Killed the Baby Save the Panda

“Chronic disease, disability, mental illness or existential despair”.

In 2013, 650 babies killed in Holland because they were deemed unfit for life. The Netherlands was the first nation to legalize euthanasia and initially it was supposed to be for terminally ill patients. Like the abortion issue of the 1970’s which produced Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institutes Center on Human Exceptionalism said we should “stop pretending assisted suicide is about terminal illness and admit it is much more about disability which is why the disability rights movement remains so opposed as they are the primary targets. It is about allowing killing as an acceptable answer to many causes of suffering whether terminal or Roe vs. Wade a slippery slope has reared its ugly head.

In the 1970’s the pro-choice group stated that abortion would only

In the 1970’s the pro-choice group stated that abortion would only be for rape, incest or health of the mother. The pro-life group were afraid of a slippery slope that would end up with abortion on demand, late-term abortion and even post birth abortion.

Well we all know how all of this ended up. Only a small percentage of abortions are for incest, rape or the health of the mother. Abortion on demand has become the norm. More than 56 million abortions have occurred since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and Peter Singer would like to see mothers have the right to kill their babies up to 2 years old.

On the other end, in Holland where euthanasia is legal, it has also become legal to kill a baby if the parents or the hospital feel that the child would not have a good quality of life. Really??????? Who has the right to make that decision?

Dutch Ethicist Theo Boer used to believe that “slippery slope” argument were invalid and argued in support of assisted suicide legislation. After 12 years of experience he takes on a different view.

The idea of deeming those babies with spina-bifida or other birth defects not worth living……….where does this stop. Do we eventually decide that those born crippled or blind should be disposed of…………..where does this end?

In the 1970’s the pro-choice group stated that abortion would only be for rape, incest or health of the mother. The pro-life group were afraid of a slippery slope that would end up with abortion on demand, late-term abortion and even post birth abortion.

Well we all know how all of this ended up. Only a small percentage of abortions are for incest, rape or the health of the mother. Abortion on demand has become the norm. More than 56 million abortions have occurred since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and Peter Singer would like to see mothers have the right to kill their babies up to 2 years old.

On the other end, in Holland where euthanasia is legal, it has also become legal to kill a baby if the parents or the hospital feel that the child would not have a good quality of life. Really??????? Who has the right to make that decision?

Dutch Ethicist Theo Boer used to believe that “slippery slope” argument were invalid and argued in support of assisted suicide legislation. After 12 years of experience he takes on a different view.

The idea of deeming those babies with spina-bifida or other birth defects not worth living……….where does this stop. Do we eventually decide that those born crippled or blind should be disposed of…………..where does this end?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *