Child killing poll

[Haumana]

Stossel scoffs, “Competent and dangerous? Why dangerous?”

“There’s nothing to you otherwise,” Peterson replies. “If you’re not a formidable force, there’s no morality in your self-control. If you’re incapable of violence, not being violent isn’t a virtue. People who teach martial arts know this full well. If you learn martial arts, you learn to be dangerous, but simultaneously you learn to control it … Life is a very difficult process and you’re not prepared for it unless you have the capacity to be dangerous.”

...

Sacred Things Are Worth Defense. That Requires Strength
...

Choosing not to do the wrong thing is not the same as choosing to do the right thing. Virtue is moral excellence, as it reaches toward the good

A fair read with a few nuggets worth pondering and seemed to fit this particular thread, imo. When does the State trample upon the sacred? They tip toe on it often enough but clearly, this was a bridge too far for many. Where is the tipping point? For some, it was just another opportunity to defer to those who certainly must know better.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/27/jor ... Uo.twitter

[Otern]

I think this thread is a bit too much of a focus on Britain. And they've got pretty much the same laws regarding infants as the rest of the Western world. US and Norway included. These things could happen in the US, and in Norway too.

The Netherlands on the other hand. They've got some special laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

Still requires the consent of the parents. But in this case, children with conditions that still makes it possible to live normal lives with treatment, can be killed off.

[Haumana]

I think this thread is a bit too much of a focus on Britain. And they've got pretty much the same laws regarding infants as the rest of the Western world. US and Norway included. These things could happen in the US, and in Norway too.

The Netherlands on the other hand. They've got some special laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

Still requires the consent of the parents. But in this case, children with conditions that still makes it possible to live normal lives with treatment, can be killed off.

Oh. I thought the focus was on the fact that the child was being starved to death despite other opportunities to defer suffering.

1. The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering.
2. The consent of the parents to termination of life.
3. Medical consultation having taken place.4.
4. Careful execution of the termination.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

Which, given what happened, appears to be in direct contradiction to 1,2 & 4, easy.

* edit to include number 2

[BjornP]

This was being reported even on Lifesitenews on April 25th, well before Alfie died:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court ... -being-fed

Following reports last evening that Alfie was being starved, Thomas Evans today confirmed his son is now receiving nourishment, but he said “they only started feeding him at 1:00 a.m.” last night.

Alfie's life support was taken off on Aprill 23rd. He died on the 28th.

[Haumana]

This was being reported even on Lifesitenews on April 25th, well before Alfie died:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court ... -being-fed

Following reports last evening that Alfie was being starved, Thomas Evans today confirmed his son is now receiving nourishment, but he said “they only started feeding him at 1:00 a.m.” last night.

Alfie's life support was taken off on Aprill 23rd. He died on the 28th.

"Coming up to 24 hours and he’s fighting with gorgeous his gorgeous features, pink lips, handsome grown up face, and odd cheeky smile now and again," Tom wrote on a Facebook post moments ago.

"He has now been starved from nutrition for 23 hours. How is this humane, where does his dignity lie," he added

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alfie ... s-breaking

Nothing like giving him a 23 hour head start towards starvation. So they only denied the baby food on the 24th. Got it. They only resumed providing nourishment because of public pressure.

[Montegriffo]

I think this thread is a bit too much of a focus on Britain. And they've got pretty much the same laws regarding infants as the rest of the Western world. US and Norway included. These things could happen in the US, and in Norway too.

The Netherlands on the other hand. They've got some special laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

Still requires the consent of the parents. But in this case, children with conditions that still makes it possible to live normal lives with treatment, can be killed off.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

[BjornP]

Nothing like giving him a 23 hour head start towards starvation. So they only denied the baby food on the 24th. Got it. They only resumed providing nourishment because of public pressure.

Maybe it was public pressure, or maybe the hospital staff simply expected the child to not live more than a few moments after being hooked off the life support and IV nutrients. But yeah, still too much time for them to act, which is why I voted no.

[BjornP]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Nah, I'm sure that one's ok. After all, that's a private hospital.

[Haumana]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Nah, I'm sure that one's ok. After all, that's a private hospital.

Not even the same, the parent's were free enough to take that child to Guatemala for alternative treatment rather than the child imprisoned and starved because the State said so.

[Speaker to Animals]

Declaring living people as "deceased" absolutely has to stop.