk to the life of the woman. A provision exists in the Irish constitution to allow Dáil Éireann to legislate on this.

Got this from a respectfull site :

In theory, abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a risk to the life of the woman. A provision exists in the Irish constitution to allow Dáil Éireann to legislate on this.
Only if there's a risk to the life of the mother, that's why so many of them come here, because the RC church says they can't have one in their own country. Like I said, it's about time the church stopped ruling our lives!

Only if there's a risk to the life of the mother, that's why so many of them come here, because the RC church says they can't have one in their own country. Like I said, it's about time the church stopped ruling our lives!

Is the Church ruling your life Rich?

Is the Church ruling your life Rich?
Yes! :mad:

Yes! :mad:

Funny, I thought it was sociopathic behavior.

In that case it's even worse, there is no legal euthanasie in the Netherlands.

Read this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2069963,00.html

Read this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2069963,00.html


Sorry,

From the ministeria of Justice :

The incorporation of a special provision on exemption from punishment in Criminal Code (Article 293, paragraph two, and in Article 294, paragraph two, sentence two),does not decriminalise other forms of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Therefore, to say that euthanasia and assisted suicide are no longer punishable is not a correct presentation of the tenor of this bill.

(Published May 2004)

Good old Swift... (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)

I am personally against this and have no problem contributing to an institution for the children if it becomes too much of a burden on the parents.

:) :) :)

Only if there's a risk to the life of the mother, that's why so many of them come here, because the RC church says they can't have one in their own country. Like I said, it's about time the church stopped ruling our lives!

If you were in Ireland and its laws were the decision of the Catholic church - I could see your point.


Since neither is true - in fact you are in the UK where the policy is against the beliefs of the RC church.

Whats your problem? I can only presume you think that your opinion should override that democratically decided in Ireland.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Let me start by saying that SJ's original comments had some poor wording choices but I understood his meaning and I think people overracted regarding poisoning the well, etc.

Now then, I see where people are coming from on this issue. There are certainly a lot of arguments to be made about not forcing new parents to raise a child that demands so much more than a "normal" child. I'll also say I think if such a policy were allowed it would not make a huge impact because I don't think many people would take advantage of it. That's mostly speculation on my part, though.

However, I do greatly disagree with the concept because of the severe slippery slope involved. Other people have commented on this already so I won't elaborate.

Someone also brought up whether anyone here has experience in this area. I do. I am the youngest of four siblings; the oldest, my sister, is mentally handicapped. As mental handicaps go, she is on the high end of the capability spectrum. Unfortunately her condition doesn't stop there. She is also epileptic and (though we have no proof we're pretty darn sure it went down this way) medications she was given for it when she was young screwed up her brain chemistry resulting in hallucinations and an explosive, violent temper.

So, though she is actually quite capable she is also very difficult to live and work with. She is aware of her limitations and it frustrates her. She is often very tense and does not take correction very well, so when you try to help her she will often blow up at you. She has an extremely good memory but has a hard time distinguishing between memories that actually happened and her hallucinations.

Has she negatively impacted my life and the lives of my parents? Absolutely. Pretty much my only early memories of her involving screaming, and sometimes my father having to physically protect someone from her. It pretty much stayed that way until she went to live at a special needs community/school. The expense involved in giving her proper care and trying to help her as much as possible very nearly put my parents into bankruptcy.

Has she positively affected my life and the lives of my parents? I can't say. Am I a better person because of the challenges I went/go through with her? Who knows? I do know that if my parents had known of her handicaps at birth they never would have terminated her, and I know they look back and still would have made the same choice. I know they love her and value her despite it all. I'm quite confident that if you asked their opinion on this issue they would be fervently against it.

So what would you do?

So what would you do?
A much trickier question since I am not - and likely will never be - a parent. When it comes to my sister, if a genie granted me one wish about her I think I would honestly say to have her stay the same but without her terrible temper and - for her sake - without the hallucinations. Basically to undo the damage done by the bad meds she was given as an adolescent. I know having a "normal" daughter would mean so much to my parents, but she just wouldn't be her anymore; I wouldn't know her. I think she would have brought a lot more happiness to the family if it weren't for the violence but the other things we could handle, no problem.

Despite my own experience, and considering the vast majority of parents I've interacted with have said they wouldn't give up their special-needs child for the world, I think if I were given the choice of raising a handicapped child or terminating him, I would raise him.

