| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2005 12:12:48 PM |
| Object: |
Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1542109/posts
EUTHANASIA
By Malcolm Muggeridge
An extract from The Humane Holocaust dating back to the early 70's.
"Which vision are we for? On the one hand, as the pattern of our
collective existence, the broiler house or factory-farm, in which the
concern is solely for the physical well-being of the livestock and the
financial well-being of the enterprise; on the other, mankind as a
family, all of whose members, whatever physical or mental qualities or
deficiencies they may have, are equally deserving of consideration in
the eyes of their creator, and whose existence has validity, not just
in itself, nor in relation to history, but in relation to a destiny
reaching beyond time and into eternity.
Or, in simple terms, on the one hand, the quality of life; on the
other, the sanctity of life.
The sanctity of life is, of course, a religious or transcendental
concept, and has no meaning otherwise; if there is no God, life cannot
have sanctity. By the same token, the quality of life is an earthly or
worldly concept, and can only be expressed legalistically, and in
materialist terms; the soul does not come into it.
It follows, at the end of our life span, that geriatrics unable any
longer to offer in the way of aesthetic, carnal and egotistic
satisfaction - in other words by virtue of their years losing out on
quality of life - should be subjected to euthanasia or mercy-killing,
and discreetly murdered.
On this basis, for instance, Beethoven would scarcely have been allowed
to be born; his heredity and family circumstances were atrocious, a
case history of syphilis, deafness and insanity. Today his mother's
pregnancy would be considered irresponsible and as requiring to be
terminated.
Dr. Johnson, when he was born, was scrofulous, and already showed signs
of the nervous disorders which plagued him all his life. He, too, under
present conditions, would probably not have been allowed to survive.
Imagine a young girl, unmarried and pregnant, who insists that the Holy
Ghost is responsible for her pregnancy, and that its outcome, according
to a vision she has been vouchsafed, would be the birth of a
long-awaited Messiah.
Not much quality of life potential there, I fancy, and it wouldn't take
the pregnancy and family planning pundits long to decide that our
Saviour, while still at the fetus stage, should be thrown away in
hospital waste.
.....To quieten any qualms Christians might have about abortion on
demand, an Anglican bishop has devised an appropriate prayer for use on
the occasion of an abortion which received the approval of the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
It runs "Into Thy hands we commit in trust the developing life we have
cut short" - though whether with the idea of God's continuing the
interrupted development elsewhere, or of extinguishing in Heaven the
life that was never born on earth is not clear.
In the case of euthanasia, a hymn may seem more in keeping with the
occasion - " The life thou gavest Lord, we've ended ..." Euthanasia, it
is true, has not yet been legalised except in some American states, but
notoriously it is being practised on an ever-increasing scale.
Already among old people there is reluctance to go into government
institutions for fear of being done away with. As for governments -
hard pressed financially as they all now are, and unable to economise
on defence expenditure for fear of laying themselves open to the charge
of jeopardising national security, or on welfare expenditure for fear
of losing votes - will they not look ever more longingly at the
possibility of making substantial savings by the simple expedient of
mercy-killing off the inmates of institutions for the incurably sick,
the senile old, the mentally deranged and other such?
With abortions and family planning ensuring a zero population growth
rate, and euthanasia disposing of useless mouths among the debilitated
old, besides mopping up intervening freaks, the pursuit of happiness
should be assured of at any rate financial viability. ...To destroy
life, be it in a fertilised ovum one second after conception, or in
some octogenarian or sufferer from a fatal illness, is the denial of
life and so the antithesis of love.
In life-denying terms, as we have seen, compassion easily becomes a
holocaust; garden suburbs and gulags derive from the same quest for
quality of life, and the surgeon's knife can equally be used to sustain
and extinguish life."
"Love toward men, but love without belief in God, very naturally leads
to the greatest coercion over men, and turns their lives completely
into hell on earth" Dostoevski.
END
.
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
23 Dec 2005 08:56:50 AM |
|
|
"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifispad.org> wrote in message
news:v2umq1d23s3qiksdnihn2mg50qf9ns214f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:27:59 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
Per LC:
If you had of read it, you would have seen that the law *has* been in
place "more than ten years".
Facts are your friend.
Oregon is a state, not a nation and I suspect that has a major "braking"
effect on any slippery-slope tendencies. That's why I specified "nation".
