Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (78642)	11/5/2003 4:20:17 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Wow...This is a great preface to the future infanticide proposals. You remind me of all the suffering my parents went through on my behalf, and how that must have crippled them. Nice to see what I am up against and happy that I only have to worry about the difficulties of the day. I am not ready for the future. the abortion rhetoric continues ... "I'm questioning the burden on the caregivers, presumably hospitals, the suffering of those who watch the baby suffer before it dies, and of course the suffering of the baby itself, which we can only hope will have a mercifully short life." "And on top of this you want to cripple the mother, perhaps so she can't have any more kids, or perhaps so she can't work to support the rest of her family, or whatever it was that she did in her life before you willfully crippled her. You have no clue what I want but you do open my eyes to the amazing the lengths people will go to for the abortion god. I figured that what people did for the sake of the clinton admin was the extreme limit... I was wrong.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78642)	11/5/2003 5:05:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Parents should decide if they want a grossly deformed child, or not. While I can kind of understand forcing a healthy kid on an unwilling parent, sort of, I can't get forcing a deformed one on someone. When you have sex with someone, pregnancy is certainly something most people think about- but a grossly deformed child isn't something people contemplate. It isn't reasonable to force people to have a child like that, nor is it reasonable to force them not to- the choice should be up to the parents, and what they think they can stand. Some deformities, or abnormalities are so extensive, it can cripple a family financially, and emotionally. Families with a disabled child are more likely to come apart due to divorce, and abuse of the disabled child is likely. Given all the rather nasty side effects attendant to having a severely deformed or abnormal child, it doesn't seem like an issue people with any compassion should make laws about.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78642)	11/5/2003 5:24:56 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm questioning the burden on the caregivers, presumably hospitals, the suffering of those who watch the baby suffer before it dies, and of course the suffering of the baby itself, which we can only hope will have a mercifully short life. The daughter of a close friend works in the neonatal unit at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. She is young enough that she can and will talk about what she sees very honestly and descriptively, because she herself is still struggling with what she is witnessing. Parkland is an enormous facility, and the neonatal unit has 75 beds. Her stories of the families of seriously deformed children are heartwrenching-- the death watches, the agony of the child, the guilt of the parents. She is religious, but she says she is finding that her views are changing because of what she sees. In a way, these decisions are the product, just as the decision about Terri Shiavo is, of technical advances that have moved faster than the moral conflicts can be fully considered.

To: Lane3 who wrote (78642)	11/5/2003 5:28:19 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

hmmm... apparently the new code words to justify infanticide are ...Compassion. ...Mercifully short life. ... just putting them out of THEIR misery ...Elimination of suffering for the unwanted, disturbed and disabled. Nothing to do with the self centered adults who find children to be an inconvenience...chyaaaarieet

To: Lane3 who wrote (78642)	11/5/2003 5:52:03 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You've known me long enough to know that I would never create any laws to take medical decisions out of the hands of the parties and their doctors. Really, truly? You would allow a person to commit suicide, which is a medical decision, without societal interference? If yoiu had an unconscious patient you would allow a person with a durable medical power of attorney and a doctor to make the decision to kill off the person even if they had a hope of recovery? Before you say no doctor would ever do that, keep in mind that doctors are human, most are excellent but some are unethical, and if the unconscious person had a large estate (let's say 50 million) and the person with the dpa was the sole heir, are you willing to commit to the fact that he or she can't find a doctor anywhere in the US who wouldn't euthanaise for a cool $10 million? And of course, charging them with murder is taking the decision out of the hands of the parties and their doctors. Don't you believe that there should be some laws preventing some things that a doctor and patient can agree to, realizing that incompetent patients can agree through a durable medical power of attorney?