Re: Disabled babies face verdict

[Guest guest]

What is hidden in this is the financial part. This is happening in England where medicine is socialized and rationed and facing the same, though somewhat lower, upward pressure as the US in terms of costs and demand. They say they want to spare the parents financial burden, but they also mean the state because much of the cost, coming as health care, would be borne by the state.

What I find interesting about this is that they are willing to kill babies who are disabled through no fault of their own and couch the claim as a means of easing emotional and financial burdens. If they were really interested in doing that, that is saving the state those burdens, they would look at killing the chavs and criminals. After all, those are adults who have made a conscious decisions to be a burden on the state, by going on the dole, and/or by committing crimes, which cause, financial loss and injury to other people, not to mention the tremendous cost of policing and all those cameras everywhere. If they really wanted to save money, they would kill those adults. Even institutionalized, a badly disabled child is a threat to no one else and probably costs about the same to maintain an inmate or two. Since there would be far fewer children who would need that degree of help than criminals, keeping them alive instead of criminals would be a boon. I read somewhere that each criminal costs society several tens of thousands of dollars per year exclusive of prison and court costs. This is from property loss, injury claims of victims and so on.

They would never accept such a thing though. I'll bet the people proposing to kill these babies are even against hanging a monster like Sadaam Hussein. Its pure hypocrisy. It is just trying to force England onto the slippery slope seen in other places where euthanasia has caught on. In Europe it is supposed to be only to terminally ill patient, but I have read stories about depressed people being killed along with others without terminal diseases.

In my opinion, if the parents want to kill the disabled baby, fine. They could file a petition for certification of the act and see if it gets approved. Once approved, the parents will have to be the ones to do the deed, not the doctors. Both parents would have to be present and one or both would have to do the deed. It sounds so neat and clean to let a doctor do it, but I doubt most parents could actually go through with it. I would also set up special sanitariums like they used to have where these children could be placed if the parents didn't want to kill it but couldn't afford the cost. By cleaning up the waste and fraud in the federal medical programs, money could easily be raised for it. In tight budget times, cut programs for the more able bodied to maintain those for those in most need.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/6/2006 3:57:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Do sociopathic people like this qualify as "seriously disabled"? If this is the case, then Delhanty was one newborn who grew up which would have qualify for euthanasia under his own program.

What is interesting is the way they say months or years of ill health. So maybe the child has a rough first few years and then goes on to have a normal life. I've known a number of people like that who were premature or had other problems and are now living normal lives.

Again, I think what these people really mean is the cost to the state of all that medical care. Hitler was at least more blunt about this. He at least had the stones to admit it was a cost saving measure.

But is it a cost saving measure? Let's say the child has high expenses for a few years, totaling say $200,000. Sounds like a lot. Let's also say that this child has no significant problems after this, any more than any other child, or maybe slightly more. Now, the average high school graduate will earn over $500,000 in their life time. That is "profit" to society of $300,000. If they go to college, that goes up to $1,000,000 or more making a profit of at least $700,000. This is just based on direct income and does not include the multiplier effect of that money being spent and whatever contribution that person may make to society. Of course if they turn criminal then they will be a burden to society, but you can't tell that with any certainty at that age.

[Guest guest]

Somewhere in Central America the court hands down prison terms for mother's who had to abort their baby to save their lives during childbirth. There are babies who suffocate in their cribs, are revived and then they're vegetables. They really are a burden on families and themselves. Who would want to be a vegetable? It should be legal within certain guidelines. Of course I would hope the citizens would have enough moral responsiblity to not press for a quick fix when it comes to wanting to get rid of any baby who is difficult and misinterpreting the law. Basically, you would have psychopaths abusing those priviliges anyway. In order for things like DNA alteration not to take place I would think that getting rid of vegetables who are nearly brain dead and a real burden on families (I've seen it with my own two eyes) would be not a step but a proper service in an already unforgiving world. VISIGOTH@... wrote: Found this today. Disabled newborns face verdict By Roya NikkhahLONDON DAILY TELEGRAPHNovember 6, 2006 LONDON -- A leading British medical college has called on the health profession to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled newborns. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology

has said that "active euthanasia" should be considered to spare parents the emotional and financial burdens of bringing up such children. "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," it says in a formal submission. "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome." The call comes in the college's submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is conducting an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborns. The submission states: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the

management of options available to the sickest of newborns." It is not officially calling for the introduction of active euthanasia, but wants it openly debated. The proposal has been supported by several leading geneticists and medical ethicists. Joy Delhanty, a professor of human genetics at University College London, said: "I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are going to suffer many months or years of ill-health." But Wyatt, a consultant neonatalologist at University College London hospital, called the proposal "social engineering." "Once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice, you change the fundamental nature of medicine," he said.

