Westminster mourns after Cameron's lossWhile my first instincts would be to smothered any such a child of mine at birth, I would also have realised that we live in the sort of Britain where it would profit me to look after it for the rest of its hopefully short life, in order to reap the "Man of the People, formerly a toff", "sleeping on hospital floors, reading nursery rhymes to other less privileged children at all hours of the day", "at ease with public services" kind of kudos he is now getting as a result of his 6 year "investment", at the expense of the NHS.
What the Financial Times describes as a "shocked Westminster" was
yesterday united in expressing its sympathy with David and Samantha Cameron following the sudden death of their son, Ivan.
The six-year-old, who suffered from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, died in hospital on Wednesday morning.
The normal exchanges of prime minister's questions were put on hold as Gordon Brown led the Commons in expressing sympathy."I know that in an all too brief young life he brought joy to all those around him," said Brown."I know also that for all the days of his life he was surrounded by his family's love."Ann Treneman in the Times says the prime minister "managed to find exactly the right words and tone for this most unusual and sudden of Commons occasions".
I would still have smothered it at birth, though. Sorry.
I am hoping you will congratulate me for my honesty, but I know you will rail at me for my callousness.
Instead of praising me for my forbearance from imposing the needs of my hopeless hypothetical child on the NHS and at taxpayers' expense for 6 whole years knowing it would die anyway without ever speaking or walking or in any way acknowledging my existence, you will condemn me for proposing infanticide.
This is the sort of Britain we live in.
20 comments:
"While my first instincts would be to smothered any such a child of mine at birth" Isn't that the sort of thing that the nazi regime did. so you'd murder your own child if it wasn't perfect, you vile bastard I only hope you don't have children. You other comment at this time were also the product of a sick mind
No, my child would not have to be perfect, only healthy and normal. I would even put up with a degree of physical disability, but not anything mental. I would certainly keep a healthy Siamese twin, without even trying to separate them.
The Nazis may have done it, but so would the Ancient Greeks and Romans.
I am sure many parents in poverty-stricken areas of the world - without an NHS - would have done exactly the same.
I wonder what YOU would really do, if you couldn't pass the cost of it on to the taxpayer and wallow in the sympathy you know you are going to get, as Cameron knew he would.
the sort of Britain we thankfully live in is one where you are allowed to say these things freely, even though most right minded people would consider you frankly sick as I do.
A mature and civilised society should be judged on how it treats those unfortunate enough to be unable to care for themselves. It does not weaken us to show compassion and empathy nor to help people when they are in need. It is that idea of personal responsibility and helping ones fellow man freely and without need for persuasion, incentive or force that you have consistently failed to understand.
It is what sets you apart from humanity. And most certainly not in a good way.
A free and civilised society is one that prizes free speech, so thank you for allowing me to say what I did.
As for being mature, I am frankly inclined to think we are more senile than mature, and in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's.
I am quite happy to show empathy to people in need, provided they are capable of shaking the dust off their wings and becoming nice and normal, eventually.
However, resources being limited and Britain now about to become a third world country, I would now do so quite selectively and withhold assistance from anyone who is obviously a hopeless case and will never move, speak or
acknowledge the existence of his parents, and who is regarded by his father as a means of winning the sympathy vote, in precisely the way I have outlined, AT OUR EXPENSE.
As I have already made clear, I would not wish to bring up such a child.
Call me callous if you wish, but I would regard my choice as rational and honest.
If I were to bring up such a child, I would not wish to impose the expense of such an undertaking upon anyone.
Still, Cameron has done so for 6 years and is now reaping the benefits of so doing. He is the embodiment of Compassionate Conservatism that has wasted the resources of the NHS for 6 years, beefing up his reputation as a caring father and leader, and the British people - even his critics and detractors! - duly abase themselves before him in the light of his "tragedy".
Now, is that rational, civilised, free or mature?
Well whilst I would not have spewed such bile [as White Riot has], I can totally agree with the sentiments behind it. We still are I hope a humane country, and if anyone would like that to happen in this country then I would suggest that they EMIGRATE to some African or Asian Country where they might allow it. BUT NOT STAY IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!
