"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:sLudnTkXmYM4OabYnZ2dnUVZ8s2dnZ2d@bt.com...

"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:12jghibhs1h4pc4@corp.supernews.com...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:FeqdnXH2JOVVjKXYnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d@bt.com...

"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message

junegill wrote:

I can't say what the 'usual' opinion is. Legend has it that midwives
used to do this on a fairly regular basis, telling the mother that it
had been a stillbirth, but that was in the days when no medical
assistance could help. Today, many of these unfortunates can be
helped by modern medicine, but there will always be some for whom no
quality of life can be achieved, and if they would be in constant
pain, as is often the case, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they
were left to die.

....and, of course, from your earlier comments we all know that you
would have fully supported that.

"We" all know? Is that the royal "we"? Given how special you appear
to think you are, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Well, you've
picked the wrong person to whom to address your snide remark. I would
never sanction any creature able to feel pain being left to die - if
their death is inevitable, then I think they should be euthanised.

I shouldn't imagine the doctors want to make that choice either, but
they're the ones in the best position to judge whether a baby will
suffer and never overcome the pain.

They're not. Tha'ts the problem. You place your faith in the "expert"
but the "expert is often wrong.

The expert isn't _often_ wrong - sometimes, yes

"Often". "Sometimes". Again, you are side-tracking over minor issues. The
main issue is that you would give the "expert" doctor the power of life or
death. When faced with a fact that an "expert" doctor made a bad call and
would have killed a person who turned out just fine, you don't deal with
that fact. You waver and nit-pick over a word.

significant becaus eit's rare or unusual yet you ask others to support
abortion on the basis of rare and unusual circumstances that may arise.

want to have one set of rules for yourself and your positon, and a
differnt set for those who disagree with you.

and when s/he is wrong it's unusual enough to hit the headlines, as
below.

In whom do you place your faith if not the expert?

Good judgement. Sound reasoning. Perosnal observation. All the facts I can
gather. My own gut feelings. My values, morals, and beliefs. The doctor's
opinion. Another doctro's opinion. And a very large and healthy dose of
skepticism about the "expert" opinion to end a life. How about you. In
whom do you place your faith?

Just today the local newspaper featured a story

about a man who fough the doctors who insisited that it was pointless to
allow his wife to continue on life support. They "expertly" agreed that
she would be in a vagatative state. Except she recovered and wasn't.
Yes, she suffers some memroy loss and some disorientation, but otherwise
she's good. She's home and living a normal life with her family. The
"experts" were wrong -- "Dead wrong" had they been listened to.

What would you want to happen if you had a baby that would be in
constant pain?

You have no idea if this would be true and you seek no other solution
such as medicines or surgery even if it were true.

Don't be silly. We're talking about cases where the baby can't survive
for very long and would suffer pain, such as these in the cite below:

http://www.gfmer.ch/genetic_diseases_v2/gendis_detail_list.php?cat3=25

Notwithstanding that that is a very unlikely scenario, I would want to
do everything humanly and humanely possible to relieve that pain and
allow the child to live as normal a life as possible.

I wonder why you think it's an unlikely scenario - do you consider
yourself so special that you couldn't possibly have a handicapped
child? What if that pain couldn't be relieved and there wasn't a chance
of anything like a normal life?

About 10-12 years ago there was a man who "euthanised" his child. She
was 12 or so. He deemed her "quality of life" to be insufficient and so
he "euthanised" her. He considered his act heroic.

Maybe it was - you haven't given enough details for anyone to form an
opinion.

Here you go:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL02/canada.html

Some quote:
Latimer initially told the police that Tracy died in her sleep, but he
soon confessed to killing her, adding that he 'had considered giving Tracy
an overdose of Valium or shooting her in the head'.
There is no dispute that through her life, Tracy at times suffered
considerable pain. As well, the quality of her life was limited by her
severe disability. But the pain she suffered was not unremitting, and her
life had value and quality.
Many disability rights advocates believe that if Tracy did not have
disabilities, the public would not see her murderer as the victim.
Priti Shah, a lawyer with the Winnipeg-based Canadian Disability Rights
Council, brought up the case of Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who
has provoked anger in the drowning death of her two small boys, and asked
why Tracy's death has stirred no comparable anger. "Is the life of a
disabled child not of the same value?" she asked. She insisted that
"nobody should be choosing when somebody else's life should come to an
end."
"Evidence shows that there was more than just uncompromised pain,"
attorney Kenneth McKay told the Supreme Court. "She was a human being, she
had a life to live and a life to make of what she could. She could smile,
she could laugh, she could express her pain and she could cry."