Check out the all-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

" A leading British medical college has called on the health

profession to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled newborns. "

" Joy Delhanty, a professor of human genetics at University College

London, said: " I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive

babies that are going to suffer many months or years of ill-health. "

Do sociopathic people like this qualify as " seriously disabled " ?

If this is the case, then Delhanty was one newborn who grew up which

would have qualify for euthanasia under his own program.

Funny how it was Winston Churchill (a Brit) who exploited Hitler's

disgusting euthanasia program (a program which euthanized all Germans

who were severely physically deformed or severely mentally impaired)

to rally the Brits into action AGAINST the Nazis.

As I remember, Chamberlain and the exiled abdicated King seemed to be

Nazi sympathizers. Perhaps they should have been in power instead of

Churchill since the Brits appear to have matured into a Nazi-esque

society anyway. If Chamerlain and the abdicated King had been in

power, the Nazi euthanasia program would have been in place for over

50 years now and all Britain's " seriously disabled " people would be

dead and burried (or creamated) already.

Or maybe these people believe Hitler was a misunderstood revolutionary

who came along too soon for his time.

All I know is that I am happy being a right-winged, pro-life Christian

conservative with a intellectual difference who fights against such

attrocities. Even if I am one of a rare breed, it feels good to be

alive.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Who would want to be a vegetable? "

The answer to that question rests with the person who is in that

position.

If you can see, have you ever asked yourself " Who would want to be

blind? "

But most blind people are prefectly happy with themselves. They don't

have sight and so they don't miss sight. They can make their way

through the world just fine with a few accommodations.

It is not for us to say who lives and who dies.

Imagine how Ray and Steve Wonder must have felt when they were

told during times of segregation that they had to sit in the back of

the bus because they were black and others could sit in the front of

the bus because those people were white. and Wonder don't even

know what black and white looks like, yet some lawmakers had made this

rule up for them and they have to obey it?

How absurd.

Like all people, no one can help being born with the color of their

skin no matter what that color is, but I bet you that while Whites saw

sense in segregation, and while blacks resented it, I am betting that

it was a select few like and Wonder that saw the stupidity,

ridiculousness and inherent gorss racial prejudice and injustice in it.

" In order for things like DNA alteration not to take place I would

think that getting rid of vegetables who are nearly brain dead and a

real burden on families (I've seen it with my own two eyes) would be

not a step but a proper service in an already unforgiving world. "

For those people who can communicate and are of sound mind, I think

they ought to be kept alive until they are considered of legal age and

then ASKED if they want to be put to death.

For everyone else, you cannot just sort through them like you would

fresh and rotting vegetables.

LEGALLY we can kill people.

We can legally (in some places) abort the unborn.

We can legally (in some places) kill an intruder.

We can legally (in some places) execute a criminal.

We can legally (in some places) euthanize patients who ask for it or

patients who have alleged to have asked for it.

But humanely speaking, we have no right to kill another human being

without their first giving us permission, and even then, we would

more likely than not be in breech of religious mandates if we happen

to be religious.

[Guest guest]

From the perspective of responsibility and religious mandates I would look to . He said, "I'll cut the baby in half and both of you shall have the baby. I think for tax reasons a liar wanted to claim the baby. The real mother said, "No she can have the baby as long as it lives and so forth." Thus gave the infant to her true mother again. I've seen my grandparent's in-law from my dad's wife's side of the family take care of their disabled Grandson for 16 years now. He was a perfectly normal baby until he suffocated in his crib. His father tried to the best of his ability to get him to breathe but, the damage was done. The hospital sent him on life flight to a Wichita hospital. They resuscitated him. He can't talk, he can't move his arms or legs, has to have a backlafin (not sure if I spelled that right) pump because his joints don't lubricate, his vertebrae didn't grow right, they don't know if he can see, he has trouble swallowing baby food, etc..... His

parents have left all of the responsiblity to his grandparents and my dad's wife and a hired nanny. It devastated the parents and they don't even acknowledge 's presence when they come to visit. Since all of those events took place they have had two boys, eight the other is 11. It wasn't the parents fault. SIDS would have been the result if they'd not had the baby monitor in his crib. An alarmingly heavy amount of evidence points to reactions to vaccines. Heck, I had a severe allergic reaction to the Pertussis Vaccine at 6 months. It really has been a financial and emotional burden on the family involved and I don't know enough of what went on to point the finger but, some people would take care of someone like that in order to get a higher standing socially because of the emotion of sympathy. He is basically a vegetable except for the fact that he can breathe. I don't know. All of that pain and misery could have been spared. That's what I meant. I didn't mean blind

people. environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: "Who would want to be a vegetable?"The answer to that question rests with the person who is in that position. If you can see, have you ever asked yourself "Who would want to be blind?"But most blind people are prefectly happy with themselves. They don't have sight and so they

don't miss sight. They can make their way through the world just fine with a few accommodations.It is not for us to say who lives and who dies. Imagine how Ray and Steve Wonder must have felt when they were told during times of segregation that they had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black and others could sit in the front of the bus because those people were white. and Wonder don't even know what black and white looks like, yet some lawmakers had made this rule up for them and they have to obey it? How absurd.Like all people, no one can help being born with the color of their skin no matter what that color is, but I bet you that while Whites saw sense in segregation, and while blacks resented it, I am betting that it was a select few like and Wonder that saw the stupidity, ridiculousness and inherent gorss racial prejudice and injustice in it."In order

for things like DNA alteration not to take place I would think that getting rid of vegetables who are nearly brain dead and a real burden on families (I've seen it with my own two eyes) would be not a step but a proper service in an already unforgiving world."For those people who can communicate and are of sound mind, I think they ought to be kept alive until they are considered of legal age and then ASKED if they want to be put to death. For everyone else, you cannot just sort through them like you would fresh and rotting vegetables. LEGALLY we can kill people. We can legally (in some places) abort the unborn. We can legally (in some places) kill an intruder. We can legally (in some places) execute a criminal.We can legally (in some places) euthanize patients who ask for it or patients who have alleged to have asked for it.But humanely speaking, we have no right to kill another

human being without their first giving us permission, and even then, we would more likely than not be in breech of religious mandates if we happen to be religious.

Everyone is raving about the all-new .

[Guest guest]

Nick wrote: " Somewhere in Central America the court hands down

prison terms for mother's who had to abort their baby to save their

lives during childbirth. There are babies who suffocate in their

cribs, are revived and then they're vegetables. They really are a

burden on families and themselves. Who would want to be a vegetable?

It should be legal within certain guidelines. Of course I would hope

the citizens would have enough moral responsiblity to not press for

a quick fix when it comes to wanting to get rid of any baby who is

difficult and misinterpreting the law. Basically, you would have

psychopaths abusing those priviliges anyway. In order for things

like DNA alteration not to take place I would think that getting rid

of vegetables who are nearly brain dead and a real burden on

families (I've seen it with my own two eyes) would be not a step but

a proper service in an already unforgiving world. "

I will tell you a story from my own life, Nick. When Cub was born,

his twin did not survive. Cub was very ill and my ex-husband and I

were told he would not live 24 hours. I did not believe it even

though I knew Cub's chances -- by all reason -- were negligible. He

had been 2 out of 10 on the APGAR at birth (not very good at all)

and he was 2 out of 10 on the APGAR at 3 minutes and at 5 minutes.

He improved marginally at 10 minutes and at 15 minutes had managed

to scrap up to a 6 out of 10. Given the situation, he was a

phenomenal candidate for not making it at all. And the medical

profession held out very little hope for a functioning child. His

mother believed he would make it against all odds.

In the 24 months that ensued, he was hospitalized for a total of 19

months ... always in isolation, always with a lot of negative

remarks by medical doctors regarding the outlook of his situation.

The alleged professionals held out little to no hope for him. But

his mother did.

It was strongly recommended when he was 2 that I consider

institutionalizing him because the doctors did not believe he would

ever be functional in society. I knew differently. He was

functional with me.

He struggled with health issues through his toddler and pre-school

years, and at age 6 he was so ill from an ear infection gone awry

that the doctors at the hospital had to request permission to

administer drugs normally used to combat Anthrax to save his life.

It was touch and go and again, the medical doctors were certain he

would not survive, and if he did, they were unsure what to expect.

I knew differently.

Over the years, I have been told by nurses, doctors, social workers,

psychiatrists, psychologists, whatever, that I am in a state of

denial because I do not believe the worst about this child's

abilities.

I believe that every living, breathing being that comes into this

world has come here with a purpose in life, Nick. While I do not

believe in using extraordinary measures with which to keep someone

alive at any point during that person's life, I do believe in

allowing each person the same opportunity to live their natural

lifespan -- whatever Great Spirit has determined that to be.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" It really has been a financial and emotional burden on the family

involved... "

That's the risk you run when you decide to have kids. That is the risk

you run when you don't want kids but get pregnant anyway.

If they didn't want to assume the ensuing responsibility for their

child between the day of birth and the child's 18th birthday, then

they should have abstained from having sex and coceiving the child in

the first place.

Economic inconvenience is not excuse to get rid of a family member.

" He is basically a vegetable except for the fact that he can breathe.

I don't know. All of that pain and misery could have been spared.