Quite a sobering answer. Thanks for sharing your feelings. :)

If you were in Ireland and its laws were the decision of the Catholic church - I could see your point.


Since neither is true - in fact you are in the UK where the policy is against the beliefs of the RC church.

Whats your problem? I can only presume you think that your opinion should override that democratically decided in Ireland.

Correct me if I am wrong.
Try this for starters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6114938.stm

Peoples' opinions differ on this time frame, do you feel 100% confident that you can precisely define the correct moment in all cases?

Brian

Not by any means, but after birth, I think it's safe to assume that the baby has at least some awareness. The only time that this would be appropriate is in cases where the baby is completely brain dead or something similar.

I think the current abortion laws of most US states set the limit at the appropriate place.

Only if there's a risk to the life of the mother, that's why so many of them come here, because the RC church says they can't have one in their own country. Like I said, it's about time the church stopped ruling our lives!

That I can completely agree with you on Rich. I live in a VERY baptist community and every law passed seems to have the need for the baptist community to approve it before anyone else can vote on it. They also seem to have the power to overrule popular vote.

That I can completely agree with you on Rich. I live in a VERY baptist community and every law passed seems to have the need for the baptist community to approve it before anyone else can vote on it. They also seem to have the power to overrule popular vote.
Oddly enough I went to a babtist Sunday school as a young child, my memories of then are that they were actually quite friendly and didn't preach incessantly, however I thank god that my mother saved me from Catholicism ;)

Hmmm

Any body been reasonably close to the situation ?.

Len

I would have to say that I am. Very close. I work with them everyday.

I work with the disable community and have done so for over 20 years. In the last 12 to 15 years it has been primarily with the pediatric community. I would find it interesting for anyone posting to ride with me for one week and then tell me what their opinion is after that. To interact with the families and to start to understand the patients way of communicating with you. I provide custom rehab equipment so this allows me to really become a part of the family because of having to make adjustments to the equipment a number of times a year. I also married one of my customers mothers and considered it a priviledge to aid in taking care of him, until his passing away, last Feb. My wife and I both talk often about missing Ryan and how we didn't mind taking care of him. Ryan was not able to even feed himself, but he had his mind and his own way of communicating to us. I believe even thinking of a subject like this is on such shakey ground. This is a "God-like" decision to make. We're really not talking about whether it's life or not. We're talking about the quality of life and whether that quality of life is so poor that this person becomes a burden on their family or society and if they are then lets terminate their life. Shouldn't we be talking about protecting our helpless and not killing them?

Is there a difference between killing someone and withdrawing life support?:confused:

Is there a difference between killing someone and withdrawing life support?:confused:

I believe so. One is deliberately causing someone to die. The other is taking away a man made way of keeping a body functioning, by using machines, that otherwise would not be alive.

It depends on if there is "someone" consciously there. If the brain is ompletely dead and there is not activity indicating that the person is in some way aware of anything other than bodily functions, then I would say that it's not killing someone because technically they are already dead.

If the brain is not completely dead, such as in situations where the person is in a coma, then I believe it's a case by case basis.

Ithink the comments from Kraj and Shaneman illustrate clearly that this is tough call.

Could a law be constructed to consider the real situation. We can all stand back a little when we are not personally involved but when the situation is very close to home then maybe the call is not so clear.

My personal opinion is that it is a call by the parents.

Len

Edit

More thoughts

It is the parents who will be shouldering the responsibility for the care of the child perhaps for many years and for considering needs for the child after they indeed have departed this world.

Yes some control would be required to avoid the euthanasing of more mild cases,

Only if there's a risk to the life of the mother, that's why so many of them come here, because the RC church says they can't have one in their own country. Like I said, it's about time the church stopped ruling our lives!

Try this for starters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6114938.stm

I don't see any connection. Can you give me some concrete examples of where "the church" rules your life - and laws passed by democratically elected governments that happen to be in agreement with "the church" opinion don't count - you can blame the government for that, not "the church".

The church has no rule over my life - perhaps you are too easily led, influenced or dictated to Rich? Stand up for yourself!

If you want to act like a sheep don't be suprised if "the church" includes you in its flock. Baaaa

All right then know all, why was Sunday trading banned on Easter Sunday?:rolleyes:

All right then know all, why was Sunday trading banned on Easter Sunday?:rolleyes:

In deference to a tradition that has gone on for several hundred years?