Ad-hominem attacks in other posts (not yours...) aside, I would reiterate
that I would still like to hear comments on the availability of palliative
care from someone who lives in a nation/country that has had legalized
physician-assisted suicide for at least 10 years.
That'd be me, much to your upcoming chagrin.
In the Netherlands, physician assisted suicide is available upon
request -- BUT ONLY AFTER:
1. The patient has been diagnosed by at least two doctors with an
incurable, terminal illness, preferably one for which there is no
treatment, either.
2. The patient has made a formal, written request for physician
assisted suicide.
3. The patient has demonstrated to the satisfaction of at least two
doctors and possibly a judge in a court of law, that the patient is of
sound mind, i.e., demonstrates enough mental competency that the
physicians can be assured that the decision was made freely and
without coercion.
This sounds very much like the guidelines for Oregon's Death with Dignity
law.
In addition to the points you've made above, there is also a 'waiting
period' requirement, to give the patient time to reconsider their decision.
I've repeatedly offered the link to the law and it's safeguards, but no one
seems to have actually efforted themselves to review it.
Horse, water, etc.
My uncle is a retired oncologist who has had more than one patient
literally beg for his help in ending their suffering.
There is no point in continuing life when there is no hope of
recovery, when the patient is in so much pain that they have no
quality of life, and when it is the patient's choice to end it.
This whole notion of forcing a person's autonomic functions to
continue against their own wishes while they are suffering is inhumane
and barbaric. We treat barnyard animals far better than that.
Indeed.
But, what really honks me off is that the people who ***** and moan
about the Netherlands' assisted suicide protocols are under the
ignorant delusion that the Dutch summarily execute anyone who is
elderly, infirm, or terminally ill. That is a lie, plain and simple.
And you are perpetuating that lie.
It comes as no surprise, though, that those who object are,
invariably, Americans and christstains.
I find it ironic that these folks (very often the 'right to life' crowd) are
the same ones who vote Republican, believe in state's rights, and want the
Federal govt. to stay out of *their* affairs. Hypocrites all.
In the case of Oregon's law, it was voted on and approved by the electorate,
but then challenged by RtL interests.
A second vote was held (with a well-funded disinformation campaign in
opposition), and it passed by an even larger margin.
After the election of Bush, the Ashcroft-led Justice Department aimed their
top guns at it, only to be chastised by the presiding judge.
Now Ashcroft's successor, Shrub's boy Alberto Gonzales, is at it again,
taking it all the way to the SCOTUS:
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/gonzalesvoregon.asp
LC~ Finds the only thing 'slippery' about this issue is the opposition.
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity
been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride
and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both,
superstition, bigotry and persecution."~ James Madison (Memorial and
Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
23 Dec 2005 07:21:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:56:50 -0600, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "LC"
<LCisnot@this.com>
"Bonnie *****" <bonnieb@fifispad.org> wrote in message
news:v2umq1d23s3qiksdnihn2mg50qf9ns214f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:27:59 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
Per LC:
If you had of read it, you would have seen that the law *has* been in
place "more than ten years".
Facts are your friend.
Oregon is a state, not a nation and I suspect that has a major "braking"
effect on any slippery-slope tendencies. That's why I specified "nation".
Ad-hominem attacks in other posts (not yours...) aside, I would reiterate
that I would still like to hear comments on the availability of palliative
care from someone who lives in a nation/country that has had legalized
physician-assisted suicide for at least 10 years.
That'd be me, much to your upcoming chagrin.
In the Netherlands, physician assisted suicide is available upon
request -- BUT ONLY AFTER:
1. The patient has been diagnosed by at least two doctors with an
incurable, terminal illness, preferably one for which there is no
treatment, either.
2. The patient has made a formal, written request for physician
assisted suicide.
3. The patient has demonstrated to the satisfaction of at least two
doctors and possibly a judge in a court of law, that the patient is of
sound mind, i.e., demonstrates enough mental competency that the
physicians can be assured that the decision was made freely and
without coercion.
This sounds very much like the guidelines for Oregon's Death with Dignity
law.
And you'd think I'd be up on that, considering that I live in Oregon
now.
In addition to the points you've made above, there is also a 'waiting
period' requirement, to give the patient time to reconsider their decision.
And to plan for final good-byes.
I've repeatedly offered the link to the law and it's safeguards, but no one
seems to have actually efforted themselves to review it.
Horse, water, etc.
