Baby killings. 'Victim' muslims. Tit-for-tat?

Read from The Straits Times a few days ago on the article about "active euthanasia" of newborns. As usual, I can't find the article online in the if-you can't-afford-to-pay-then-don't-read Straits-Times. So I've linked reports from other sources instead:

• (Times Online) Doctors: let us kill disabled babies by Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Correspondent
• (Mirror.co.uk) Doctors: let us kill disabled babies by Jon Clements

I can't imagine killing those babies. I mean do they have a voice or choice? Can someone speak for them? The parents? Who gave them the right? The law? The country? I can understand when an adult, who has had lived his/her life, feels it is necessary to end the pain and/or spare the guardians and loved ones from carrying the 'burden'.

But a vulnerable baby who cannot utter even a protest when its life get "snuffed out"?

Yet there is also another part in one of the reports:

"The college is arguing that "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," it says. "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

It can be very trying on the family - both in terms of emotional and financial burden. Which parents do not want a healthy child? Whose fault is it?

Side note: It's definitely not God's fault as some fault Him for the tsunami disasters and many other natural causes, sicknesses and deaths. Neither is it God's will or is He glorified.

Coz' if it's really God's will or for His glory, then they should gladly accept it. They shouldn't even be seeing specialists and surgeons to 'fix' those 'glorified' problems. Unless I'm wrong, in many cases, they still visit doctors and take medications. I feel it is just man's religion/self-righteousness/pride or blaming God for questions they cannot answer.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son... If He didn't love, why bother even to give? Why would a loving Father bring sicknesses or disasters to His children, only to heal them later? To teach them?

Do one as an earthly parent even do such an evil thing, less so God? To burn one's child only to apply medicine later and then tell the child, "Papa (or Mama) did it because I love you. I want to teach you about my love."

Goodness, the theories people come up with. As Singlish puts it - What talk you? (translation: You are not making any sense)

But I disgress.

Does having a blind eye label one as disabled? What about a hole in the heart? What about a deformed arm? Where do we draw a line?

Many questions, few answers. That happens when we play God, or try to fill His shoes.

---
Another interesting article:

• Bishop attacks 'victim' Muslims by Christopher Morgan (Times Online)

Just the other day, I was talking with my Aussie friend. He was telling me about the new policies in Australia to tighten the controls of Muslim immigrants, especially the radical ones. The claim is that most of them don't assimilate well into the country's culture and society.

I don't blame the lawmakers. Wearing a veil is one thing. Having to talk to someone behind a veil is another. Imagine teachers behind veils, or insurance agents or even cashiers. Or even in a face-to-face-veil boardroom meeting.

A picture can paint a thousand words, a face can launch a thousand ships. Wearing a veil is not even required for a Muslim (as confirmed by my Muslim friend and also written in the article). How do you expect me to sign a deal with you if I cannot even see your face?

I mean wouldn't it be downright rude if Christianity (hypothetically) requires all believers to turn-around, wiggle their bottoms at you as a form of greeting? Who cares if it's your religious greeting? Who cares if it's your religion even?

You are bloody insulting me, that's what only matters. So if the world ostracize you because you need to shake your butt at me, then don't blame me for doing likewise.

On the same train of thoughts, we as Singaporeans when we travel to other countries should not believe ours is a superior system. Yes we may be efficient, yes we may be meticulous and well-planned, yes we may expect a certain kind of customer service from our service providers, retailers to respond within the next hour (eg. signing up for a broadband internet).

People don't always work like you think they do. People don't suit you. A shopkeeper in Europe may take time to chat with you as a form of friendly greeting. It is not slow service, mind you.

Just ask Wes&Jo - a Singaporean couple living in Paris. It's a whole new experience. And I'm sure, they have a whole lot to tell... and share.

My point is:
Most people in general can tolerate other views. But when it gets inconvenient and pointless for them in daily affairs, there is usually an attitude of ostracism.

Including a backlash of criticisms.

---
Another article in the elite Straits Times (hardcopy) mentioned that an Indonesian radio station has held a drawing and coloring contest to portray Denmark's royalty as pigs - in retaliation against the publication of cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed in a Danish newspaper.

The prize? 5 million rupiah (S$860).

I don't see the Danes running out the streets burning flags, chanting anti-Muslim slogans, boycotting of Indonesian products, vowing to kill those radio presenters, etc.

So where does it end? What are you trying to prove? Do you have to stoop so low?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Duh.