In deference to a tradition that has gone on for several hundred years?
Large shops (floor area >280 sq mtrs) can't open on xmas day either. I don't see why, xmas has nothing to do with religion.

Col

All right then know all, why was Sunday trading banned on Easter Sunday?

OK then know nothing -

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1754340,00.html

Lined up against them are a wide variety of interest groups, ranging from small business groups to the shopworkers' union Usdaw, the Keep Sunday Special campaign, supported by the Mothers' Union and the United Reformed Church, and some 220 MPs who have signed an early day motion opposing the liberalisation of the Sunday trading laws.



Its the church is it Rich - and not being able to go to a Tesco supermarket one day a year is ruling your life?

Not just Tesco's - its any shop where the floor area is >280 sq mtrs.

Col

OK then know nothing -

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1754340,00.html



Its the church is it Rich - and not being able to go to a Tesco supermarket one day a year is ruling your life?
The Church stopped it, like I said, the church still has too much power in this country!

The Church stopped it, like I said, the church still has too much power in this country!
Odd isn't it? comparatively, the church, christ and god are all dead ducks, yet some pervert archbishop in a skirt can dictate when we go shopping?

Col

In deference to a tradition that has gone on for several hundred years?
Easter Sunday's the most important shopping day of the year

The Church stopped it, like I said, the church still has too much power in this country!

If the church had as much power as you say then there would be no Sunday trading, why should shop workers have to work on sundays and bank holidays when the majority of workers don't? OK that'll hi jack the thread sorry.

Brian

Odd isn't it? comparatively, the church, christ and god are all dead ducks, yet some pervert archbishop in a skirt can dictate when we go shopping?

Col
and the Church can still change intended government policy! But then hell, so can a bloody tv chef with the current mob:rolleyes:

Odd isn't it? comparatively, the church, christ and god are all dead ducks, yet some pervert archbishop in a skirt can dictate when we go shopping?

Col

Aren’t you two Bozos always touting British freedom over American freedom?

Over here our shopping is not dictated by our government. And certainly our Church leaders don’t show up in Congress asking for a NATIONAL ban on Easter Shopping.

If the church had as much power as you say then there would be no Sunday trading, why should shop workers have to work on sundays and bank holidays when the majority of workers don't? OK that'll hi jack the thread sorry.

Brian
They don't have to Brian, do they?

Aren’t you two Bozos always touting British freedom over American freedom?

Over here our shopping is not dictated by our government. And certainly our Church leaders don’t show up in Congress asking for a NATIONAL ban on Easter Shopping.
Nah, just abortion, gay marriage etc etc :rolleyes:

They don't have to Brian, do they?

Yes, atleast my son in law who is an assistant store manager has no option, perhaps shelve stackers do, but I doubt it. He hasn't had a Sunday off for 4 weeks, hardly conducive to family life as thats the day the rest are at home.

Brian

Yes, atleast my son in law who is an assistant store manager has no option, perhaps shelve stackers do, but I doubt it. He hasn't had a Sunday off for 4 weeks, hardly conducive to family life as thats the day the rest are at home.

Brian
One could argue the same for Saturdays Bri, with a day off in the week in rota;)

Nah, just abortion, gay marriage etc etc :rolleyes:

Abortion's legal here Rich.

To getting the thread back on topic...

I thought the title of this thread was a bit odd and I really don't know why; Instead of 'Baby Euthanasia', wouldn't something like 'Infant Euthanasia' have been more fitting?

Abortion's legal here Rich.
at the minute

at the minute

It will take an amendment to the constitution to ratify that. Where do you suppose the support is going to come from?

One could argue the same for Saturdays Bri, with a day off in the week in rota;)

The problem is he works Saturday and Sunday with 2 days off in the week, not nescessarily consecutive days, so the twain never meet.

Still absence makes the heart grow fonder and all that tosh:rolleyes:

Brian

Yes, atleast my son in law who is an assistant store manager has no option, perhaps shelve stackers do, but I doubt it. He hasn't had a Sunday off for 4 weeks, hardly conducive to family life as thats the day the rest are at home.

Brian
well Bri - if he doesn't like it - change jobs - simple.:rolleyes:

He gets a day off in the week I expect, and enhanced pay for the sunday?

Col

To getting the thread back on topic...

I thought the title of this thread was a bit odd and I really don't know why; Instead of 'Baby Euthanasia', wouldn't something like 'Infant Euthanasia' have been more fitting?

