You remember news accounts of Robert Latimer saying what he did was compassionate toward his daughter and a judge who sentenced in agreement.

Originally posted by ParaDude:
Yeah what a horrible world it would be if disabilities were eliminated from this planet.

Like I said before, women get abortions for all sorts of reasons, claiming it is their right to do so, so having an abortion because the child is going to be disabled seems to be her right as well.

As for killing children who are already born? Well obviously I don't agree with that.

I must infer PD that you are in complete agreement with the acquital of Lorena Bobbit for cutting off her husband's penis, because it is pretty obvious she would never do that again!

Originally posted by StarlightAngel:
the problem i see with NDY is that they highlight cases from one end of the spectrum - terri schiavo, infanticide etc. - as rationale for their opposition to ALL forms of assisted suicide/euthanasia including (and here is where i have the biggest problem w/ their thinking) the right for MENTALLY COMPETENT adults to make their own end-of-life decisions.

two completely different issues, really.

Here's an example of a similar kind------ It is illegal to use heroin. It is illegal for competent adults to use it. It is illegal for children to use it. It is illegal for people who have been found incompetent. Competence isn't the issue. Heroin is simply illegal.

Euthanasia is simply illegal and in the opinion of NDY - it should be.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
No, NDY doesn't consider competence - one way or the other. They simply consider that at this point in time permitting euthanasia on account of disability is wrong. It is unilaterally considered wrong - whether you are competent or not.

Here's an example of a similar kind------ It is illegal to use heroin. It is illegal for competent adults to use it. It is illegal for children to use it. It is illegal for people who have been found incompetent. Competence isn't the issue. Heroin is simply illegal.

Euthanasia is simply illegal and in the opinion of NDY - it should be.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
NDY would say - the edit against euthansia is universal - no exceptions. There is no way to ethically and decidedly determine who would be those candidates who came to their decision without being pushed into that decision by others (society included.)

Originally posted by Xuxan:
Everyone, individually or organizationally has to make decisions based on the information they have at hand. NDY has made its decision by balancing the indpendence to make any choice you want versus a choice you feel is the only choice you have.

And yes, as much as it grieves me to say it, it does mean exactly as you say, "sorry honey, you are screwed."

Originally posted by Xuxan:
No, you don't understand.

If a person is extreme pain - give them pain killers. If the level of pain killers required to kill pain results in death - as long as a person knowledgeably made that choice - it is their choice to make.

Originally posted by cass:
pd, you paint NDY as a collective with a single purpose. it isn't. except for the belief euthanasia should remain illegal as long as there is a bias in society against dis ppl; i.e. "understanding" why dis ppl would want to die. i think you fail to acknowledge this.

yes, we have curbcuts, dis parking, etc. but you fail to see many of the ppl you are attacking advocated for that as well. more importantly, you seemingly are not aware of the bioethics trend which is growing.

NDY is not against choice. it is against choice in THIS environment. i see many emails back and forth. NDY is comprised of many individual viewpoints. TRUE end of life choices are not opposed, but not possible given the perceived "suffering" of pwd. at least, under the law. the law is the key. it is not illegal to commit suicide (in the u.s.). it is illegal to commit murder. inbetween is a gray area.

that said, helping a friend to die and killing a child share no common ground.