If abortion is so widely accepted and practiced, can infanticide be far behind? The same evolutionary rationalization used to justify abortion might also be used to justify the murder of unwanted children, specially those with birth defects or illnesses that will prevent their contributing to society later on. [Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, pg. 140, 1989]
A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives. [Associated Press, Nov. 30, 2004]
Hugh Hewitt [more here] has covered this story from the beginning with exceptional commentary and calls to action. Pro-life bloggers followed suit with many, if not most, quoting Hugh. Here are some of their comments:
The Groningen Protocol: Infant Euthanasia and the Substance View of Personhood - The recent news that doctors in the Netherlands have been administering lethal doses of sedatives to terminally ill newborns has received little notice in the U.S. Neither the mainstream media nor the blogosphere seems to have taken much interest in the “Groningen Protocol” – the policy that doctors have the authority to end the child's life if they think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition. [snip] I must admit that the most surprising aspect of this story is that people find the practice of euthanasia surprising. For the past thirty years almost all Western nations have embraced some form of abortion and in doing so have accepted the premise that human life in not intrinsically valuable. The shift from abortion to active euthanasia of infants does not require tumbling down the slippery slope; it merely requires people to act consistently with their views.
Euthanasia - These children are the canaries in the coalmine for the rest of us; their deaths warn of a nightmarish future. The "right to die" will become "the duty to die", in less time than we might imagine.
The Groningen Protocol - The Groningen Protocol is a logical extension of the abortion activists’ position. Indeed, if you support abortion rights, especially partial birth abortion, you would not be able to make a rational argument against infant euthanasia without contradiction of your abortion views. That the mainstream media seems unwilling to address this story, either pro, con or unbiased, leads one to believe that they see the relationship between their support of abortion rights and the killing of infants and children and are afraid to admit it! [more here and here]
The Creeping Evil of Good Intentions - What we are talking about, though, is the next step after consensual, doctor-assisted suicide. Namely, the non-consensual termination of life. More bluntly, they are killing these babies. They are killing babies for noble (in their minds) reasons, but they are killing babies nonetheless. [see also The Groningen Protocol-Update]
If you're an infant and Dutch, you're not much - Why haven't government prosecutors in the Netherlands done anything? Has their lack of respect for life slipped so far that breaking the law and killing infants is no big deal?
The Culture of Death - I am sure that to the Dutch, this is just a very rational situation, reflecting the limits of a socialized medical system. That's the scary part. Had this line been crossed in other times and places, it would have denied the world the benefits of Stephen Hawking's genius, Franklin D. Roosevelt's leadership, and the valiant fight Christopher Reeve fought to overcome his paralysis.
Netherlands Killing "Unfit" Babies - Conservative Eyes quotes the following, "Four times in recent months, Dutch doctors have pumped lethal doses of drugs into newborns they believe are terminally ill, setting off a new phase in a growing European debate over when, if ever, it's acceptable to hasten death for the critically ill."
Groningen - I Make Sense has a useful set of relevant links.
Thousands Pray for Baby--Doctors Confounded - I can think of no better thing than to pray that God will give many more families the courage to defy earthly wisdom and choose to protect this precious gift of life.
Dutch Euthanasia - Yep. We're talking about state-sanctioned murder based on the decision of some committee that a given person is mentally inequipped to decide whether they ought to live.
Post Birth Abortions - The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Update: Captain's Quarters has an entry that is well worth reading. Captain Ed states, "The lack of widespread horror following Groningen's announcement betrays a world where human life only matters for its commercial value, not as a sacred or unique gift. Even the revelation that Groningen proposes to kill children it deems too inconvenient to live despite their parents' wishes, up to age 12, fails to shock a world desensitized to humanity and wrapped up in its so-called secular 'humanism'."
New Posts:
The Groningen Protocol - Two Catholics’ Views
The Gronigen Protocol: A Crime Against Humanity In the Making
The Groningen Protocol - shades of pre-war Germany - AZ Right to Life President John J. Jakubczyk
New (12/17/04): The Groningen Protocol: Death by Committee
Final Comments
The murder of newborns by Dutch doctors is a horrific practice but not surprising considering the ongoing devaluation of life by a culture that embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide. An important point is that the evil practice of infant euthanasia is equivalent to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The only difference is the visibility and the presence of the baby that enables both parents and the doctor to identify with him or her.
The good news is that more and more individuals are standing up for the sanctity of human life and are taking action to defend the defenseless. Thank you for blogging for life.
Who's next when we've added everyone who is "terminal" to the list of those to be "terminated"? Pastors who speak morals? Petty criminals? or disobedient children?
If we give Michael the benefit of the doubt that Teri said she wouldn't want to live in this condition - which of course, I'm convinced she didn't - but hypothetically let's say she did. And we take "doctor" Cranford's word for it that her cortex is filled with spinal fluid, no brain functioning, flat EEG, no cognitive functioning whatsoever - then she doesn't KNOW what condition she's in, she has no idea that he isn't honoring her wishes if he lets her live, right? According to the liars, she has no idea what's going on around her, no awareness of self-so what is the harm in letting her live and letting the family who loves her care for her until God makes the ultimate decision, as is meant to be? Oh- but Michael is such a good, honest, moral person that whether she knows it or not, he's determined to honor a promise he made to her because he loves her so very much. He's going to stand by the wife he loves, no matter what. He loves her so much, he didn't want anything done medically or environmentally that would make her more comfortable for 15 years. He's made these last 15 years as uncomfortable for her as he can. One of the things that makes me so angry in all of this is that this "man" (I use the term loosely) continually insults our intelligence & laughs inwardly at the ones who are stupid enough to be snowballed by him. He has not done ONE thing for her, but ironically, this is the one thing he is willing to do in her best interests. He makes me physically ill.