Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

Daily Mail ^ | 12 Nov 06 | Neil Sears

[mware]

We have plenty of folks that think like that in the US too. Many of them so called religious leaders.

I sure miss Cardinal O Connor.

[Liberal Bob]

I would like for him to imagine Jesus, Himself standing right next to him, and then saying that out loud!

And He would say: "Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me."

Mark 9:37

[Seruzawa]

Well, since socialism is so gadawfuully inefficient some adjustments have to be made. The idea that a free enterprise society would have enough abundance to take care of those who can't take care of themselves would never occur to the these filthy european marxists.

Europe is the center of evil in the world. It has been for centuries. Hitler, Marx, Spencer, Malthus, Hegel......opium wars, world wars, etc etc ad infinitum.

[Kolokotronis]

Reply?

My youngest son was born with Down Syndrome; without a major heart surgery, a very rare one at the time, he'd have never seen his 3rd birthday. Today he is 23 and the greatest blessing my family has.

[uglybiker]

We should be thankful the Hensel twins were born here instead of Britain.

[xzins]

What a timely blessing is your story.

See #33

[vox_freedom]

Very plausible scenario.
The pro-death (aka euthanasia) advocates often play on the emotions of "those left behind" and how they would benefit by a "quick exit" of ol grandma.
Now it can be: "So what if you're not sick now, you will be soon at your age. Why suffer, and save the $$$ for the grandchildren, by taking this little grey colored pill and go to sleep..."

[ozoneliar]

Is this the same church that wanted to divest from Israel?

[Tamzee]

lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance

Where have we heard that again? Oh, yeah... "safe, legal and RARE".

The world has turned into a House of Horrors :-(

[88keys]

I'm only making a guess at "strong proportionate reasons", but I would say that it's similar to "do not resusitate (sic)" orders, which aren't uncommon with adult patients who are terminally ill. Life may still be maintained, and it clearly depends on who is giving the "order" (patient, family); a newborn obviously cannot communicate on his/her own behalf, and the Church may simply be saying that life should not necessarily be preserved at all costs. It's not a matter of whether a life is worth living, but whether a physical life can be maintained without extreme measures. We have wonderful modern medical technology...is it always a blessing?

[LadyNavyVet]

"...the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions."

This is the logical end point of socialized medicine. If the state is paying to keep you alive, the state gets to decide if you are worthy of life. This is why we cannot let HillaryCare take hold here.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Consider a very premature newborn who has been losing sections of his bowel to necrosis, has endured a couple operations to put it back together, he's on a respirator, then he has a bleed on his brain and pneumonia, and his bowel goes bad again - would it be so evil or unreasonable for his parents to resign themselves and hold him as he dies, or should they say cut him open again...

The Church (either R.C. or Christian in general) has NEVER said "life should be preserved at all costs." We do believe in heaven.

That said, these C.of E. bishops should never say anything that might be construed to support active euthanasia. They should be very clear to condemn it, and apparently they haven't.

Mrs VS

[xzins]

See #33

[relictele]

If the CofE were in charge in Europe in olden times, I guess they would have had Quasimodo put down and the bells at Notre Dame would never have rung.

[hinckley buzzard]

So God's Will and His Greater Plan be damned, is that it?

Oh my no. Goodness gracious. It's just that there are "strong proportionate reasons" for ignoring it from time to time, especially when the NHS budget hearings are imminent.

[vox_freedom]

I'm guessing that insurance companies would pay parents to allow the disabled to die. They just haven't had the societal cover to step forward yet with their offers of blood money.

I've heard the last six months of health care are the most expensive, averaging $200,000 -- though this could be an inaccurate #. Suffice it to say, there is a very real financial incentive to shorten that period of time, by insurance carriers and sometimes family members who would rather have the loot than the old coot. No wonder there is a push on to "allow" euthanasia for the old and infirm. Tragic and despicable are two terms for those who would kill innocent babies in the womb and the helpless elderly.

[vox_freedom]

This is the logical end point of socialized medicine. If the state is paying to keep you alive, the state gets to decide if you are worthy of life. This is why we cannot let HillaryCare take hold here.

Very true observation. And it should be acknowledged that some in governmental power WANT this authority and control! Scary isn't it that they would want to have authority of over life and death?

That single issue is sufficient to put every effort into stopping liberalism.

[xzins]

Wouldn't it be a false dilemma to say the choice is between extraordinary measures and no measures?

Shouldn't "reasonable measures" be in that list of choices?

I would say that "some measure" should always be taken.

[OregonRancher]

You and I are on the same page...thank you for some rational thoughts...

[StarFan]

I'm speechless.