Comments on: Reason and Rationale Gone Awry

By: Raytmimer

Raytmimer — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:22:46 +0000

Wow, I had no idea Belgium was so far gone.

By: Liberty Belle

Liberty Belle — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:00:31 +0000

James and Cicero, I’m behind you 100% I suffer. We all suffer, sometimes greatly. I still choose life. There’s nothing scary about suffering compared with the alternative. Our United States are following lock step after Belgium. We have three states now with assisted suicide laws. It’s only a matter of time unless we speak up.

By: rubyeliot

rubyeliot — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:46:13 +0000

emily, rock on.

By: James

James — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:10:39 +0000

Cicero, in contemplating what makes men happy, came to the conclusion that happiness does not come from the absence of tribulations or pain, but in the face of such trials a man still find happiness. Since when have we, as a society, become the judge on who can find happiness or lead a happy life.
The rational behind such actions, I believe, is the thought that rather then let a person “suffer” with disabilities, it would be better to have them not to live at all. Since happiness cannot possibly come to those with such trials in life. This rational is sickening and wrong. By denying “suffering” these people feel that they are being “benevolent” dictators of life. But with the denial of ones “suffering”, these people also deny any chance for goodness or happiness. The world is full of many good things and by denying even the chance such joy to those who not yet the ability to object, is far past the line of good or decent; it’s despicable.
Would these children, if given the choice, choose to live despite their apparent disabilities and live to experience whatever joy they may come to know, or choose to experience nothing. I dare say that I would rather live for the joys of life in the face of any tribulation, disability or trial that I may face. You and I have that choice, the least we could do is not deny that choice to others.

By: Emily Rockwood

Emily Rockwood — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:45:10 +0000

I had no idea this was happening somewhere in the world–I can’t believe anyone could have such extreme beliefs about life and death, especially of infants! I am reminded of Herod’s behavior. I know many families who feel themselves very blessed for having a “disabled” child. They have such love in their homes and they know it is because of the Spirit this special child brings to their lives!

California is on it’s way, though. We were at risk for having a baby with Downs Syndrome. They were very concerned and wanted us to get an Amniocentesis–which would have endangered the baby. This would have let us know for sure if the baby had Downs or not. We declined. The doctors were surprised and tried to talk us into it. We declined again. Their stance was to the effect, “If you know the baby has Downs, then you can have it aborted.” Wo! We were very surprised at their feeling about it. They were even more surprised when we told them we wouldn’t have the baby aborted even if it did have Downs!

For the record, we have a healthy six-year-old boy who is a successful first grader, can read, and play the piano. We are grateful for him in our family and know we would love him and be glad for him even if he did have a disability! How sad it would be if we would have listened to those doctors. Even worse, what if they would have made us abort the baby? What a sickening thought.

By: Emissary

Emissary — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:08:56 +0000

It reminds me of a scene in “A Wrinkle in Time”. When the children go to ITS planet, they are told that any time a person gets sick (even with a cold), instead of letting them “suffer”, they are immediately killed. As a society, we’re not there yet, but it’s all a matter of moving lines. Who defines what “acceptable suffering” is?

By: beetlebabee

beetlebabee — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:10:17 +0000

That’s true, Troy. I hadn’t turned it around that way. I can’t imagine 84% of people consenting either.

By: Troy Rockwood

Troy Rockwood — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:04:49 +0000

I think that it’s not consent that is important to consider here. If 84% of parents consented, does that make it ok to kill those babies? The time to choose to either have children with the risk of disabilities or not is 9 months BEFORE the birth. At that point NO ONE can argue that choosing to not attempt to conceive is anything but the choice of the (would-be) parents.

By: thecatzpajamas

thecatzpajamas — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:59:18 +0000

Hitler had the same plan. Euthanize all the elderly, mentally challenged, disabled, and sick, leaving only a ‘perfect’ society behind. this is sickening.

By: beetlebabee

beetlebabee — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:16:14 +0000

Thanks Ruby, I love eye candy. Life has so much beauty in it. It also has suffering, but I don’t think we should be so afraid of the suffering that we disregard the beauty.

Even terminally ill patients can feel joy and love. Who are we, or who is the government to decide when a life is not worth living? There are too many corrupted morals and ulterior motives flowing through the veins of some of our leaders to cede life and death decisions to them. It is completely alarming to me that not only the children in question have their choice in the matter stripped away, but also the parents. 16% of parents have no choice. That is just astounding to me.

All the effort we put into saving lives, prolonging life, all stems from a complete reverence and respect for life that has somehow ebbed away in the Belgian culture. I see it happening here as well, how scary that is.