That's what I meant. "

I understand what you mean. My grandmother died naturally in her

sleep, but before she did I had to watch her body waste away before my

eyes. She had a do not recussitate order, which I would have honored

had she needed it, and I have this order also. Yet I would never have

thought of terminating her life despite her suffering. It is not

within my province to do so, and I do not believe it is within

anyone's province to do so except perhaps for the sufferer himself or

herself.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Re:

> From the perspective of responsibility and religious mandates I would look

to . He said, " I'll cut the baby in half and both of you shall have the

baby. I think for tax reasons a liar wanted to claim the baby.

Actually, no. According to the Bible's account of the incident (First

Book of Kings, chapter 3, verses 16-27), the baby belonged to one of

two prostitutes who lived together and who had both had babies: one

baby died in the night, and (according to the other baby's mother),

when the first baby's mother awoke and discovered the death she

exchanged the babies. The liar claimed the live baby, not for taxes

(this Bible citation says nothing about taxes), but probably just

because she wanted to have a live baby instead of a dead one. (In

ancient times — as in much of the world today — in order not to starve

in your old age you needed to have children/grandchildren who could

eventually tend to you when you grew too old and feeble to work.)

As far as I understand it (thinking back to religious-school

lessons and such), the story tells us ...

/1/ ... about love, of course

(someone who really loves a child will do anything to keep it alive —

just as the baby's real mother said she would even let the other woman

rear her child if that would keep it alive instead of sliced in two by

)

and

/2/ ... also it tells us what a good ruler/government must do:

in order to remain good and just, a government cannot ignore even the

most despised and rejected of people — instead, it must hear and act

on the rightful claims of even the most scorned, worst-off people,

such as prostitutes.

The king *could* have said: " I don't have to judge this case! I

can just ignore it, because all decent people hate and sneer at folks

like you! People like you do not deserve justice, fairness, or even a

day in court! " — BUT he went ahead and listened to the situation

anyway, and used his wisdom to eventually get the baby back to its

real mother without harm. ( had only threatened to kill the

baby because he knew that, if the real mother thought the baby would

die, the real mother would do anything she could to stop this from

happening.)

We could use a today, to deal with some of our modern problems

about killing babies and shunning people who don't fit the social mold

of a " proper person " who " deserves attention " ...

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Whose to say someone who doesn't have a voice wants to live or die? That person was atleast a year old before the lack of oxygen to his brain ruined every chance that he could have had in life. Whose to say between the seizures and the surgeries to keep his bones from crushing because of lack of spinal fluid that he really wants to have a backlafin pump installed on his back and struggle to chew each piece of the same baby food that he always gets because his swallowing reflex is damaged? Whose to say that he doesn't have the memories of his first year of walking? ravenmagic2003 <ravenmagic2003@...> wrote: Nick wrote: "Somewhere in Central America the court hands down prison terms for mother's who had to abort their baby to save their lives during childbirth. There are babies who suffocate in their cribs, are revived and then they're vegetables. They really are a burden on families and themselves. Who would want to be a vegetable? It should be legal within certain guidelines. Of course I would hope the citizens would have enough moral responsiblity to not press for a quick fix when it comes to wanting to get rid of any baby who is difficult and misinterpreting the law. Basically, you would have psychopaths abusing those priviliges anyway. In order for things like DNA alteration not to take place I would think that getting rid of vegetables who are nearly brain dead and a real burden on families (I've seen it with my own two eyes) would be not a

step but a proper service in an already unforgiving world."I will tell you a story from my own life, Nick. When Cub was born, his twin did not survive. Cub was very ill and my ex-husband and I were told he would not live 24 hours. I did not believe it even though I knew Cub's chances -- by all reason -- were negligible. He had been 2 out of 10 on the APGAR at birth (not very good at all) and he was 2 out of 10 on the APGAR at 3 minutes and at 5 minutes. He improved marginally at 10 minutes and at 15 minutes had managed to scrap up to a 6 out of 10. Given the situation, he was a phenomenal candidate for not making it at all. And the medical profession held out very little hope for a functioning child. His mother believed he would make it against all odds.In the 24 months that ensued, he was hospitalized for a total of 19 months ... always in isolation, always with a lot of negative remarks by medical

doctors regarding the outlook of his situation. The alleged professionals held out little to no hope for him. But his mother did.It was strongly recommended when he was 2 that I consider institutionalizing him because the doctors did not believe he would ever be functional in society. I knew differently. He was functional with me.He struggled with health issues through his toddler and pre-school years, and at age 6 he was so ill from an ear infection gone awry that the doctors at the hospital had to request permission to administer drugs normally used to combat Anthrax to save his life. It was touch and go and again, the medical doctors were certain he would not survive, and if he did, they were unsure what to expect. I knew differently.Over the years, I have been told by nurses, doctors, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, whatever, that I am in a state of denial because I do not believe

the worst about this child's abilities.I believe that every living, breathing being that comes into this world has come here with a purpose in life, Nick. While I do not believe in using extraordinary measures with which to keep someone alive at any point during that person's life, I do believe in allowing each person the same opportunity to live their natural lifespan -- whatever Great Spirit has determined that to be.Raven

Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new house payment

[Guest guest]

Okay, the do not resuscitate makes sense. I had a girlfriend who had a twin. Long story short she had been in a devastating car accident. Her twin was in a coma for the time span of 12 years. She suddenly awoke. 12 years is a long time. When she awoke they had to spend a few years of rehab. She had lost the ability to speak but, knows sign language. Her eye ducts don't form tears so, the Nanny has to use eyedrops for dry eyes. My girlfriend was an alcoholic around me. I don't know if she was normally like that. She was also on antidepressants. One thing she had going for her was college. That's where I met her. Anyway, Identical twins have a special bond and it's very complex. I wasn't able to help her with letting go. She had problems with guilt, survivor guilt I think it was. It's just terribly sad. Now, I do agree with everything you said about responsiblity of taking care of the child 18 years. She's always made quite a large sum of money and her husband makes over

100 dollars an hour because he has something like a doctorate in computer programming. They had all the means to be able to take care of their son but, they shirked the responsiblity and she gave it to her parents. I don't know if they had the choice to compassionately euthanize him or not. I don't know all the circumstances. I just know that the lady herself has always been sort of snobbish and a little rude. The problem is that can't speak, acknowledge, move anything except his head, barely is able to swallow baby food, most likely can't see, not to mention the surgeries to get his bones from breaking because he is in a hunched position, not able to relax naturally. Like I said in the other post, overwhemingly heavy evidence points to vaccines as the very cause of SIDS born from an encephalitic reaction to the neurotoxins, yes neurotoxins in vaccines. So, I'm not the one to really judge who is responsible for the catastrophe. One can't really blame Americans for

being so blinded by Fear propaganda and "get your free flu shots" ads. environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: "It really has been a financial and emotional burden on the family involved..."That's the risk you run when you decide to have kids. That is the risk you run when you don't want kids but get

pregnant anyway. If they didn't want to assume the ensuing responsibility for their child between the day of birth and the child's 18th birthday, then they should have abstained from having sex and coceiving the child in the first place. Economic inconvenience is not excuse to get rid of a family member. "He is basically a vegetable except for the fact that he can breathe. I don't know. All of that pain and misery could have been spared. That's what I meant."I understand what you mean. My grandmother died naturally in her sleep, but before she did I had to watch her body waste away before my eyes. She had a do not recussitate order, which I would have honored had she needed it, and I have this order also. Yet I would never have thought of terminating her life despite her suffering. It is not within my province to do so, and I do not believe it is within anyone's province to do so except perhaps for

the sufferer himself or herself.TomAdministrator

Everyone is raving about the all-new .

[Guest guest]

You can see how it applies today. Women are left alone to spend all their time working and leaving the kids at home without a father. The woman doesn't even make enough working two jobs and the kid learns the streets. Eventually he becomes a father, gets in prison for selling street drugs, robbery or murder and the cycle repeats itself. Like you said, the government today is not like at all and has forgotten that businesses are 100 percent discriminatory. People start out with no guidance then have kids. They don't understand that companies are not required by the government to do anything ethical. They are reuired to make a dollar and anything that resmembles ethics is only a consequence of what they're selling. The government does not give to the people. It gives to the politicians who get money from lobbyists. Obviously America is not run in the best interests of the public. From an early age the companies raise generations of kids on commercials when their

parents aren't home. Kate Gladstone <handwritingrepair@...> wrote: Re:> From the perspective of responsibility and religious mandates I would look to . He said, "I'll cut the baby in half and both of you shall have the baby. I think for tax reasons a liar wanted to claim the baby.Actually, no. According to the Bible's account of the incident (FirstBook of Kings, chapter 3, verses 16-27), the baby belonged to one oftwo prostitutes who lived together and who had both had babies: onebaby died in the night, and (according to the other baby's mother),when the first baby's mother awoke and discovered the death sheexchanged the babies. The liar claimed the live baby, not for taxes(this Bible citation says nothing about taxes), but probably justbecause she wanted to have a live baby instead

