 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
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
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
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/20.../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.
Last edited by Ned on 02-12-2004 at 07:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
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. |
"Immediately" terminal? Okay, explain to me the distinction between "terminal" and "immediately terminal." I'm sure you can draw upon your extensive medical expertise to educate us on this.
Beyond your bullshitting, let's take this phrase again:
quote:
There is a lot more emphasis on "pain" from incurable diseases (not necessarily terminal), from premature births, from brain damage, and from deformaties. |
Why do you want babies to live in pain, Ned? Does that allay your conscience, rather than them being killed?
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 02-12-2004 at 11:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
Boris, you are going to have to admit that the primary concern is pain and suffering. The Dutch are willing to put people out of their misery in the same manner as we shoot lame horses.
The main reason why I raise this whole issue is how one decides the issue of right or wrong. I have always been in favor of euthanasia because it does eliminate agony. The Church says taking any life for any reason is murder. I believe the Church is wrong.
The next question then, is whether someone else beside the person themselves can make the decision when one is incapable of making it themselves. I agree with the Dutch position on this score. A person in agony who cannot make the decision can have the decision made for him by his doctors.
What I find difficult is that the Third Reich did the same thing and they were condemned. Now, it may be true that they did it because the "liquidated" were useless to the State and only burderned the German health care system. But it this just propaganda?
But, why is one "good" and the other "bad" if the actions were the same actions?
Last edited by Ned on 03-12-2004 at 05:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
A little more on the whole issue of Groningen Protocol.
Point 1) the issue of parental consent is much more muted as advisory only.
Point 2) According to the hospital spokesman the decision to terminate lies wholly within the auspices of the comittee
Grand Forks Herald
The pertinent part quoted below
quote:
Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.
The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.
"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."
A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
Funny, the article Nacht mentioned earlier, which is the official press release by the hospital which wrote the protocol, says exactly the opposite. A rough translation I swiftly made (of the most important section):
quote:
In the protocol, which came about after deliberation with paediatricians throughout the Netherlands and the office of the Public Prosecutor, is described in great detail in which cases the medical team may spare the child from further suffering. Among other conditions, it must be the case that there is unbearable suffering which cannot be alleviated through other means, such as medication. Also, there may not be any chance of improvement (hopelessness). The entire medical team involved (a seriously ill child is usually surrounded by a multidisciplinairy team of treating doctors and nurses) has to be convinced that there is no alternative means to help the child, and also the external counseling doctors have to agree. Also, permission of the parents is mandatory. Finally, the actually termination of life itself has to meet all criteria of carefulness and consciousness. |
I find it appalling the the American conservative press would actually resort to outright lies to prove their point. A very, very dangerous situation which, like Hueij said, makes me very, very grateful I was born in the Netherlands and not the USA (which is saying something considering our current political climate).
Edit: typos
Last edited by Locutus on 03-12-2004 at 05:32
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2004 02:25
, and of course anti-smoking campaigns are Nazi-ish! And vegetarians? That's Hitler-talk 
.
|