I thought that we were discussing, now and again :D , the killing of new borns, they are considered babies over here, can you expand your point.

Brian

some of the little brats should have been drowned at birth:cool:

Col

It will take an amendment to the constitution to ratify that. Where do you suppose the support is going to come from?
The church

To getting the thread back on topic...

I thought the title of this thread was a bit odd and I really don't know why; Instead of 'Baby Euthanasia', wouldn't something like 'Infant Euthanasia' have been more fitting?
Didn't god order the massacre of his own children?:confused:

some of the little brats should have been drowned at birth:cool:

Col

Yes along with their parents but I think that's a different case :cool:

Brian

some of the little brats should have been drowned at birth:cool:

Col
we certainly ought to bring back the ducking stool for some of 'em!

I thought that we were discussing, now and again :D , the killing of new borns, they are considered babies over here, can you expand your point.

Brian

Hum... Not sure how to. Over here, in a more formal discussion, seems 'infant' would be more fitting. Not much more to it than that I guess. :) :)

Didn't god order the massacre of his own children?:confused:
similarly, god manipulated the Romans into killing his "own" son, but then again if god knew he [jesus] was going to be ok in the long run, it seems less of a sacrifice - all this "god sacrificed his only son" rubbish is just overdramatisation, you can't sacrifice something then get it back later on.

Its like saying I'm happy for the vet to put my dog down - knowing that the dog will be ok again in a month or so. There's no sadness, in fact, a nice little break for a holiday without kennel fees.

Col

There's no sadness, in fact, a nice little break for a holiday without kennel fees.

Col

He probably earned it :eek: :p

similarly, god manipulated the Romans into killing his "own" son, but then again if god knew he [jesus] was going to be ok in the long run, it seems less of a sacrifice - all this "god sacrificed his only son" rubbish is just overdramatisation, you can't sacrifice something then get it back later on.

Its like saying I'm happy for the vet to put my dog down - knowing that the dog will be ok again in a month or so. There's no sadness, in fact, a nice little break for a holiday without kennel fees.

Col

You're such a wealth of intellect and witticisms... :rolleyes:

The church

Which Church Rich?

We have more than one here.

You're such a wealth of intellect and witticisms... :rolleyes:
Ahh thanks Ken - its true though - a sacrifice is not a sacrifice if the sacrifice-ee is going to be ok after a while - and especially if the sacrifice-er is some kind of magician who can manipulate minds.

It makes it all a bit N/A - why bother?

Col

Which Church Rich?

We have more than one here.
Most of 'em I'd say, maybe the Church of Scientology isn't

Ahh thanks Ken - its true though - a sacrifice is not a sacrifice if the sacrifice-ee is going to be ok after a while - and especially if the sacrifice-er is some kind of magician who can manipulate minds.

It makes it all a bit N/A - why bother?

Col

Save it for one of the new guys on the block ;)

Save it for one of the new guys on the block ;)
truth hurts eh? its ok, I understand

Col

Save it for one of the new guys on the block ;)
Why? is the old one exhausted?:cool:

The Church stopped it, like I said, the church still has too much power in this country!

Maybe they did - along with a group of others. But i thought you said they were ruling our lives? Yours maybe, not mine. As I said before if you are so easily ruled - thats something you need to address.

And so far all you've come up with is that "the church" and none of us know which one your are refering too here - don't let you go to Tesco or Asda on Easter or Xmas. Boohoo

Rich you are easy - or is there more to it?

Over here our shopping is not dictated by our government.
are the shops open every day in the USA?

Col

are the shops open every day in the USA?

Col

No, but it’s a business decision, not a mandate.

Maybe they did - along with a group of others. But i thought you said they were ruling our lives? Yours maybe, not mine. As I said before if you are so easily ruled - thats something you need to address.

And so far all you've come up with is that "the church" and none of us know which one your are refering too here - don't let you go to Tesco or Asda on Easter or Xmas. Boohoo

Rich you are easy - or is there more to it?
And you're blind
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_061022religion_politics.shtml

Is that supposed to justify your line that the church is ruling our lives or the opposite?

And who is Ekklesia and why should I take any notice of their opinion?

Gee....I'm so glad I took the time to contribute my personal experiences to this thread. It's so nice to see people discussing the topic instead of just blabbering the usual, inane banter.