IMO, it's more like pearls and swine. But that's just me.
My uncle is a retired oncologist who has had more than one patient
literally beg for his help in ending their suffering.
There is no point in continuing life when there is no hope of
recovery, when the patient is in so much pain that they have no
quality of life, and when it is the patient's choice to end it.
This whole notion of forcing a person's autonomic functions to
continue against their own wishes while they are suffering is inhumane
and barbaric. We treat barnyard animals far better than that.
Indeed.
Hell, even housecats with terminal leukemia are euthanized.
But a person with terminal cancer can't **choose** to end their own
suffering because some shrill christstains wrinkle their noses at it?
But, what really honks me off is that the people who ***** and moan
about the Netherlands' assisted suicide protocols are under the
ignorant delusion that the Dutch summarily execute anyone who is
elderly, infirm, or terminally ill. That is a lie, plain and simple.
And you are perpetuating that lie.
It comes as no surprise, though, that those who object are,
invariably, Americans and christstains.
I find it ironic that these folks (very often the 'right to life' crowd)
Ah, yes, the same "right to lifers" who support the war in Iraq and
the death penalty. I know them!
are
the same ones who vote Republican, believe in state's rights, and want the
Federal govt. to stay out of *their* affairs. Hypocrites all.
It's a very strange situation over here.
Republicans used to be all for less government in **ALL** matters --
private, fiscal, marital, legal, etc.
AND -- organized religion (specifically the christstains) tended to
stay out of politics, claiming that such worldly doings were less
important than their spiritual boogety-boogety.
But, in the late 70's, just in time to get Reagan into office, there
was a massive paradigm shift within christ-stain-insanity, from
"laissez-faire" WRT politics, to making political involvement a sort
of holy mandate in which all members must p[articipate in order to
work "God's will."
IOW, their new goal was to make their subjective, capricious religious
dogma into the law of the land, all non-believers be not only damned
but also disenfranchised from the political process.
And now they use whatever means necessary -- from lying about other
political views to verbally crucifying anyone who's not a neo-con.
The christstains/neo-cons are now all for any legislation that
re-enforces their religious crap through force of law.
When they don't like the laws, they use their churches as bully
pulpits to promote their political views.
When they want to change the laws, they use their churches' tax exempt
status to get funding for petitions and campaign drives.
When they go out to collect signatures on petitions (after they're
done getting signatures after and during church services), they
routinely turn in petitions with forged and faked signatures from
non-existent and dead people.
And the lying doesn't stop there. They lie about other people, other
political groups, science, public schools, sex ed, pro-life issues,
etc.
Of course, then they show their christstain love for others by
publicly announcing that anyone who doesn't agree with them will
indeed burn in Hell for all eternity.
Anyone who's not afraid of these assloaves is stupid.
Anyone who doesn't stand up to these bastards is a rank coward.
In the case of Oregon's law, it was voted on and approved by the electorate,
but then challenged by RtL interests.
Oh, yeah. The christstains did the same with same-sex marriage.
A second vote was held (with a well-funded disinformation campaign in
opposition), and it passed by an even larger margin.
After the election of Bush, the Ashcroft-led Justice Department aimed their
top guns at it, only to be chastised by the presiding judge.
The pro-states'-rights voices will, unfortunately, be silenced soon,
though, if the republiCUNTS win in '08.
Now Ashcroft's successor, Shrub's boy Alberto Gonzales, is at it again,
taking it all the way to the SCOTUS:
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/gonzalesvoregon.asp
LC~ Finds the only thing 'slippery' about this issue is the opposition.
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity
been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride
and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both,
superstition, bigotry and persecution."~ James Madison (Memorial and
Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)
Oh, yeah. That's another thing. The christstain republiCUNTS claim
that the US was a christstain nation founded on christstain
principles.
One need only glance at the First Amendment's non-establishment clause
to know they're lying. And if that's not enough to convince anyone,
then some quotes from the founding fathers -- all of whom, without
exception, knew what evil assholes christstains were and are -- prove
it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The founding fathers all considered christ-stain-insanity a blight on
the planet. Too bad they didn't outlaw that sick, diseased cult
outright.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
22 Dec 2005 09:19:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:28:46 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
That's an awfully heavy subject and I would not presume to judge such a
situation since I am (thankfully) not part of one.
But then you had to keep typing, because the lure of contradicting
yourself was so strong.........