In any event, he had no right to kill her. Both my husband and myself
independently considered suicide for years almost on a daily basis in
order to escape the hell in which we were living, (we didn't know the
other had the same thoughts until years later), but neither of us could
bring ourselves to leave the other to cope alone, and as for taking our
son with us, we couldn't even contemplate that because we had no right to
do it. Incidentally, my son's death didn't solve anything but a few minor
problems and added the sense of loss to our grief - the problem was
insoluble, and it still hurts 24 years later.

I'm sorry to hear that. Your pain is evident. I really an sorry for your
pain. I hope and pray that it will heal and the hurt will fade. I mean
that very sincerely.

Even after he went to jail

for life he lauded himself as a "hero". But the simple fact is he kille
dhis own daughter because he couldn't stand to deal with her handicap.
Could I stand by and watch a child suffer? No. Would I solve my
inability to do so by "euthanising" her? No.

So what would you do?

I've already told you.

It's a slippery slope argument when you talk about handicapped children
and what you appear to deem as their lack of quality of life or
unsolvable level of pain. Who are you to judge what is best for them?

I'm not judging - we'd agreed that in the case of a newborn it should be
the mother who makes that judgement.

I think most of the

arguments about "doing the best for the child" come down to "doing the
best for the parents" or "saving money". What's even more despicable is
that those promoting this notion claim to be doing so because they care
about the life they seek to extinguish.

I'm afraid it's your statement that is despicable. These parents do love
their children, otherwise they wouldn't care about the pain their
children were suffering.

You assume that. You don't know it. There are parents out there who do not
"love" their children -- or love them more than their own selfish needs
and desires. There are parents who do. But not all parents do. Maybe
"often" they do, but not "all times".

Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote

Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:

Yes. And your point is... what?

It's the answer to your stupid question.

I was always taught that answering a question with a question was bad.
You
were obviously taught differently. But please continue to show just how
stupid you can be.

What part of "Yes" didn't you understand? That is called an answer.

Buh bye.

Peter D wrote:

I was always taught that answering a question with a question was bad.
You
were obviously taught differently. But please continue to show just how
stupid you can be.

As for the rest, I'm not going to play to your over-inflated ego. You
weren't involved in the original discussion, so I'll politely ask you to
***** and mind your own business.
HAND :-)

BRAVO!!!!!

I can't say that I have ever seen anyone tell someone off so politely
and to the point before.

OUTSTANDING and DEAD ON ACCURATE!!!!

Peter D wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:452f24cb$0$34533$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:

Actually, you raise aninteresting point here. If this happens, and
labour
is
induced and it becomes a "normal delivery", what happens to the
"contents
of
the womb" after delivery is done? I mean, she's terminated an unwanted
pregnancy but (presumably) it's now earned the right to be a "persom"
because it's been born alive. In your opinion, what is the legal status
of
whatever she delivered? If she doens't want it, what is to become of it?

Have you never heard of adoption?

Yes. And your point is... what?

It's the answer to your stupid question.

I was always taught that answering a question with a question was bad. You
were obviously taught differently. But please continue to show just how
stupid you can be.

As for the rest, I'm not going to play to your over-inflated ego. You
weren't involved in the original discussion, so I'll politely ask you to
***** and mind your own business.
HAND :-)

BRAVO!!!!!

I can't say that I have ever seen anyone tell someone off so politely
and to the point before.

OUTSTANDING and DEAD ON ACCURATE!!!!

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message

Why should I dodge and weave etc?

I apologize. that was uncalled for.

I am saying that there is a possibility that the foetus can think and
feel once the neurons have connected, but not before. So, what is your
point?

Thank you. I appreciate your honesty -- and consistency with what you
know.