No, but it’s a business decision, not a mandate.
So you can't go shopping on a sunday?:confused:

apart from easter and stupid christmas its a near normal day here

Col

So you can't go shopping on a sunday?:confused:

apart from easter and stupid christmas its a near normal day here

Col
On a regular Sunday all, but a few mom and pops, are open.

Gee....I'm so glad I took the time to contribute my personal experiences to this thread. It's so nice to see people discussing the topic instead of just blabbering the usual, inane banter.



It's a heavy subject Greg. I for one would rather blather.

I only come here to attack Col and Rich.

But not in that order.

Col at least, will on occasion listen and concede.

I only come here to attack Col and Rich.

But not in that order.

Col at least, will on occasion listen and concede.

Poor Rich is having his life ruled by the church - go easy on him - I will pray for him and his tortured soul! ;)

apart from easter and stupid christmas


Please don't insult either of the chocolate fesitivals. They're as close to religion as I get ;) .

Poor Rich is having his life ruled by the church - go easy on him - I will pray for him and his tortured soul! ;)

He still hasn't answered my question. Which Church?

I only come here to attack Col and Rich.
ok, let us know when you are going to start.

I notice you still haven't left yet Josephine - just a veiled threat yet again?



Col at least, will on occasion listen and concede.
concede what? I didn't know it was a battle, I'm trying to promote conversation - with difficulty I might add - I always forget to put it in simple terms for Americans:rolleyes:

Col

They're as close to religion as I get .


You may want to offer Rich some advice in how to avoid Religion - he probably won'y take it though. He likes to complain. Its not very British to complain - he complains like a yank in fact. (Thats not a critisism of yanks!)

ok, let us know when you are going to start.

I notice you still haven't left yet Josephine - just a veiled threat yet again?




concede what? I didn't know it was a battle, I'm trying to promote conversation - with difficulty I might add - I always forget to put it in simple terms for Americans:rolleyes:

Col

Grumpy Old Man, if you ever once, didn't get out of the bed on the wrong side, there'd be dancing in the streets.

The guards at the palace would probably even smile.

You may want to offer Rich some advice in how to avoid Religion - he probably won'y take it though. He likes to complain. Its not very British to complain - he complains like a yank in fact. (Thats not a critisism of yanks!)

I think we refer to it as griping.

As in Rich is griping around in the dark?

He still hasn't answered my question. Which Church?

I refer you to my previous post. He hasn't a clue.

Grumpy Old Man,
Ah the old American standby, call someone names.

Good Jen, didn't see that coming, thought it was too early in the discussion for you to get all confused and start resorting to "Ken tactics":rolleyes:

Col

Its not very British to complain
I complained like hell when my endowment mortgage was going to be £17K short.

It was upheld and I got the agreed FSA compensation:D

Col

Originally Posted by Pauldohert
Its not very British to complain



I complained like hell when my endowment mortgage was going to be £17K short.

It was upheld and I got the agreed FSA compensation

Well done - acting more like a yank is clearly paying off - continue the effort!

Well done - acting more like a yank is clearly paying off - continue the effort!

Ouch. :D Good one. ;)

Gee....I'm so glad I took the time to contribute my personal experiences to this thread. It's so nice to see people discussing the topic instead of just blabbering the usual, inane banter.

Did you expect more? :rolleyes:

As in Rich is griping around in the dark?
So sayeth the idiot who thinks we should all follow the dietary advice of a tv chef and swallows government statistics for breakfast.
Remind me again, who's the head of the church of England?:rolleyes:

He still hasn't answered my question. Which Church?
He did answer your question, ask the moderator why it was deleted:mad:

So sayeth the idiot who thinks we should all follow the dietary advice of a tv chef and swallows government statistics for breakfast.
Remind me again, who's the head of the church of England?

Coming from you Rich - I shall take that as a compliment. Thanks.

Ahhh are you trying to get to we are ruled by the Queen who is the head of the church of England!

Can you tell me why she doesn't want Tesco or Asda open on Easter as thats the only thing you have come up with that affects you so far.

So is the problem the queen, the church , the government , Tescos or you?

How many Bishops sit in the House of Lords?:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

So these few guys and maybe gals hold total sway over the rest of the house of lords and the commons?

Ur making a mountain out of a molehill!

Ur making a mountain out of a molehill!
No, you're denying the fact that the church still has too much say in the running of this country!

I'm denying the fact that its ruling our lives - as was your original point.