However I definitely would not make suicide something that the health care
industry participates in and can save great amounts of money by encouraging.
My mother died of pancreatic cancer. It is terminal, untreatable, and
very painful.
If she'd asked for the drugs to end it all before she lapsed into a
coma for the last 4 days of her life, then our family would have made
sure she'd gotten them, as well as a doctor to administer them.
As for your heartless, unfeeling ***** above -- I hope you catch a
painful terminal illness, so that I can be the one standing over you
saying, "No, no early check-out for you, assloaf. Enjoy!"
Season's Bleatings, christstain --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "PeteCresswell" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
22 Dec 2005 02:21:06 PM |
|
|
Per Bonnie *****:
If she'd asked for the drugs to end it all before she lapsed into a
coma for the last 4 days of her life, then our family would have made
sure she'd gotten them, as well as a doctor to administer them.
As for your heartless, unfeeling ***** above -- I hope you catch a
painful terminal illness, so that I can be the one standing over you
saying, "No, no early check-out for you, assloaf. Enjoy!"
Geeze, I didn't say nobody should be able to do that, just that should not be a
part of the medical industry's approved treatments.
--
PeteCresswell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
22 Dec 2005 10:08:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:21:06 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the abject inhumanity of
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>, just in time for the holidays:
Per Bonnie *****:
If she'd asked for the drugs to end it all before she lapsed into a
coma for the last 4 days of her life, then our family would have made
sure she'd gotten them, as well as a doctor to administer them.
As for your heartless, unfeeling ***** above -- I hope you catch a
painful terminal illness, so that I can be the one standing over you
saying, "No, no early check-out for you, assloaf. Enjoy!"
Geeze, I didn't say nobody should be able to do that,
And then you contradict yourself, as all lying christstains eventually
do, with:
just that should not be a
part of the medical industry's approved treatments.
Wow. Heartless, unfeeling, and inhumane.
You win the daily christstain trifecta.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
19 Dec 2005 05:48:12 PM |
|
|
(PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
The problem I see with any sort of officially-sanctioned suicide is a "slippery
slope" aspect.
Once you introduce the notion of liberty and civil rights, people will
start expecting the right to do all manner of things.
Rest assured that somewhere in the bowels of the corporation that manages your
medical coverage there is an accountant that wants you dead as soon as possible
after a lethal - or even very expensive - disease is diagnosed.
Once assisted suicide is sanctioned, my expectation would be that palliative
care/pain relief will be increasingly difficult to come by when the much less
costly option of suicide is available.
I think that one or two multi-million dollar lawsuits would make that
an unattractive option for any health insurer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
20 Dec 2005 01:03:56 PM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2005 10:12:48 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1135015968.572079.73000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
More off topic spam
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
20 Dec 2005 06:09:37 PM |
|
|
In article <aclgq11p2h3tde9hhpas9lk2gmt02de5ub@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 10:12:48 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1135015968.572079.73000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
More off topic spam
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.
do you feel like a hypocrite criticizing others for doing what you do?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Kess" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
21 Dec 2005 07:07:33 PM |
|
|
Over 25,000 people starve to death every day, and you're saying that we
need more people? Oh, I get it, you're being sarcastic, right?
One thing I've always found interesting is how atheists are more in
support of euthanasia than religious types. Personally (as an atheist),
I'd prefer euthanasia to living in a state of severe mental disability.
If I were Terry Schaivo, for example, I'd prefer to die and have my
friends and family remember me as how I was when I was okay instead of
as a drooling financial drain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
21 Dec 2005 08:45:15 PM |
|
|
On 21-Dec-2005, "Martin Kess" <MartinKess@gmail.com> wrote:
Over 25,000 people starve to death every day, and you're saying that we
need more people? Oh, I get it, you're being sarcastic, right?
Since you snipped to whom you were replying, I have to say that it
sounds as tho' you are putting words in someone's mouth - I certainly
have not seen anyone say "we need more people.". But I wil say
that *your* post can be made to sound as tho' *you* think we should
just start killing off the starving millions. Just as you do not actually
think this does *not* mean that anyone who is against, or even
bothered by, euthanasia "thinks there aren't enough people".
One thing I've always found interesting is how atheists are more in
support of euthanasia than religious types.
Depends on which religion.
Personally (as an atheist),
I'd prefer euthanasia to living in a state of severe mental disability.