of a dead one. (Inancient times — as in much of the world today — in order not to starvein your old age you needed to have children/grandchildren who couldeventually tend to you when you grew too old and feeble to work.)As far as I understand it (thinking back to religious-schoollessons and such), the story tells us .../1/ ... about love, of course(someone who really loves a child will do anything to keep it alive —just as the baby's real mother said she would even let the other womanrear her child if that would keep it alive instead of sliced in two by)and/2/ ... also it tells us what a good ruler/government must do:in order to remain good and just, a government cannot ignore even themost despised and rejected of people — instead, it must hear and acton the rightful claims of even the most scorned, worst-off people,such as prostitutes.The king *could* have said: "I don't have to judge

this case! Ican just ignore it, because all decent people hate and sneer at folkslike you! People like you do not deserve justice, fairness, or even aday in court!" — BUT he went ahead and listened to the situationanyway, and used his wisdom to eventually get the baby back to itsreal mother without harm. ( had only threatened to kill thebaby because he knew that, if the real mother thought the baby woulddie, the real mother would do anything she could to stop this fromhappening.)We could use a today, to deal with some of our modern problemsabout killing babies and shunning people who don't fit the social moldof a "proper person" who "deserves attention" ...Kate GladstoneFAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: -owner Check

the Links section for more FAM forums. Our website is here: http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/FAM_Secret_Society.htmland you may add to it on this page: http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/Main6.html

[Guest guest]

when you are tested while pregnant, if your child is found to be downs

syndrome you can elect to abort. Not sure why this is really in the

news they already do it. Before birth, If a parent changes their mind

after birth? well that is another story. You are correct Tom a woman

whom was considered a vegetable, was reached by a audiologist. She

had no response to caregivers, she was born with a number of

disabilities. the audiologist played music and finally at 27 she

responded. She had been treated by all of her caregivers as inhuman,

largely ignored. they met her needs and left. Once it was found that

she enjoyed music her caregivers saw her as human and began to be

compassionate. This was the first time she cried. Our perception of

others is just that. No one asks for a disabled child, somehow the

parents who make it, figure it out. I met parents of severely

disabled children, they came to speak honestly about that life. I

cannot imagine it, because I don't have to. Everyone has to decide

what to do when G'd asks. Some rise some fall, so choice becomes

paramount. Like Tom has stated if you don't want to raise a child

don't have one. That is really easiest

[Guest guest]

Nick I may be wrong but this all goes back to the discussions of

Utopian society. I may be a dreaming idealist in terms of the truth.

100 years ago before commercials and visual media, I think people

" saw " more real life. Now it just happens to someone else. Many tech

advances have a " dark side " today's boon being tomorrows bane. I

share your frustration there has to be a way to ease suffering that

can actually occur. With groups of people like us through

understanding and need, with the aid of any and all faiths or none but

the belief in a human spirit. As in Raven story, we can never give

up. Quitting is the surest way to failure. I for one am waaaaayyyy

too stubborn for that. We have to be decent by example, say no to

what we don't like etc. Yes I know, how idealistic and it's a

wonderful life of me, but that is how some of us have to live. how we

choose to spend our time is in fact our choice. I think you are mad

at the parents, you cannot be mad at the baby. THe grandparents want

this child to live? that should be enough

[Guest guest]

" I don't know if they had the choice to compassionately euthanize him

or not. I don't know all the circumstances. I just know that the lady

herself has always been sort of snobbish and a little rude. The

problem is that can't speak, acknowledge, move anything except

his head, barely is able to swallow baby food, most likely can't see,

not to mention the surgeries to get his bones from breaking because he

is in a hunched position, not able to relax naturally. "

Well, here is food for thought.

Some scientists believe they have isolated or are about to isolate the

gene that disposes people toward getting autism. Once a cheap test can

be developed that allows people to test of this gene, they will then

have the ability to terminate the baby before it is born, or,

alternatively, if this idea in Britain takes form, to kill the baby

after it is born.

Remember that having this gene does not mean that a person will " get "

autism. It ony means that a person is susceptible to it.

Parents, knowing what this gene does can at this point either take the

risk and have the baby or abort it or terminate it if they do not wish

to take the risk.

YOU are autistic, as are most people in this forum.

Clearly we all have different levels of functionality, but we are at

least able to function to a degree. Yet if someone sets some sort of

criteria, and if that criteria says that autism in any of its forms is

grounds for termination of life, then the result is that autistics

will cease to be a part of the population.

That is why what this fellow wants to do is dangerous.

It is easy for us to point at another type of person and say " Well

sure. THEY are a miserable specimen of a human being and ought to be

terminated. "

But remember that we ourselves are already in someone else's

gunsights. And for us to try to assert arguments for our own continued

existence while arguing for the termination of someone else's is

rather hypocritical.