I hope you are not suggesting that humanity does not exist in countries that do not have a cradle to grave nanny state, because that would be frankly racist, in the worst possible way.
What I am suggesting, if you will calm down for long enough to absorb this, is that Britain is rapidly turning itself into a third world country, precisely because it likes wearing its heart on its sleeve to show compassion, especially by politicians who will keep promising ever more public services, bribing taxpayers with their own money, with ever bigger government, while taxing and ever-smaller workforce.
This is inconsistent with individual liberty, and liberty can only ever be obtained if people, especially those in government, leave you alone.
That is why - with people like you voting for people like Cameron - our taxes will not go down, and nothing will change, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by The Sentimentalists, who will accuse anyone saying what is honest but self-interested, of being inhumane and alien.
My mother came from a family of about 13 children, which was basically poor - although their fortunes gradually improved as a growing number of healthy young adults began to contribute their income to the family.
One or two children died early. In some photographs you can observe a baby boy who was ´always sickly´ apparently. No-one could afford the care necessary to keep this child alive. What happened to the child we do not know. No-one ever spoke of it. Perhaps he died of natural causes, perhaps he was assisted to the grave. The subject was never mentioned by anyone.
There was no welfare state in the 1930s. Whatever my grandmother did - if she did - was necessary and for the best.
We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it.
David Cameron made a good comment saying that to start with he thought raising Ivan would be a pain but he hoped Ivan would feel his love, but later on realised that Ivan had all the pain and he himself felt his son't love.
I can only assume you don't have children, or even come into close contact with them, to make this sort of remark.
Bucket of Tongues, you can assume anything you like, but may I point out to you that to imagine you would bring up any sort of a child, however mentally and physically disabled, suggests you have very little idea of the realities, cost and futility of bringing up a child that will never lead a normal independent life.
You must be very young or very rich.
Cameron did it for a reason, ie to mop up the sympathy he knew he would get when his son died. What he got must have exceeded his wildest expectations, now that we have turned into a nation of mawkish sentimentalists wearing our hearts on our sleeves that ooze with suicidal compassion ....
The way I see it, everyone has a disability, of some form or another.
Some people's disabilities leave very little in terms of dis-ability, allowing them (like Goebbels with his club foot) to do unto others as if they were perfect specimens. I would contend, though, that through our individual infirmities, we can find a special gift to give the world. There are a plethora of bipolar artistic geni - just think of Spike Milligan and Stephen Fry as examples. Those with autism oftentimes display mathematical abilities on a par with any supercomputer etc and so on. For myself, I have a disability too, but it's as nothing compared to my talents, my intellect, my wisdom - it has made me into a philosopher and much else besides. I wouldn't say I was a virtuoso - but I can find many who would disagree with me.
However, I do know there are those who may not know anything but pain. Were such to happen to a pet, the humane thing would be to put it to sleep: however, such is the world - not just the country - that we live in that such service cannot be given to the human counterpart. Obviously, society may be rich enough to afford to keep such people - who may never contribute to that society - even if it pleads poverty in all other cases. But the world - the world is a finite resource. We have barely enough to go 'round the already hugely obese human numbers - and with all the cash-hungry governments around the world screaming about the great Global Warming(tm) swindle, we can hardly expect the planet to carry more ravening passengers.
I have great sympathy with those faced with the dilemma of such children. I love and am as compassionate as any right-thinking person should be - but there are practical aspects to be considered too. It may jar with the moral majority who say bah and tish to such practical considerations - but without these, we should all perish.
My younger sister is Disabled. Nobody knows what is wrong with her so they just label it with Global Delay. She has no physical disabilities mind, except a shortening of the calf muscles which causes them to fatigue rapidly. She has epilepsy, she is still in nappies, she still has a baby's bottle. She learnt to walk at the age of 5, she cannot and will never be able to talk, and couldn't feed her self up until a year ago. She's 14 now.
What gives you the right to say that she is not entitled to the NHS, just as you are?
If the NHS was not there, my Mother would of still kept her and she would of made ends meet becuase that what parents do.