If I were Terry Schaivo, for example, I'd prefer to die and have my
friends and family remember me as how I was when I was okay instead of
as a drooling financial drain.
And I hope you make your wishes known not only to your loved ones, but
your attorney. *&* that you don't interfere with anyone who has different
wishes.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Kess" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
21 Dec 2005 09:58:14 PM |
|
|
Since you snipped to whom you were replying, I have to say that it
sounds as tho' you are putting words in someone's mouth
Look closely. The post was a reply to the head topic.
And I hope you make your wishes known not only to your loved ones, but
your attorney. *&* that you don't interfere with anyone who has different
wishes.
Wouldn't have it any other way. But the same has to go for Christianity
too. Don't like abortions? Well then, don't get one. Let other people
decide for themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
22 Dec 2005 02:12:37 AM |
|
|
On 21-Dec-2005, "Martin Kess" <MartinKess@gmail.com> wrote:
Since you snipped to whom you were replying, I have to say that it
sounds as tho' you are putting words in someone's mouth
Look closely. The post was a reply to the head topic.
Then it was definitely inappropriate because one has little to do with the
other.
One could just as easily take *your* logic to mean that you want to kill all
those who you deem "surplus" by virtue of their starving. But I know you
don't
mean this, the same way the person who wrote the header doesn't think that
overpopulation is good.
And I hope you make your wishes known not only to your loved ones, but
your attorney. *&* that you don't interfere with anyone who has different
wishes.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
I didnt think so.
I was just remarking that you have every right - or should, in a
decent society - to decide what happens to you & when.
But the same has to go for Christianity
too. Don't like abortions? Well then, don't get one.
I'll never forget the cow-hit-with-a-shovel look I got from the first
snot-nosed
anti-choicer I said this to at a demonstration. A combination of "How dare
you tell me what to do?" & "Wait, that's logic! Oh, no....!"
Let other people
decide for themselves.
I can see that you think I'm Xian as well as dead-set against euthanasia!
Mustn't assume!!
I'm against euthanasia being casually accepted - I'm all for assisted
suicide, and following living wills - even over the wishes of the nearest
family members & any institutions involved with care.
You don't have to be a rabid fundy to be scared that somebody somewhere
would take euthanasia like a football & run with it. I have read news
articles from the UK where disreputable hospitals were killing off old
people because they wanted to save the cost of their care (& why I didn't
remember this yesterday when I first responded. I have no idea...).
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Kess" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
22 Dec 2005 02:18:27 AM |
|
|
I completely agree. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you the first time :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
22 Dec 2005 02:39:05 AM |
|
|
On 22-Dec-2005, "Martin Kess" <MartinKess@gmail.com> wrote:
I completely agree. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you the first time :-)
I suppose I should have said what I *did* want along with whatI didn't -
I apologize as well!
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
19 Dec 2005 10:09:54 PM |
|
|
in article 1135015968.572079.73000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, words of
truth at wrote on 12/19/05 1:12 PM:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1542109/posts
EUTHANASIA
By Malcolm Muggeridge
He died a long time ago....and I'm sure God made it as cruel and
painful as possible, to please Himself.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Euthanasia: The Humane Holocaust |
19 Dec 2005 01:21:09 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com
Dismissed
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Babies suffer a horrible death by abortion; methods to change to more humane way of killing ?
Pat is for the humane treatment of vegetables!
International Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Conference an Impressive Event
J Young Christian Morality: Christians Want to Incarcerate Man Who Helped With Wife's Euthanasia
Study Shows Doctors Affected by Euthanasia Practice
Pope Benedict Says World Peace Doesn't Include Abortion, Euthanasia
Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge
Canadians say abortion and euthanasia morally acceptable (was: Pro-family activist says euthanasia becoming more common)
| abortion, euthanasia, bioethics, and the election
Young Adults Most Likely To Oppose Abortion And Euthanasia
The Seven Sacraments Of Secular Liberalism Are Abortion, Buggery, Contraception, Divorce, Euthanasia, Feminism And Genetic Experimentation
Canadian judge to rule on Jew facing euthanasia
Holland to Allow Euthanasia of Disabled Newborn Babies to Go Into Effect
DUTCH DOCTORS HASTEN DEATHS OF SICK CHILDREN WITH EUTHANASIA
Darwinism, Abortion, Euthanasia: Fashionable Liberal Fascism
|
|
|