I am unwilling to place myself in a position of determining who should

live and who should die since that responsibility seems to be beyond

my pervue. For me, it's God's purview. And if I did not believe n God,

then I would say it is nature's purview.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

miminm wrote: " when you are tested while pregnant, if your child is

found to be downs syndrome you can elect to abort. "

The sad thing about that is that more and more medical researchers are

learning that mothers who have fetuses who test positive for Downs

Syndrome through amniocentesis and who are not born Downs Syndrome

babies, are almost always born AS. The abnormalities are usually

found on chromosomes 7, 15, 71 and/or 21.

So if one decides to abort what is thought to be a Downs Syndrome

child on the basis of that 'medical guess' during the gestation

period, the medical profession and the parents could unknowingly abort

the next Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" They don't understand that companies are not required by the

government to do anything ethical. "

That depends on where you live. A woman in my state may not be fired

for being pregnant, and may not be passed up for promotions or salary

increases due to being out while on maternity leave.

Yet as a supervisor at an old job, I have personally seen one instance

where I and my manager had to promote a woman who threatened to sue us

for a salary increase and promotion over this issue when we tried to

argue that she was undeserving.

She was employed with us for less than two years at the time of the

pending suit, had two difficult pregnancies, one after the other

whilst employed with us, and was actually in the office for only six

of 22 months. These times of employment were never constant. One week

here, two weeks there. A month over there. Never enough to learn her

job. She would learn a few skills, be out for four weeks, come back

having forgotten what she learned, and have to be retrained. Whilst

there for a month in a row without absence, she still demonstrated

less skill than other women there, including a temp employee.

Aside from alll this, she had blabbed to one of her co-workers (who

gossiped to my manager) that she was only working with us for the

insurance.

In short, this woman was one of the biggest liabilities we ever had

there and she was totally protected under the law until such time as

we could prove OUR case for NOT giving her a raise or promotion

through an expensive lawsuit.

It was reasoned by our superiors that promoting her to the next level

would be less expensive than a lawsuit and she was indeed promoted,

but shortly after quit when her new manager pionted out her

incompetencies. This HAD to be done since all promotions have an

evaluative probationary preiod. Though my superiors did not voice it

out loud, if you " read between the lines " , you could see that they had

hoped her lack of skills would cause her to quit or be fired anyway

under this rule.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" I may be a dreaming idealist in terms of the truth.

100 years ago before commercials and visual media, I think people

" saw " more real life. Now it just happens to someone else. Many tech

advances have a " dark side " today's boon being tomorrows bane. "

Of course tech advances have a dark side, I think most things have a

dark side though - but that is how people apply such things.

As for people seeing more real life before commercials and visual

media; I will admit a lot of what commercials and visual media have

produced is trash and mostly for the purpose of selling junk we don't

need.

However in some cases awarness has been raised. For instance you say in

the past that people saw more real life - yes maybe so, but only what

concerned them and on their doorstep - one could argue that on the plus

side for commercials and visual media it has brought the world and

others closer to us - now we are aware of the plights of others in

other countries. Yes some do become desensitized to such and ignore it

as not their problem - but how many can say they are not aware of such

now?

>

> Nick I may be wrong but this all goes back to the discussions of

> Utopian society. I may be a dreaming idealist in terms of the truth.

> 100 years ago before commercials and visual media, I think people

> " saw " more real life. Now it just happens to someone else. Many tech

> advances have a " dark side " today's boon being tomorrows bane. I

> share your frustration there has to be a way to ease suffering that

> can actually occur. With groups of people like us through

> understanding and need, with the aid of any and all faiths or none but

> the belief in a human spirit. As in Raven story, we can never give

> up. Quitting is the surest way to failure. I for one am waaaaayyyy

> too stubborn for that. We have to be decent by example, say no to

> what we don't like etc. Yes I know, how idealistic and it's a

> wonderful life of me, but that is how some of us have to live. how we

> choose to spend our time is in fact our choice. I think you are mad

> at the parents, you cannot be mad at the baby. THe grandparents want

> this child to live? that should be enough

>

[Guest guest]

Raven what you have written is true and sad. No one said that the

child will have Downs, But the parents still get the choice.