2% of anyone sitting in the two houses are from the church - and they have had a contribution in stopping us visiting Tesco one day a year. Maybe thats too much for you to bear - but its hardly ruling our lives is it?

I have never known anyone more vehement, or fundamentalist on religion than an atheist.

Please give it a rest

If there is a god, you're going to hell - get used to it
If there isn't a god, bask in the warming smug glow that you were right - and take the higher moral ground, be the bigger man by not rubbing everyone's face in it.

/infurated rant.


As far as euthanasing infants is concerned, I support the "do not resuscitate" option.

If there is a god, you're going to hell - get used to it

Why would you think that, simply because I don't attend church?

He did answer your question, ask the moderator why it was deleted:mad:
I missed out on this - did Ken delete your post because you dared to have a poke at religion?:confused:

Whats the story Ken?

Col

Why would you think that, simply because I don't attend church?

I'm not sure god would really want someone who complains, bemoans and curses everything about Him/Her to reside anywhere in the immediate vicinity, or be rewarded for bad-mouthing or critisising the obedient.

It's rather like rewarding the brat in school who refuses to do their homework, or attend lessons. Should there be a test at the end of term, you wouldn't expect them to pass, would you?

FYI - I am NOT religious. I couldn't give a monkee's whether or not god exists. I am in favour of Easter and Christmas if only because they are holidays - we get fewer holidays than the rest of Europe (and the US? Can anyone correct me on this, please?) and I will jump on any bandwagon that will get me out of work for another day. I like cathedrals - they are beautiful pieces of architecture. Religions work in theory (but then so does communism) and the biggest failing is the human element.

And now look what you've made me do...:mad: /off topic

Mind you, I'm pretty mad at myself for once again getting drawn in to another soul-destroying discussion

I'm not sure god would really want someone who complains, bemoans and curses everything about Him/Her to reside anywhere in the immediate vicinity, or be rewarded for bad-mouthing or critisising the obedient.


I don't recall cursing here, can you point it out to me?:confused:

I missed out on this - did Ken delete your post because you dared to have a poke at religion?:confused:



Col
Somebody did, though I don't remember which thread it was on because Jenny argues on just about every one

I don't recall cursing here, can you point it out to me?:confused:

Depending on your definition of cursing - or cussing - your use of a four letter word which mr moderator censored would seem to fit the bill.

Depending on your definition of cursing - or cussing - your use of a four letter word which mr moderator censored would seem to fit the bill.
Like I said at the time, others use that word frequently here, in any case it wasn't aimed at god and I don't think it's listed in the bible as a reserved word either:p

I am in favour of Easter and Christmas if only because they are holidays -
December 25th has nothing to do with religion. If there was a Jesus, he was born in Sept / Oct time.

a case can apparently be made that Jesus Christ was born on the 15th day of the month of Tishri, on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, which corresponds to the September - October timeframe of our present calendar
ref (http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/sukkoth.htm)

It was in a.d. 314 the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great changed the date of Jesus's birthday to December 25. Sad to say this date is still believed by many to be his birthdate.

Constantine had two reasons for making the change. Firstly it separated the Christian celebration from any Jewish association. In doing so Constantine was trying to suggest Jesus was a Christian, not a Jew.

The second reason was so that the new birthdate of Jesus would coincide with and then eventually replace the Pagan Sun Festival. The reality is that December 25 is the Pagan Sun Festival.
ref (http://www.paralumun.com/jesusbirth.htm)

Thats why we decorate trees on the 25th - its a Pagan festival.

But you're right Nikky, its a day off work and thats the main thing:D
Col

but its hardly ruling our lives is it?

Rich U don't seem to have been able to answer this one either?

December 25th has nothing to do with religion. If there was a Jesus, he was born in Sept / Oct time.
Col

Hey Col, don't if you would find this interesting or not but hopefully you will. Jewish high priest have kept information for many centuries and one of the pieces of information that they have kept is the birth of Jesus and according to them. Jesus was born on Sept. 11th.

Paul - any clues as to why you can have the word "shit" in every post of yours, yet the word was obscured by **** in Rich's post:confused:

Personally, I don't mind, its a common everyday word. I was just curious:confused:

Col

I didn't see the context of Rich's use of it, so at the moment I wouldn't like to comment.

Mine is purely a quote of the idiot in charge - (i forget which of the two it is now)

I was also under the impression that most of Rich's posts are full of shit - and they are all still here?

