Glenn Beck

Post Reply New Topic

On his show today, Glenn Beck was discussing how the England Church had decided that severely ill newborns, should be terminated. Among the reasons, one being if the care for them would be expensive:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6141486.stm

Glenn started talking about his daughter, who has Cerebral Palsy, and how she is an inspiration to him every day. How the doctors said she might never be able to walk, talk, or eat by herself, and now she's going to collage.

I'm thinking perhaps Glenn might be a good allie in the fight against anti-neurodiversity/disability. If someone who's a representative of this site wants to e-mail him, or anyone else about the curbie agenda..might be a good idea. Here's his e-mail:

[email protected]

The Christian Medical Fellowship were contributing to a debate on the treatment of premature births. The full report is due out tomorrow.

"the Church of England believed withholding treatment from some seriously disabled newborns may be right "in some circumstances". "

Does have a slightly different tone to:

"the England Church had decided that severely ill newborns, should be terminated."

Today's article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6149464.stm

The big divide does appear to be on age, with babies under 23 weeks gestation THAT NEED MAJOR INTERVENTION only having something like a 1% chance of surviving to leave hospital.
That leaves a real possibility that intervention is far more often increasing suffering than increasing life.

Last edited by Emettman on 15 Nov 2006, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

(duplicated post)

Last edited by Emettman on 15 Nov 2006, 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Unclear on the concept"

I've seen, both in real life and in fiction, parents spending a lot of effort maintaining the lives of children who will never have lives, who have less than animal level brain functioning. At the same time they emotionally and physically neglect and abuse the children that they have who have normal to better than normal potential.

Anyone who can walk, talk, feed and clothe and bathe themselves has the potential to at least hold a job and support themselves. Why maintain the barely living at their expense?

Gee I wasn't expecting this from a Autism/Asperger's support forum. So would your theory on children who live below an animal level brain functioning apply to low-functioning Auties too?

What is the theory when a parent sees flaws in someone who actually has a normal to high intellectual capacity, and arranges for him or her a life that is a living death?

In the Christian religion, pain and trials that one may experience can be viewed from the standpoint that they are tests of one's faith in God to help them overcome them. Unfortunately, I think some individuals view their severely disabled children through this light, that they are tests of their faith, as opposed to viewing their severely disabled children as individuals with pain and trials of their own--while forgetting about Christian compassion. Is it truly compassionate to keep a seriously ill child alive, when by doing so that person will experience physical pain and suffering for the rest of their life? This question obviously did not come up in this context during the years when the New Testament was written (around 2000 years ago) because technology did not then exist that could prolong the lives of these seriously ill children.

Could it be possible that some individuals sadistically though perhaps unconsciously enjoy their child's severe disabilities because they provide a trial to overcome and therefore a way for the parents to prove that they are "good Christians"?

I also found the reaction very surprising when there was an article about parents subjecting a girl to a hysterectomy and extensive hormone treatments to keep her the size of a child so she would be easier to care for. Except for about 4 of us on a parent forum - most people just thought it was ok to add to the list of options. If it is OK to do that then active euthenasia - which is what is really being promoted here - will not be far behind. People need to keep in mind that there has always been a certain attitude among those in the medical profession positively towards eugenics. So some of their medical opinion is biased in that regard but since they are reluctant to outright come and say they support this it gets clouded behind supposedly clinical discussions.

Society in general has become more and more conditioned to look at such parents of severely disabled children and think the worse of them. And another focus in these discussion is the same kind of garbage that is promoted by the curebies - that a disabled child causes a disabled family (actually in one of the articles). This is really all about money (insurance companies and hospitals) and the master race(s). And if this stuff is allowed then parents who WANT to keep their children will be pressured to bow down to increasing public opinion against this just like parents of children of Down Syndrome babies who find out during prenatal testing and choose to have the babies.

I thought I knew who he was, but it turns out not.

It's interesting to know that his daughter has cerebral palsy!

I'll tell you something. I have CP as well as AS and I persevere, just like Glenn Beck's daughter did.

I don't actually mind if active euthanasia is added to the list of options.

What's the difference? A living death or a dead death.