Mangled Thoughts

Now They Want to Euthanize Children
“In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the “consent” of parents. Going Dutch has never been so horrible.”

“In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12…” [See below]

This item picks up what Leftists fronts Animals Australia, and The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare, are pushing, as related in items immediately below this piece. What they are pushing is committed in Holland.

Jeff Kennett is pushing for ‘legalised euthanasia’. Derryn Hinch is too. Both claim it is a matter of compassion and mercy for those in pain. Hinch injects, whenever he raises it, another emotive and personal note, his mother. He stresses that if euthanasia was legal when his mother was dying and in considerable pain, he would have requested her be killed.

Now we have Leftist fronts, Animals Australia, and The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare, out to destroy pork food production asserting children are no more than piglets. This does means that children can be murdered. They are doing it in Holland. The second front is pushing this in the name of Christ, Trinity and Church.

Legal does not mean, however, lawful as in common law. It is Executive diktat over-riding law. It has not, apparently, occurred to either Jeff or Hinch why in Common Law, jurists treats suicide as what it is by definition, murder, albeit self-murder. Why, attempted suicide as attempted self-murder. Why, some-one else killing another, even if out of ‘compassion’, is dealt with as manslaughter or murder.

Neither has it occurred to them that ‘legalised euthanasia’ is an aim of the diseased Left. Coupled with it is the brutal truth of it as also a Statist measure. I am certainly not accusing these two of mendacity and malevolent intent in this matter - the diseased Left, yes, but not Hinch and Jeff. Their problem is intellectual idleness.

Until advances made in medicine, all due to free markets and raising of incomes due to capital accumulation through the 18th and 19th centuries and not socialist measures, the reason why common law jurists passed over unborn babies and the question of their rights was, the high rate of pre-natal death. Hygiene is one of the millions of innovations of entrepeneurs and not Statists and Leftists. It brought an end to both pre-natal, and high infant mortality rates.

My educated guess is the reason why until the 19th century, even into the early 20th century, many parents remained aloof from their children was precisely the high mortality rate. Indeed, into the early 20th century, despite the hygiene revolution - thanks to capitalism, parents were still apprehensive. Aloofness and remoteness disguised parental hopes and love.

None and short-life spans was a memory that still burned deep into the early 20th century. It is why young men they worked furiously at establishing themselves in a field, in their early teenage years. They still felt it an urgent race to succeed, prosper, marry and reproduce. Many still feared they would be dead by 40. One such man was Henry Cabot Lodge, who led a long and colourful life and died many decades later than he had anticipated as a youth.

The ambiguity of unborn babies and infants in common law, had nothing to do with the garbage of ‘person’ that Singer uses as one of his excuses for abortion and euthanasia. It had everything to do with: it was virtually nonsensical to deal with in common law the rights of the unborn and infants, even in themselves, let alone, for example, as heirs, given when it was highly probable they would die. Is it still an ambiguous matter in law for Jurists, not because they are callous and regard the unborn and infants as piglets, but for the sort of considerations involved? If it is, it is understandable why so.

Boosters of abortion and euthanasia have drawn on the ambiguity and thus lacunae in common law, but have been deceitful, to say the least, about why there is this lacunae. They are deliberately deceitful in this. The fraud compounds their deceit, since they use it as a major argument. One that they, and not only Hinch, press through playing the Emotion Harp. Kennett and Hinch are blind, because lazy and arrogant, to the intellectual fraud perpetrated by the Hard Left, and why they continue to perpetrate it.

Here’s a contrast to Hinch’s personalised and emotive ‘argument’. It involves telling details about why state ordered ‘euthanasia’ is evil.

Readers share Tracey Spicer’s death wish pain

Spicer related she nearly brought herself to killing her terminally-ill mum and, at the final moment did not.

…she held a pillow a foot away from her critically ill mother’s face, preparing to end her suffering by suffocating her…but could not go through with it.

