Read for yourself what the hoopla is all about and find where possible misconception(s) lie(s) taking in account the 6 (first) Dutch demands (laws) consering euthanasia (see links).
Dutch Doctors Admit to Euthanizing Babies
Babies killed not because they are going to die, but because they are going to live.
(LifeSiteNews.com)
AMSTERDAM, November 30, 2004 - A report out of the Netherlands, the first nation to legalize euthanasia, revealed that a Groningen hospital is admitting to euthanizing babies.
The country, in the process of drafting guidelines for the practice of euthanizing people incapable of making the decision for themselves, heard from Groningen Academic Hospital last month that they had already been carrying out the grizzly practice since at least 2000. That year five children, experiencing what doctors claim was "pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities," were killed.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg, said that this is not new news. "The British Medical Journal revealed, already in 1997, that eight percent of all infant deaths in the Netherlands are from euthanasia for fetal anomalies. This is clearly eugenic euthanasia, and has nothing to do with having a terminal illness," he said.
"The 2001 law made euthanasia legal only for consenting persons above the age of 12 and for children under 12 with parental consent," Schadenberg pointed out. What is new is the proposal to eliminate an age restriction and the need for consent for persons who are unconscious or unable to make the decision for themselves. "The reason it is eugenic euthanasia, is because these babies are being killed not because they are going to die, but because they are going to live."
The law states that euthanasia can be carried out on anyone who experiences unremitting suffering. "Clearly the only suffering many of these children will experience is that of being seen as abnormal, and no other," Schadenberg emphasized.
"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," American attorney and author Wesley J. Smith told the AP. He is the author of Forced Exit: the Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder.
http://www.euthanasia.com/nethbabies.html
- - -
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/faq.htm
http://www.euthanasia.com/page4.html
- - -
http://www.euthanasia.com/index.html
- - -
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasie
- - - - -
There are essentially two modes of thinking (reasoning):Mode 1 - Reason precedes sentiment (the rare mode)
This is the rarest mode of thinking. In this mode, the individual, in the process of forming an opinion, examines carefully all of the facts of the matter, forms a hypothesis, and then attempts to disprove his own hypothesis. After a certain amount of rigorous examination and refutation of his own hypothesis, he may or may not conclude that the hypothesis is sound. If the hypothesis does not survive close examination and refutation, it is discarded and a new hypothesis is formed. If the hypothesis is sound, he incorporates it into his weltanschauung (world view).
In the process of incorporating the hypothesis or idea into his world view, certain sentiments are attached to the idea.....the idea becomes a "belief." Sentiment is the foundation of all thought, it is the motive force behind thought. So, even before the hypothesis is formed, there is sentiment, but there are competing sentiments. It is the hallmark of the rational mind to allow reason to be the justification for sentiment. Once a rational/reasoned hypothesis is decided upon among competing hypotheses, a sentiment is chosen from competing sentiments. Reason precedes sentiment.....reason justifies sentiment.
Mode 2 - Sentiment precedes reason (the ubiquitous mode)
This is by far, the most common form of thinking. In this mode of thinking, a sentiment is chosen first from competing sentiments, then hypotheses are formed to "rationalize" the sentiment. The individual seeks facts and ideas which justify the sentiment......sentiment justifies reason. This is an inferior and primitive form of thinking. The individual "rationalizes" emotions. Why does the individual choose one sentiment over another? What is the justification for choosing one sentiment over another at first? That’s just it, there is no justification.....it is irrational. To a large extent it depends on the imagery of childhood experience....an imagery which, by the way, can be influenced and controlled by early exposure to propaganda and indoctrination. People who use mode2 thinking are easily susceptible to imagery and pandering. The efficacy of propaganda is directly proportional to the percentage of the audience that uses mode2 thinking.
So, what happens when Mode 2 thinking is confronted with unassailable facts and logic? What happens when the "flimsy" logic rationalizing and justifying the pre-existing sentiment is challenged by incontrovertible evidence?
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance." Dissonance is defined here as an "unpleasant state of tension." Individuals will try to relieve this dissonance in one of two ways:
1) Increase the number of consistent cognitions - In order to assimilate inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals experiencing dissonance will increase then number of consistent cognitions, thereby abating the dissonance. This often involves rationalizing...i.e. myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces an existing worldview. In most instances, the offending inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus on extant consistent cognitions. This is called "rationalizing" because the individual seeks out semi-logical conclusions using extant cognitions and newly created consistent cognitions in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent cognitions. The reader must understand that we are not talking about
2) Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions - Individuals change their attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions. Instead of rationalizing, the individual excises the inconsistent cognitions from their worldview. This is more consistent with mode 1 thinking when presented with logic or facts inconsistent with their worldview.
There is a connection between mode 2 thinking and cognitive dissonance. Emotionally based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and logic which contradict the justification for that thinking or emotional worldview. Factually or logically inconsistent cognitions are countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with emotional cognitions. For the mode 2 thinker, the universe is not a matter of logic and fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a strongly held emotion, they respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that contradiction, but with an emotional refutation. The mode 2 thinker refutes emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts with mode 2 thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply "don't hear" you.
http://www.propaganda101.com/
Try to keep in mind that the coin always and only has three sides. All other sides to the coin are added and alien to the coin.
8-DJ
