Skip to comments.Dr. Mark Mostert: "Finishing Off" Children with Disabilities
Posted on 02/21/2010 10:52:59 AM PST by wagglebee
Theres a tabloid journalist in Russia making waves about lethal solutions for newborns (and others) with disabilities. Journalist Aleksandr Nikonov wrote an incendiary piece in a popular Russian tabloid, (caution, content may be offensive) Speed-Info, entitled Finish It Off, So It Doesn't Suffer.
As I say quite often here, Im not sure why so many are surprised and outraged. Nikonovs intent is no different than what the rest of the pro-death crowd say, just slightly more uncivilized.
Clearly, Russian tabloid journalism is short on subtlety, as is the 700,000-an-issue Speed-Info, with its copious photo layouts of scantily clad women and other lowbrow schlock. In this regard, we could simply ignore Nikonovs message. However, tabloid sensationalism influences public opinion just as any other form of publication does perhaps even more so.
Lets begin with Nikonovs own words of the title. Newborns with disabilities are suffering; therefore they should be finished off. Also, these newborns are its - not baby boys or girls, or even newborn humans, they are nonhuman. Harsh? Yes, but exactly the same sentiment that many Western countries are swallowing. (The Netherlands routinely kills disabled newborns as well as the elderly and the infirm. Scotland is talking about assisted suicide for children. Dignitas in Switzerland will help do you in for a fee. Canadas medical community increasingly calls for the legalization of assisted suicide. The pro-death crowd in the US isnt happy that only several states have already legalized assisted killing they want more).
Nikonov hasn't learned the Western trick of making killing much more acceptable when it's prettified. The pro-death crowd would recoil in horror at the description of finishing people off. Instead, they talk about euthanasia, aid in dying, dying with dignity - making the ugly beautiful. Most people dont like ugly, but they do like beautiful. Its simply a matter of lying often enough that the lie becomes desirable truth.
However, the pretty-talking pro-death crowd is really down with Nikonov, because any way you slice it, finishing off is the intent of assisted suicide and euthanasia, warm fuzzy terminology notwithstanding.
Heres what Nikonov said in a Radio Free Liberty interview:
Parents, in particular parents, should be free to decide the fate of their own offspring. If you want to bring up a child with Down syndrome, you can do it. But if you dont, you can euthanize him. Why is prenatal abortion legal and post-natal abortion is not?
Well, hes got a point: If we feel free to allow and legalize the abortion of unborn children with Down syndrome and other defects, as we have done, then why not allow and legalize killing after birth?
Logically, there should be no difference. At least Nikonov is consistent kill - sorry, finish off children with disabilities wherever you find them, unborn and born.
Lest we ignore Nikonov, remember that hes saying exactly what others in highly elevated university endowed chairs at prestigious universities are saying. For one, Peter Singer has noted that:
In any case, the position taken here does not imply that it would be better that no people born with severe disabilities should survive; it implies only that the parents of such infants should be able to make this decision. (Practical Ethics, 1999, p. 189).
I think post-natal abortion is way too pretty.
For the sake of honesty and transparency, Im with Nikonovs approach.
Call it what it is: Finishing off children with disabilities for their own and everyone elses good.
Yep, and the ONLY reason they have succeeded is by "sanitizing" their agenda.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
These fools are like the elder radical islamic clerics. I don’t see either of them volunteering to be at the front of the line.
The ugly secret of doctors and nurses is that, for many years, perhaps most of the 20th Century or more, they euthanized at will, not just infants who suffered from congenital ills, but the elderly as well.
Strongly discouraged, and quite illegal, it was still done. However, what has been forgotten is that though they sometimes wished to do it openly, they were never given this right, precisely because it would then be abused.
That is, they would have to think long and hard before they murdered someone, knowing if they were caught, they could either lose their license, or be prosecuted. They had to keep their murders a secret, and could not openly offer them, but only deal in subtleties.
The Culture of Death must be defeated by the Culture of Life. In this struggle, there is no middle ground.
Because it's murder.
Mr. Nikonov gets an F and has to retake ethics IA!
post-natal abortion ?? What kind of double-think is this?
Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke.
Tennessee has joined several other states in trying to pass a Health Care Freedom Act. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011)
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollees cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)
Bill Would Restrict Veterans Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees in fiscal 2010, Matz said. We took them at their word, and I cant believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward, he added.
Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware
Well I can’t read the article because they don’t have an English version.
However, the first article I clicked on had a naked chick posing with Mosins, AK and RPK variants, so it’s all good.
Very true. The sanitizing of the truth makes it easier for the general public to swallow. Kind of like the pushing of the homosexual agenda. Don’t describe what homosexuals do, don’t show photos of aborted babies, and don’t call killing people “murder”.
In before the deathbots.
Sad to say we even have FReepers beating this drum, under all the liberal doublespeak code words.
There are a lot of leftists on FR. Lovers of death, of perversion and just now on a thread about the Dalai Lama, even of the Chinese Communists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.