Agony aunt states she would suffocate a suffering child with a pillow on national TV.

[~N9NE~]

Television pundit Virginia Ironside prompted outrage yesterday after saying she would suffocate a child to end its suffering.

Shocked BBC viewers complained after the agony aunt said she would hold a pillow over the face of a child in pain.

Minutes earlier the controversial writer said 'a loving mother' would abort an unwanted or disabled baby, and praised abortion as 'a moral and unselfish act'.

Miss Ironside said: 'If a baby's going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.'

She added: 'If I were the mother of a suffering child - I mean a deeply suffering child - I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face... If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.'

Commentators accused the controversial writer of advocating eugenics, and disability rights campaigners branded her views 'despicable'.

...

Disability campaigner Clair Lewis accused Miss Ironside of using physical suffering as an excuse for advocating eugenics, through the abortion of disabled children.

She said: 'The problems that disabled people face will not be fixed by killing off unborn children.'

GP Peter Evans, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: 'For us to make judgments that people are not worth life, not worth the opportunity to live, is a very dangerous thing.'

Viewers left a series of complaints on the programme's website message board, although some praised the writer's outspoken comments.

One wrote: 'How on earth has this woman been able to put such views, care of the BBC, it is despicable? [sic] To put a view of murder on a TV program she should be arrested and charged with encouraging the act of murder on babies.'

Another branded her views 'disgusting', adding: 'How can she suggest that a child's quality of life can be so bad that they would be better off dead?'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...outrage-Id-suffocate-child-end-suffering.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RAAhTL4Arg

Article at length and the clip of her comments.

Absolutely unbelievable and indefensible. Sickening.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Some people like apples, some people like oranges.

 

[~N9NE~]

Some people like apples, some people like oranges.

And evidently some people like murder.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Apparently someone's never heard of pulling the plug.

 

[~N9NE~]

Apparently someone's never heard of pulling the plug.

Apparently I didn't realise we could trivialize the life of a child to the extent that we can just suffocate them with a pillow when we feel it is the 'right' thing to do.

Do you honestly consider her views acceptable? Do you honestly regard this as euthanasia and not murder? To suffocate your child with a pillow is to show love?

'If I were the mother of a suffering child - I mean a deeply suffering child - I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face... If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.'

Clearly my definition of a loving, good mother is fundamentally flawed.

I'm bewildered.

 

[UberMario]

To be honest, if I was a cripple, I'd still want to live, and it's not like you see people that are blind, had an amputation, confined to a wheelchair, or have arthritis commiting suicide, in fact it's usually the people that are physically "complete" that do that. A REAL loving mother would make their child's life the best it can be (whether that be assisting with a disability, or adopting away an unwanted baby), not finish them off . . . . . .

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Apparently I didn't realise we could trivialize the life of a child to the extent that we can just suffocate them with a pillow when we feel it is the 'right' thing to do.

Do you honestly consider her views acceptable? Do you honestly regard this as euthanasia and not murder? To suffocate your child with a pillow is to show love?



Clearly my definition of a loving, good mother is fundamentally flawed.

I'm bewildered.

Nice job making assumptions there, douchebag. Of course its wrong.

Apperently there are people still decades behind on how to humanely treat a dying person.

Or animals, for that matter.

 

[~N9NE~]

Nice job making assumptions there, douchebag. Of course its wrong.

Apperently there are people still decades behind on how to humanely treat a dying person.

Or animals, for that matter.

Congrats on replying to an assumption with an insult.

I thought your earlier post was addressing me and supporting Ironside's perspective and I think that was a rational assumption to make from what you posted.

 

[StinkomanFan]

Why am I remind of James Sunderland with all this talk of killing sick people?

 

[Mota]

I suppose I can see where she's coming from, but a pillow smother isn't the way to do it,

That's just me though

 

[El Nino]

That's interesting. I can only say that I support a patient's right to decide whether they want their life prolonged or not. Often times, terminally ill patients will sign "do not resuscitate" forms, and I would respect their wishes in the treatment of their own bodies. If they feel it's their time to go, I would let them go.

The treatment of children poses a greater issue though.

I can only think of a few instances when smothering would be considered humane, and that would be in situations where modern medical care is unavailable and a person in severe pain is clearly beyond recovery. Legally, I think euthanasia is not permitted in the U.S. However the U.S. has access to modern medicine, and a person can be made comfortable even if their condition is terminal.

With adequate medical care and government welfare programs, disabled persons have more options available to them than they would have had in the past. And even in places without the most advanced medical care, I doubt very many people would be willing to purposely kill their own offspring. I think most of them would take care of their disabled children for as long as possible, even if those children only live short lives.

I don't think Ironside is evil or anything. But I think her ideas are too simplistic and extreme. I'm not surprised people didn't want to hear it.

 

[Namaste]

I don't get the suffering part. They're already suffering, it seems like it'd be more moral to just suffocate happy healthy children

 

[M.K]

The main issue I have with this is the suffocation part. Honestly, if the child was in that much pain, and if the child wished to be put out of their misery, than there is euthanasia. It's not legal here, but I'm pretty sure assisted suicide is legal somewhere else (correct?).

Of course, then it boils down to "are children responsible or are their parents responsible for their lives" and so on and so forth.

There is no true answer to all cases.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, that's pretty sick (I'd use an injection or gas or something; suffocation is supposedly very painful).

Really though, in general, we should overthink our concept of "human rights"... Why is the life of a person with down's syndrome, or an even worse genetic defect equal as much as the life of a perfectly normal person?

 

[Namaste]

Who is to say we're the ones whose normal and not them?