My sister has a happy life. Do you think that should be taken away from her?
May I thank Troubadorwitch for such a thoughtful comment. It is a great comfort to know there are inteligent people reading this, who are not bent on misunderstanding me, waiting to pounce and denounce me for being callous.
Unless I am mistaken, we still live in a free country and I have a right to express my view.
I am not easily intimidated by being accused of being uncompassionate either.
As far as the 14 year old sister of Anonymous is concerned, I would not like to be in her shoes of wearing nappies for the rest of my life and never being able to talk. I would sooner kill myself.
If I had a daughter in that condition, I would not be wasting my life looking after someone who would always be a burden to me and never be able to fulfil its human potential, and would take steps to see that I would not have to do so.
Are you saying I do not have a right to say this?
However you justify it, this reads like a spiteful and inappropriate attack on David Cameron.
As Labour goes into meltdown, there are many people re-examining the BNP as a party that has steadfastly stood against many things that have weakened the country - possibly beyond repair.
However humane and however much it may sound like "good economics", to promote any idea of euthenasia at the present time is to seriously damage the BNP in the eyes of the public/electorate.
It is well remembered that the Third Reich implemented such a policy... and it is no effort for those inclined to progress your thoughts and mingle them with the BNP's well-known position on immigration.
Never mind "euthenasia", you seem intent on suicide - even if it is merely political !
Twat
Ah yes, Simon's response is typically articulate and reasoned. People who support the censorship of opinion they are unable to argue against usually are.
In response to the Anonymous Comment of 05 May 2009 11:39:00 BST, it seems that he or she seems to mistake me for being somehow The Voice of the BNP.
Not so.
My views are my own representing only myself, as I had thought I had made quite clear. The fact that I like to comment on the BNP does not mean I represent their views.
I like to comment on the Muslims too.
My views are possibly too right-wing even for the BNP, being Darwinian and unself-consciously elitist, while the BNP favour the preservation of the distressed and marginalised white urban proletariat.
The British Tribe I had in mind would be those who wish to encourage the best of every British Citizen, irrespective of race, who identifies or wishes to identify themselves as British.
I do not agree with David Cameron's policies, nor would i vote for him in a general election. But i think that the reason he kept his son alive was not because of some sick desire for sympathy but because he loved him.
Andromeda, you might think this comment is 'sentimentalist', but you obviously have no concept of what it is like to love another human being, much less what it is like to love a child. I find your far right politics repulsive, but i at the same time i also feel sorry for you, because you were obviously raised in an environment which has somehow stunted your emotional growth.
As for the word 'normal', well...It seems to me that white, middle class people draw an imaginary circle around themselves. everyone inside the circle is 'normal', healthy, able bodied and thus acceptable. Everyone outside the 'circle' - i.e, poor people, disabled people, and those of ethnic origin, are to be considered abnormal and thus persecuted until they are fit to join the 'circle of normality'. If they cannot fit inside the circle, they are ostracised from society.
Is that really the kind of world that you would like to live in, and the kind of world that you would like to build for your descendants?
Given your previous comments, the answer to that question is probably yes. I can only hope that one day you might find the ability to feel compassion and acceptance for other human beings, regardless of how 'normal' you perceive them to be.
Why would you think I could never feel love for humanity simply because I expressed a dislike for a politician and suspicion of his motives?
Do you not think it could be a reaction against the sickly sentimentality that is now part of our culture?
Compassionate Conservatism is but Socialism being practised by someone who calls himself a Conservative simply because he is leader of party that calls itself the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party enjoins Conservative principles with as much fervour as the Communist Party of China now practises Communism.
Only the self-consciously compassionate cannot see the significance of this.
I will not demean myself by claiming to cry in movies, write poetry or claim a multitude of disabled friends to show my humanity. It would prove nothing anyway to people who have already made their minds up about me.
Child labor and meagreness are inevitably likely together and if you remain to exercise the labor of children as the treatment for the collective complaint of want, you purpose suffer with both penury and youth labor to the supersede of time.
Post a Comment