This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Attempted rescue of pro-life poster child is deeply misguided

Attempted rescue of pro-life poster child is deeply misguided - Comments

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 1 by Richard Dawkins

Roman Catholicism gives vibrant new meaning to the word 'evil'.

Richard

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:29:08 UTC | #605374

Pilotkono's Avatar Comment 2 by Pilotkono

This is almost Frankinsteinian.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:38:28 UTC | #605379

pipsy's Avatar Comment 3 by pipsy

Suffer little children.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:42:03 UTC | #605381

TheRationalizer's Avatar Comment 4 by TheRationalizer

It seems that religious people are keen to point out how it is god's will that life came into the universe, but when it comes to the apparent fact that god has chosen a person to die they seem to think NOW it is the time to exploit every scientific advancement possible to pervert this will.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:42:34 UTC | #605382

AlexP's Avatar Comment 5 by AlexP

A perfect example of the absurd hypocrisy of unconditionally declaring life sacred.

It leads to loud, extensive and public fights to keep humans from making the decision when life is worth living or worth saving, no matter the costs - while at the same time being considerably less publicly involved when it is about actually improving people's lifes.

As long as our resources are limited, questioning which lifes are worth fighting for - and which aren't - is not cynical, cold-hearted profiteering but a result of the necessity to do the best we can with what is available.

But that's the point, the Catholic Church is not interested in humans, let alone in improving their lifes. What matters is their interpretation of a supposedly holy scripture.

It's about dogma, not about people.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:42:47 UTC | #605384

LaurieB's Avatar Comment 6 by LaurieB

It strikes me as so very strange that these right to lifers have the audacity to crow about their own virtue in prolonging the child's life at any cost. When I think about the traumatic effects of useless surgery and complicated transport to a far away hospital I really feel such pity for the child. This is a story about selfishness and cruelty.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:45:27 UTC | #605385

schalkerforever's Avatar Comment 7 by schalkerforever

folks, did you read the comments bellow the original article ? unfuckingbelievable....

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:45:45 UTC | #605386

schalkerforever's Avatar Comment 8 by schalkerforever

how did G.Carlin put it ? "...They're concerned with unborn babies so they can become dead soldiers..."

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:47:48 UTC | #605387

Aztek's Avatar Comment 9 by Aztek

I've never understood why some can be so blind to suffering. They have two choices: Either they prolong the suffering of the baby, or they don't. Personally, I think the first option is morally worse than the second one. So why would a person knowingly choose the option which is worse, when one can choose an option which is better?

Oh yeah, the Bible tells them to. Stupid, ignorant me.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:51:41 UTC | #605389

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 10 by Steve Zara

There can be no clearer indication of immorality of theism. It's a belief that we are owned. Our bodies are not our own, our lives are not ours to do with as we want, even poor suffering scraps of flesh, barely alive, are the possessions of the creator.

This is not an existence with meaning: it's slavery.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:54:43 UTC | #605390

Borden.M's Avatar Comment 11 by Borden.M

I find it bizarre that they believe they rescued him. All they have done is caused increased suffering. This is awful.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:55:50 UTC | #605391

Matt B's Avatar Comment 12 by Matt B

Forgive me for generalizing, but the "pro-life" faction and the anti-science faction tend to overlap greatly. That's why it's [actually not really very] surprising to see them endorsing this kind of horrible decision. If this is another example of faith-based morality, then I'm glad to not be on their team.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:01:05 UTC | #605393

Maximus222's Avatar Comment 13 by Maximus222

It seems to me that the RCC has plenty of money and really ought to foot the bill to extend this tragedy themselves and ought not bother everyone else. They inserted themselves into this issue apparently without thought to cost, let them reflect on that while they prolong misery. The latter they clearly will not bother reflecting on.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:05:56 UTC | #605396

sdando2000's Avatar Comment 14 by sdando2000

As a former pediatrician I saw this type of thing way too much. Because of where I was located it was just as often with fundamentalist Jews as with any other religion.

Explain to me how torturing a child with futile medical interventions not even available when the Bible was written can possibly be the will of a compassionate sky daddy?