 

[Jim Morrison]

Because they don't function effectively.

 

[Jonas]

Who is to say we're the ones whose normal and not them?

Deep, man.

Spoiler

or should I say "derp"?

 

[Namaste]

Because they don't function effectively.

In effect to what? If you're going to classify someone as being less of a human life then you then it has to be something pretty heavy

 

[Pikaville]

Why am I remind of James Sunderland with all this talk of killing sick people?

You'd kill them too if they looked like this and launched insects at you.

But honestly I don't think anyone has the right to take a life into their own hands....unless it's their own.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Yeah, that's pretty sick (I'd use an injection or gas or something; suffocation is supposedly very painful).

Really though, in general, we should overthink our concept of "human rights"... Why is the life of a person with down's syndrome, or an even worse genetic defect equal as much as the life of a perfectly normal person?

There's no such thing as a "perfect" normal person. We've all got our physical and mental flaws, some that are more obvious and/or worse than others.

I don't see how it would really matter either about a mentally handicapped person having the same human rights as a normal person, considering we're not in a situation where we would have to cut our losses and get rid of them for survival.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Who is to say we're the ones whose normal and not them?

Dunno. Maybe the fact that we control society? It doesn't matter it they're normal or not, we are in control. We are able to label them as genetically defect.

Deep, man.

Spoiler

or should I say "derp"?

I'm going to hell for laughing at this. Thanks a lot, you jerk.

There's no such thing as a "perfect" normal person. We've all got our physical and mental flaws, some that are more obvious and/or worse than others.

I don't see how it would really matter either about a mentally handicapped person having the same human rights as a normal person, considering we're not in a situation where we would have to cut our losses and get rid of them for survival.

Cut our losses? Nah, this is about maximizing profits. They has nothing to offer society, so we cut them loose from society.

 

[Namaste]

You are a disturbed individual if you believe mentally handicapped give no benefit to society or that those who don't give benefits deserve to die.

 

[Jim Morrison]

In effect to what? If you're going to classify someone as being less of a human life then you then it has to be something pretty heavy

Just because they're normal doesn't mean they're less of a human life. I just answered your question why they wouldn't be normal and we would be.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Dunno. Maybe the fact that we control society? It doesn't matter it they're normal or not, we are in control. We are able to label them as genetically defect.


Cut our losses? Nah, this is about maximizing profits. They has nothing to offer society, so we cut them loose from society.

Wow man.

I'd like to see your reaction if you're kids are born mentally handi-capped.

And you're more or less saying what I was saying: cut our losses, cut them loose, send them to death camps and have them gassed with poison, put them in furnaces and watch em' burn, whatever tickles your fancy BPC.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Wow man.

I'd like to see your reaction if you're kids are born mentally handi-capped..

WINDOWS ALERT
You baby has downs. Abort and restart?
Yes/No

Born my ***.

(or on the slightly more realistic level, "you must expect anti-abortion laws to start covering accidents in public pools as well if you think I'm going to end up ever getting a girl pregnant")

Also, see my CT. I have this vision of society I'm working on. It may seem brutal to you, but it will be streamlined, luxurious, and functional. I am also for the euthanization of the very old.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

So you're for putting them in death-camps, right?

 

[UberMario]

I am also for the euthanization of the very old.

Please tell me that you are trolling. >_>

 

[Luigitoilet]

lol, you people.

but on that note, can you actually even tell if a baby will have Down's from an ultrasound or something?

 

[Mic_128]

I think there are tests for it (DNA?) but I think the baby has to be fairly developed before being able to tell.

 

[Black Waltz]

lol, you people.

but on that note, can you actually even tell if a baby will have Down's from an ultrasound or something?

Using an ultrasound (along with a plethora of other testing methods) will only give you a slight prediction.

You'll have to do a chromosomal examination of the fetus for an accurate result.

 

[Rychu]

Im not for this at ALL...but I could see her point.
If you had a child who was deaf, blind, dumb, and completely crippled with no chance of a cure...I could see this under EXTREMELY EXTREMELY dire circumstances. Anything else would only be acceptable if the child asked for it.

 

[RATED]

Im not for this at ALL...but I could see her point.
If you had a child who was deaf, blind, dumb, and completely crippled with no chance of a cure...I could see this under EXTREMELY EXTREMELY dire circumstances. Anything else would only be acceptable if the child asked for it.

kinda agrees with the one in bold.

but with what's not in bold I don't think so. I explain myself: is a CHILD so he probably won't be mature enough to know what would be better for him at the moment.

 

[Jim Morrison]

So you're for putting them in death-camps, right?

Wow, you're horrible at arguing. Death camps are not the same as abortion and euthanization.

 

[UberMario]

Wow, you're horrible at arguing. Death camps are not the same as abortion and euthanization.

Well, that may be true about the latter, but the former is usually quite violent.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Wow, you're horrible at arguing. Death camps are not the same as abortion and euthanization.

I wasn't really serious.

 

[Ballistics]

There are worse things than death

 

[~N9NE~]

I don't know who to take serious.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

Man, I WAS KIDDING. I only said that to screw with BPC. I don't care if he wants to start a Final Solution campaign to get rid of mental handicaps, I'll probably be dead if it finally happens.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm serious.

 

[JOE!]

The issue here is:

would you honestly **** over your family's life caring for some tard who'll never amount to anything but a giggling mess who never leads a "good" life, if they can even comprehend whats beyond lunch-time that day?

If one knows their (baby) will be born with like, 0 chance of being normal, and just be a total burden on everyone who's around you...why go through with it? Sure you can argue the baby deserves life, but what kind of life is it gonna have?