“But as I looked down at the woman who gave me life, I knew I could not take hers. Collapsing to the floor, I sobbed like a baby. For the next few hours, I held Mum’s limp hand and said, over and over, ‘It’s OK for you to go’.”

Spicer states she had pestered hospital staff to assist her or kill her mother for her. They refused and it needs no stating as to why they refused, the bleeding obvious repugnance at it, oh and of course it is a crime. There it is, ‘legalised euthanasia’ entails the Executive trampling over decent men and women who would not volitionally even contemplate committing it. This is what Spicer attempted by badgering staff. It is certainly most likely of those in government hospitals, and why requires no explication either.

The same article contains the following anecdote:

Mitch of Tasmania…watch[ed] his mother die of cancer over 20 months.

“She used to say to me ‘They shoot horses, why won’t they put me down?’ If I left my sheep or cattle in the paddock like that, the RSPCA (no disrespect) must charge me and I would be in jail.
It was harrowing,” he said.

Man is not an animal. This is the fraud involved in the line, we put animals out of their misery, why is it a crime to do the same to humans’. With all due respect to Mitch, but expressions such as “put me down” reinforces the lie and in a deadly way, it is a slide committed by the man in the street, opening otherwise decent men and women to acceptance of what would be a genuine evil if imposed in Australia.

It is acceptance of a major leg of the Hard Left’s push for State ordered murder, man is nothing more than an animal, a brute beast, and therefore can be freely butchered.The French communists, and devoted to Stalin, took the same line, with this edge: social realism shows children can be hanged for criminal offences. Children!

Don’t forget, one of the lies on which Leftist mystagogy rests is the fiction man is nothing more than a beast - ‘the savage noble’ or ‘noble savage’. This is another reason why Hobbes, Rousseau and Sociology (man is a herd animal) are full of corrosive garbage [1].

On the question of words, ‘euthanasia’ is also a deception. It sanitises the truth of the matter, it is the killing of someone. Let’s assume it is merciful to do this to some in intolerable pain, the seriousness of it cannot be averted by resorting to a euphemism, ‘euthanasia’. The boosters of State ordered killing are thus engaged in another deceit.

One excuse given for abortion is physical imperfection. Again, this has been wrapped in emotive blackmail - ‘the child would suffer a miserable life and die early. Better to do it in now and try to conceive a sound child’. Both Taki and Charles Moore, writers for the Spectator and of the latter also an editor, fathered boys with the condition. Moore wrote of his initial apprehension. Both wrote of their joy in their boys, with Taki proudly writing of his son’s skiing and even prouder of him being a girl magnet. Here’s some others who have a thing or two to say about, parents:

Q&A: Judy Woodruff on life with disabilities (2008)

‘Legalised killing’, has another moral force. It breaks down morality, ‘it’s not me…the government authorised it and some one else did it’. This is the line taken, the response of enough Germans in the face of the National Socialist Executive’s enacting legalised killing and the consequent mass murders of Jews, cripples, homosexuals and anyone considered defective. A mixture of horror, shame and yet self-absolution. This is the line implicit in legalised killings, the “State enacted it, I ambsolved from my responsibilities as a free man”.

Best of all; how can mere beasts be responsible and culpable for anything at all? This, as the French communists, and today’s neo-Marxists, who are also causing great damage within the Church, is real ‘concrete, natural life’. It is not simply an assault on not only law, and freedom. It is what this attack on law is, a concentrated effort to overthrow morals. It has to be pointed out, private property, free markets, capital accumulation are the grounds and generator of much that is moral. Oh yes they are, despite what the neo-Marxist liars that have infested the St. Vincent de Paul Society say, noting these grounds of morality is also what they are attacking through their propaganda purveyed as theologically grounded material (their theology, is also inane, superficial, false drivel - but it cannot be but this in view of what they really stand for).