I was also under the impression that most of Rich's posts are full of shit - and they are all still here?

So is this the mutual animosity society?

Hey Col, don't if you would find this interesting or not but hopefully you will. Jewish high priest have kept information for many centuries and one of the pieces of information that they have kept is the birth of Jesus and according to them. Jesus was born on Sept. 11th.
Thanks Shane;)

Col

Thanks Shane;)

Col

Your welcome.:D

Your welcome.:D
I appreciate your time in helping on this;)

Col

So is this the mutual animosity society?

It would be presumtious for me to answer that.

I don't recall cursing here, can you point it out to me?:confused:

You don't neccesarily have to use 4-letter words to curse something. ;)

Whilst I may agree with the do-not resuss (in certain cases). I could never agree with actively killing a baby once it was born although I do not object to abortions. Once baby is alive and able to survive outside the mother (even with a little help) it is human.

What I do think that there should be is a limit on what age a new born is supported. i.e at 24 weeks. It is now possible to put the baby in a incubator and there is a chance that the baby will survive, but with a very high probability that it will be handicapped. At some point we have to draw the line a survival.

One of my major concerns, is the same as my concern with "the right of terminal ill patients to die.” Is that it is the thin edge, and it will lead to “well you are a burden so you should die”, So you get babies with downs syndrome (who can lead a happy and productive life) put to death because the parents decide at an emotional time (or are under pressure too) to have the “put too sleep”.

You don't neccesarily have to use 4-letter words to curse something. ;)
I can't think of any three letter ones:confused: :p

I can't think of any three letter ones:confused: :p

Well, I do know that your name is a 4-letter word. :p :cool:

Well, I do know that your name is a 4-letter word. :p :cool:
That's Rich coming from you:cool:

Well, I do know that your name is a 4-letter word. :p :cool:

Trying for a laugh today Cindy? Hehe ;) ;) ;)

Trying for a laugh today Cindy? Hehe ;) ;) ;)

I've got to try to lighten things up sometimes. ;)

That's Rich coming from you:cool:
:eek: :cool: :)

Gee....I'm so glad I took the time to contribute my personal experiences to this thread. It's so nice to see people discussing the topic instead of just blabbering the usual, inane banter.
Yeah, I know.... you pour your heart out and... nothing.
It's like trying to have a discussion with a band of rioters!
:rolleyes:

Personally, Greg, I couldn't conceive of (no pun intended) having to deal with all the issues a handicapped child would bring into my life. And, I'm certainly hoping that my family stays healthy enough that no intense care needs arise at any time in their lives. But I think a lot of people are forced to deal with those health issues whether or not their loved ones are born handicapped, or become handicapped due to a tragedy or simple old age.

Whatever the case may be, I think the question would be one in the same. Should we allow people to order the deaths of other people because they're either tired , or financially incapable of providing care for that person? Well, the logical answer is an emphatic NO! I do agree that they should not be "forced" to continue care and it is at this point I believe the burden should be shouldered by the community at large and accommodations made to provide care for these people.

You described a little girl I used to babysit for when you told us of your sister's issues. She was sometimes uncontrollable and I was certainly relieved when her mother came home from work and I was able to escape! But that mom loved that little girl, even though she never grew up and to this day still cares for her absolutely. (I ran into them a few years at the grocery store... broke my heart to see she had never gotten any better than when I knew her.) I have no idea what that girl's life is really like or whether the joys she experiences outweigh the sorrows.

How would you define criteria that is relevant to deciding whether a life is worth living or not? Really.... I'm curious!

Additional to the euthanised babies, there is also the subject of young carers in the news at the moment. For all the pressure that is on parents to look after a disabled baby, there must be infinitly more pressure on a young child who looks after a disabled parent - at the expense of their own childhood.

There should be far more that society - read the government, since they are the ones with the most funding - can do to support those in need - the carers as much as the disabled patient.

Tess, honey...I think we share the same brain. :)

There should be far more that society - read the government, since they are the ones with the most funding - can do to support those in need - the carers as much as the disabled patient.

One of the issues the charity I worked for towards the end of my working life was "who cares for the carers?". I think that one of the tests of a civilised society is how it cares for the vulnerable , of any age, in its midst.

Brian

Tess, honey...I think we share the same brain. :)

LOL... I guess that could explain why you're also fond of men...