Finally, this barbaric practice can end!!!!

I have to say, I don't necessarily disagree with him.

You guys are scary. You've rendered me speechless, which isn't easy to do.

Wait, aren't you both against the death penalty? Oh, oh, that's only for guilty people? Innocent children need not apply.

Actually, that's the argument that early Americans used for owning slaves -- they weren't fully human. So yes, it's sarcastic now, in 2007, but it certainly wasn't sarcastic 150 years ago.

Last time I checked, we weren't living by standards set 150 years ago. All we can do is live according to what we know now. It does no good to look at our actions and say, "Well, lets not do this because it may become illegal in 100 years or 1000 years." Hell, in 100 years, it may be illegal to homeschool your children. Are you going to put your kids in public school now because it may be illegal to homeschool in two or three generations?

You guys are scary. You've rendered me speechless, which isn't easy to do.

Wait, aren't you both against the death penalty? Oh, oh, that's only for guilty people? Innocent children need not apply.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I can see his point does not = I agree with his point. My mother is a Catholic and I can see why she has the beliefs she does, but that doesn't mean I agree with them or share them. My husband is from another country and has certain beliefs about American life, but although I can see why he has them, it doesn't mean I share them. Get the difference?

Wait, aren't you both against the death penalty? Oh, oh, that's only for guilty people? Innocent children need not apply.

I am anti-death penalty because you are killing a physically healthy being that still has life to live (albeit imprisoned). IMO, it is incredibly cruel to force a person to live if their life won't be worth living. If my life becomes physically painful to live, I damn well hope someone puts me out of my misery. Being a vegetable from birth isn't life, IMO.

I am anti-death penalty because you are killing a physically healthy being that still has life to live (albeit imprisoned). IMO, it is incredibly cruel to force a person to live if their life won't be worth living. If my life becomes physically painful to live, I damn well hope someone puts me out of my misery. Being a vegetable from birth isn't life, IMO.

He didn't say vegetables or physically painful to live. He said "defective". Some people define obese as defective. Scary thing, that. It's really a problem when we allow the average "Joe" to define life by HIS standards. If anyone's defective, it's the serial killer in prison, after all.

Am I in favor of people being allowed to kill their kids willy-nilly? NO. Am I in favor of people being allowed to humanely euthanize infants that are severely handicapped and that wouldn't have a productive, happy life in the first place? You bet. A painless death is, IMO, better than being forced to live a life of pain.

Am I in favor of people being allowed to kill their kids willy-nilly? NO. Am I in favor of people being allowed to humanely euthanize infants that are severely handicapped and that wouldn't have a productive, happy life in the first place? You bet. A painless death is, IMO, better than being forced to live a life of pain.

Wow. So you get to decide who's going to have a happy productive life? Helen Keller -- who the heck let HER slip through the cracks?

Euthanize is such a nice word. Much nicer than kill or snuff out. Love those euphemisms. Didn't Hitler use them a lot?

Wow. So you get to decide who's going to have a happy productive life? Helen Keller -- who the heck let HER slip through the cracks?

Euthanize is such a nice word. Much nicer than kill or snuff out. Love those euphemisms. Didn't Hitler use them a lot?

Helen Keller wasn't severely handicapped, IMO. Yes, she was deaf and blind, but she still had the ability to lead a happy, productive life. I'm talking about people and infants who are in constant pain, who WILL NOT be able to lead a happy, productive life.

Don't you dare compare me with Hitler. I am not advocating the genocide of an entire race or ethnic group. I am not advocating the deaths of mildly handicapped people. I am not advocating the deaths of the blind or deaf or people born without legs. I am talking about people who are literally vegetables for life and people who live with unending, unmanageable pain. Is it kinder to allow them to go through life or is it kinder to end their (and their family's) pain? I would assume that someone who is pro-life would be pro-life, not pro-pain.

Am I saying that the euthanasia of these infants and people should be mandatory? Hell, no. But it should be an option. To me, it's more morally suspect to force these families to keep their children that are experiencing extreme pain or are vegetables alive than it is to allow them to have them humanely euthanized. If it were your child, would you want to put it through extreme pain for the rest of his or her life, never to leave a hospital?

Helen Keller wasn't severely handicapped, IMO. Yes, she was deaf and blind, but she still had the ability to lead a happy, productive life.

She was unable to see people, to hear people, or to communicate with people. The only reason YOU think she had the ability to lead a happy, productive life is because SHE taught the world that SHE could do so. Up until that point, virtually nobody would have believed she could be happy and productive.

I'm talking about people and infants who are in constant pain, who WILL NOT be able to lead a happy, productive life.

But that's NOT what Singer says. Again, WHO decides?

Don't you dare compare me with Hitler. I am not advocating the genocide of an entire race or ethnic group. I am not advocating the deaths of mildly handicapped people. I am not advocating the deaths of the blind or deaf or people born without legs. I am talking about people who are literally vegetables for life and people who live with unending, unmanageable pain. Is it kinder to allow them to go through life or is it kinder to end their (and their family's) pain? I would assume that someone who is pro-life would be pro-life, not pro-pain.

In your opinion. Who are you to decide for another person? After all, all Hitler did was decide for other people. The ethnic groups he "euthanized" was, in his opinion, defective and sub-standard. And Margaret Sanger was his "bud". It's a full circle, really. Can you make a hole in a dike and expect it to be limited to YOUR parameters?

But that's NOT what Singer says. Again, WHO decides?

And you don't KNOW that that isn't what Singer means.

In your opinion. Who are you to decide for another person?

That's why I said it should be up to the families and that it shouldn't be mandatory.

And you don't KNOW that that isn't what Singer means.

That isn't what he SAID, so I have to assume, being a highly educated man, that that isn't what he MEANS.

That's why I said it should be up to the families and that it shouldn't be mandatory.

Leaving it up to the family is still allowing one person to decide for another. Suppose you have a highly psychotic parent?

Look, if you want to "euthanize" yourself, that's totally up to you. And if your spouse (or whoever) wants to write it into their living will that you should snuff them out under certain circumstances, that's totally up to them. But don't go advocating the "right" for one person to do it to another person under the guise of parenthood. We don't OWN our children.

Leaving it up to the family is still allowing one person to decide for another. Suppose you have a highly psychotic parent?

Even a highly psychotic parent has the right to decide, if they have custody of the child or person in question. It isn't like they would be allowed to decide if a perfectly healthy newborn would live or die.

That isn't what he SAID, so I have to assume, being a highly educated man, that that isn't what he MEANS.

Given the fact that it is a highly controversial opinion, I'm sure he's justified his opinion. While he may not have in the quote you gave, doesn't mean that he hasn't in other statements.

he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

...I guess if you're a doctor who kills babies for a living, you'd have to be pretty calloused to life.

What a terrible thing to say. :cry

Even a highly psychotic parent has the right to decide, if they have custody of the child or person in question. It isn't like they would be allowed to decide if a perfectly healthy newborn would live or die.

Again, we don't own our children. No one has the right to decide for another.

Given the fact that it is a highly controversial opinion, I'm sure he's justified his opinion. While he may not have in the quote you gave, doesn't mean that he hasn't in other statements.

for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

A "for instance" is not exhaustive. It's an example. And all kids cause suffering to both themselves and to their parents. This isn't just a slippery slope. It's greased with Crisco.