The legs of the Nazi Executive’s rationale for ‘euthanasia’ had been widely diffused and accepted by many long before they adopted it, and acted on it. ‘The legs…’ the very notions being asserted today by the diseased Left, and nonchantly parroted by the a-brainal “Right”.

It is no exaggeration at all to call ‘legalised euthanasia’ “State ordered murder”. To check, it is a major scandal, a dark, dirty business of “State” ordered murder in the Netherlands. Consider, for example:

In his book Seduced by Death, Herbert Hendin reported that one reason the Dutch people have not turned against their euthanasia law is that doctors and the media in Holland do not candidly report about the many abuses and violations of the law that occur with regard to their country’s euthanasia policy.

Dutch Euthanasia, By Wesley J. Smith

Death by Committee.What the Groningen Protocol says about our world, and where it might lead next.
by Hugh Hewitt

The Groningen Protocol is the proposal of doctors in the Netherlands for the establishment of an “independent committee” charged with selecting babies and other severely handicapped or disabled people for euthanasia. The original article provides some of the key details:

THe Dutch Executive has been working to legalise murder of children! E.g.:

From the above article, under the “Groningen protocol”:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child’s life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

…the parent’s role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent’s wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

Now They Want to Euthanize Children
In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the “consent” of parents. Going Dutch has never been so horrible.

In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12…

Which children? Those in pain, “and children who are seriously disabled.”

What are the ‘reasons’? Some major excuses also run by the likes of Singer and his diseased Leftist fellow travellers, and the brain-dead “Right”.

Dutch doctors have been surreptitiously engaging in eugenic euthanasia of disabled babies for years…

If the names Dutch, Netherlands, and Holland were omitted, it would be easy to swear on oath these reports are on Nazi Germany! For more chilling material, go, for example, here:

International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

In Australia, the diseased Left are running the same arguments the Dutch Executive and its willing accomplices have used to turn hospitals into State Ordered charnal houses. Deliberate mass murder. One of these Leftist fronts is the “The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare”. It is bad they call for destruction of food production in pig farms; this is heinous in itself, as is also the neo- Marxist aims the liars in the St.Vincent de Paul Society have so helpfully publicised on the much abused Society’s website.

The equation of man with animals, and children with piglets is a long way down the road to the commission of what the Nazi executive did, and the Dutch Exectutive is doing.

To Cardinal Archbishop Pell

Cardinal Pell, I repeat the request, have the “The Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare” investigated. While you are at it, also the neo-Marxist thugs who have converted the ST.Vincent de Paul Society into a cover and gravy train for themselves.

You need guns to do this, because you are not armed for it, and neither are your subordinate bishops. They are not to be found in the likes of the CIS and IPA either. I recommend, for example, Mr. Gerard Jackson of Brookesnews. I also recommend you obtain another arm you do not have available, theology and a gun of a theologian. Get this right. It must be done, because:

They are wrecking the Church as well as betraying Australians. They belong to the diseased Left, Cardinal. Forget Catholic, they are not even Christians. They are anti-Christian, and much esle besides. They are lying bastards, Cardinal Pell.

[1] It is important to mention Hobbes, Rousseau , as two of the seminal influences that fuelled the myths and fictions on which socialism rests and its pseudo-scientific attempts at justification such as sociology. Hoche and Binding’s ideas that “became respectable in Weimar Germany and provided the Nazi’s with the intellectual reasoning for their war of extermination…” (Rupert Murdoch, anti-Americanism and Singer’s neo-Nazi views) were raised and advanced long before the Weimer period. A period spanning from at least the mid 16th to the 20th centuries, and were fused into a deadly cocktail in ‘philosophy’, ‘history’, and ‘theology’. Each field, in inverted commas because it was the degradation of each.

Theirs was no empty boast when they claimed to be the genuine German socialist party. Germans recognised this, and backed them because of it. Today, they chase Singer out of Germany as a scarifying echo of a past they rightly have no wish to recall.