[Guest guest]

Yes, people saw more real life. There's no reason to be mad at the baby so, I haven't been. I'm going on a trip to Dallas tomorrow morning. I'll be gone probably 4 days. I'm basically selling Kirby Vacuums. It's sort of a lousy thing to do but, it pays and they are decent vacuums. I'm not selling them to people who can't afford them. It isn't the same thing as Telemarketing but, it's still learning how to be a salesman. So, I'm going to be a sort of walking commercial for awhile until a better job comes along. Basically I'm going to several states because there are already offices in Tulsa who have killed the competition. One guy just come from the penitentiary. One of my bosses is a recovering crystal meth addict. Another boss looks like Manson. The guy who's driving me and some other down there said he plans on smoking a blunt. I told him I don't smoke. It's not my car so I don't have that option of not going along with it. Of course I'm not going to smoke

it, it's just the fumes will get everyone baked. Anyway, I didn't mean to throw that on anybody. I'm just saying what I'll be doing for these next four days, selling vacuums........ miminm <mnmimi@...> wrote: Nick I may be wrong but this all goes back to the discussions ofUtopian society. I may be a dreaming idealist in terms of the truth.100 years ago before commercials and visual media, I think people"saw" more real life. Now it just happens to someone else. Many

techadvances have a "dark side" today's boon being tomorrows bane. Ishare your frustration there has to be a way to ease suffering thatcan actually occur. With groups of people like us throughunderstanding and need, with the aid of any and all faiths or none butthe belief in a human spirit. As in Raven story, we can never giveup. Quitting is the surest way to failure. I for one am waaaaayyyytoo stubborn for that. We have to be decent by example, say no towhat we don't like etc. Yes I know, how idealistic and it's awonderful life of me, but that is how some of us have to live. how wechoose to spend our time is in fact our choice. I think you are madat the parents, you cannot be mad at the baby. THe grandparents wantthis child to live? that should be enough

Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new house payment

[Guest guest]

Yes, people saw more real life. There's no reason to be mad at the baby so, I haven't been. I'm going on a trip to Dallas tomorrow morning. I'll be gone probably 4 days. I'm basically selling Kirby Vacuums. It's sort of a lousy thing to do but, it pays and they are decent vacuums. I'm not selling them to people who can't afford them. It isn't the same thing as Telemarketing but, it's still learning how to be a salesman. So, I'm going to be a sort of walking commercial for awhile until a better job comes along. Basically I'm going to several states because there are already offices in Tulsa who have killed the competition. One guy just come from the penitentiary. One of my bosses is a recovering crystal meth addict. Another boss looks like Manson. The guy who's driving me and some other down there said he plans on smoking a blunt. I told him I don't smoke. It's not my car so I don't have that option of not going along with it. Of course I'm not going to smoke

it, it's just the fumes will get everyone baked. Anyway, I didn't mean to throw that on anybody. I'm just saying what I'll be doing for these next four days, selling vacuums........ miminm <mnmimi@...> wrote: Nick I may be wrong but this all goes back to the discussions ofUtopian society. I may be a dreaming idealist in terms of the truth.100 years ago before commercials and visual media, I think people"saw" more real life. Now it just happens to someone else. Many

techadvances have a "dark side" today's boon being tomorrows bane. Ishare your frustration there has to be a way to ease suffering thatcan actually occur. With groups of people like us throughunderstanding and need, with the aid of any and all faiths or none butthe belief in a human spirit. As in Raven story, we can never giveup. Quitting is the surest way to failure. I for one am waaaaayyyytoo stubborn for that. We have to be decent by example, say no towhat we don't like etc. Yes I know, how idealistic and it's awonderful life of me, but that is how some of us have to live. how wechoose to spend our time is in fact our choice. I think you are madat the parents, you cannot be mad at the baby. THe grandparents wantthis child to live? that should be enough

Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new house payment

[Guest guest]

good luck Nick I hope something different comes along soon. You would

make a great nutritionist or naturopath. stay safe. mimi

[Guest guest]

" The guy who's driving me and some other down there said he plans on

smoking a blunt. I told him I don't smoke. It's not my car so I don't

have that option of not going along with it. Of course I'm not going

to smoke it, it's just the fumes will get everyone baked. Anyway, I

didn't mean to throw that on anybody. I'm just saying what I'll be

doing for these next four days, selling vacuums........ "

Nick, given that yoiu are a recovering addict, I don't think it's wise

you go with these people. (This assumes that a " blunt " is pot.) Which

is worth more? Your job or your health.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

> Nick, given that yoiu are a recovering addict, I don't think it's

wise

> you go with these people. (This assumes that a " blunt " is pot.) Which

> is worth more? Your job or your health.

>

Tom I am glad you wrote this, certainly I couldn't do what nick is

proposing to do, just from the picture in my head, and people smoking

next to me. I admit, I am an alarmist(sometimes people are nice and

call this maternal instinct) but it sounds compromising as well as

dangerous. I was trying to be positive, but actually I have been

thinking about this all day. If you have reservations I would look

into other options. mimi

[Guest guest]

Re:

>The abnormalities are usually

> found on chromosomes 7, 15, 71 and/or 21.

Do you mean " 17 " where you typed " 71 " ? If we actually have at least 71

chromosomes, then I should not have passed my biology final.

;-)

Kate Gladstone