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:10:28 UTC | #605399

Rodger T's Avatar Comment 15 by Rodger T

Lets hope that none of those"compassionate" priests are left alone with the unfortunate child.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:47:33 UTC | #605418

ridelo's Avatar Comment 16 by ridelo

Sick.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:48:58 UTC | #605421

CarlaTrumper's Avatar Comment 17 by CarlaTrumper

Comment 7 by schalkerforever :

folks, did you read the comments bellow the original article ? unfuckingbelievable....

Did & only saw 1 pointing to reason and reality.

Disgusting bastards.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:49:46 UTC | #605422

Daisy Skipper's Avatar Comment 18 by Daisy Skipper

This has been talk show fodder for a couple of weeks in Canada. I've heard the father interviewed on am640. He said he only wanted his son to have the tracheotomy so he would live long enough for them to bring him home. This was so the child could die there surrounded by family.

He said that his son was going to die no matter what... he just wanted to chose where his son died. It didn't seem like that unreasonable of a request. It certainly didn't strike me as a 'pro-life' issue.

I had no idea that the catholics got involved. They taint everything they can get their grubby hands on.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:52:44 UTC | #605423

Logicel's Avatar Comment 19 by Logicel

Catholics' emphasis on the sacredness of life allows mere humans to control other humans. Life is touted as sacred because it is eternal as long as you grovel to the human reps of this so-called divinity. If you jump through the hoops dictated by the vicious circle of Catholicism, you will do terrible, inhumane actions like 'rescuing' this terminally ill baby so you can live forever. Catholicism is all about the individual Catholic and their inability to accept their mortality and their mind boggling selfishness and lack of empathy for anybody except themselves (well, they don't have a self, they gave it to their dogma).

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:09:07 UTC | #605428

Logicel's Avatar Comment 20 by Logicel

The depth of Catholic faith corresponds to the depth of fear of death and the profound lack of courage to face one's mortality.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:09:51 UTC | #605430

Linda Ward's Avatar Comment 21 by Linda Ward

This story has been given way too much air time. Obviously the parents are emotionally incapable of doing what is right for their basically dead child. They also seemed to have missed their own genetic problems being the root cause of having two offspring with the same disorders.

Priests oh yes are cruel to children. They are licensed to do engage in emotional terrorism.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:10:11 UTC | #605431

                                          rui's Avatar Comment 22 by rui

Then Priests for Life

The devil is smiling

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:41:26 UTC | #605446

sara g's Avatar Comment 23 by sara g

I understand how the parents grief could affect their judgement. I am sickened by the Catholic church exploiting their pain to prolong this tragedy. I doubt that the baby is really suffering, but it infuriates me that they don't care.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:50:29 UTC | #605452

valla's Avatar Comment 24 by valla

Those cruel priests shouldn't have been allowed to gain access to this poor child.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:53:15 UTC | #605453

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 25 by SomersetJohn

Another nasty idea.

Whenever these sick kiddie-fiddlers get themselves involved in cases like this the courts should make them responsible for all the costs of keeping their victims alive as long as possible.

It will not be pleasant for their human sacrifices but it might bankrupt the bastards eventually, saving thousands of innocents in the future.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:50 UTC | #605460

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 26 by Neodarwinian

Truly disgusting!! To use this child to make an ideological point should be illegal and the parents wishes be damned.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:35:33 UTC | #605482

Jeremy Nel's Avatar Comment 27 by Jeremy Nel

What a brilliant outstanding article by the outstanding Peter Singer.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:37:04 UTC | #605483

liberalartist's Avatar Comment 28 by liberalartist

Total exploitation, prolong a painful existance of an infant, not because they care, but because it raises a lot of money from idiots who don't understand the first thing about morality.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:41:47 UTC | #605488

SoManyStars's Avatar Comment 29 by SoManyStars

Religion. Nothing is better.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:47:34 UTC | #605490

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 30 by Alan4discussion

We can obsess over Joseph and Terri - or we can make an honest effort to save the lives of countless children whose names we may never know. It is our choice.

"Pro-life" as seen through Catholic blinkers!

Perhaps a biblical expression concerning getting the brick out of their own eyes to see the speck of grit in the eyes of others would be appropriate. They can't see the wood for the trees. Just too small minded!

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:23:44 UTC | #605507