Replies

The story states that The church is "calling for legal euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies"

But the bishop says:

"It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death"

Now to me it seems that the newspaper has misstated what the bishop said. It is one thing to administer morphine to deliberately kill a person--Euthanasia--it is another to stop treatment when it is obvious that the treatment will not save a life.

While it is clear where the doctors stand, they do not provide enough information to determine whether the bishop is saying we should withhold treatment only in the case of a terminally ill child, or that handicapped children who might otherwise live also should not be treated. I have a hard time trusting newspapers. It doesn't sound like he is promoting euthanasia--actively killing a sick person.

Now to me it seems that the newspaper has misstated what the bishop said. It is one thing to administer morphine to deliberately kill a person--Euthanasia--it is another to stop treatment when it is obvious that the treatment will not save a life.

Reading carefully, I believe the title of the article is misleading. All statements in the piece itself suggest there might be time where vain attempts at treatment is actually worse than allowing the infant to pass on. A bit differently, the Royal College apparently supports active mercy killing in its separate report.

Most bizarre is arguing if they can freely kill the child after it's born, parents might not have late term abortions in order to see the infants circumstance for themselves.

This is a legacy of the "pro choice" fascists: you or I lose an innate right to live and are allowed continued lives purely at the arbitrary whim of another, separate person.

Just watch how the Left treat any abortion vs. a miscarriage, such as Pamela Anderson's. For those abortion ideologues the only difference is whether the child was wanted or not. They don't more the child itself.

Now to me it seems that the newspaper has misstated what the bishop said. It is one thing to administer morphine to deliberately kill a person--Euthanasia--it is another to stop treatment when it is obvious that the treatment will not save a life.

Reading carefully, I believe the title of the article is misleading. All statements in the piece itself suggest there might be time where vain attempts at treatment is actually worse than allowing the infant to pass on. A bit differently, the Royal College apparently supports active mercy killing in its separate report.

Most bizarre is arguing if they can freely kill the child after it's born, parents might not have late term abortions in order to see the infants circumstance for themselves.

This is a legacy of the "pro choice" fascists: you or I lose an innate right to live and are allowed continued lives purely at the arbitrary whim of another, separate person.

Just watch how the Left treat any abortion vs. a miscarriage, such as Pamela Anderson's. For those abortion ideologues the only difference is whether the child was wanted or not. They don't mourn the child itself.

Shame on the Church of England and your whitewash.

I am an EX Anglican. I intend to stay that way after this moral apostasy.

I was also the intended target of "baby euthanasia" having been born with a cerebral hemorrhage. My obstetrician wanted my parents to "let" me die but they wouldn't hear of it. I fact, my dad (rest his soul) asked whether there wasn't someone who could help. The answer was, "yes, but he'll cost you $25."

Passive euthanasia is just as much killing as active euthanasia. Your distinction just helps push the apostate churches and indeed our whole culture further down the slippery slope.

Shame on the Church of England and your whitewash.

I am an EX Anglican. I intend to stay that way even without this moral apostasy.

I was also the intended target of "baby euthanasia" having been born with a cerebral hemorrhage. My obstetrician wanted my parents to "let" me die but they wouldn't hear of it. I fact, my dad (rest his soul) asked whether there wasn't someone who could help. The answer was, "yes, but he'll cost you $25."

Passive euthanasia is just as much killing as active euthanasia. Your distinction just helps push the apostate churches and indeed our whole culture further down the slippery slope.