She's a liberal progressive and really believes what she's saying to end suffering and prevent money from being wasted on handicapped kids.

Don't be an a$$ Shadow.  Obviously this women is voicing her opinion on eliminating extreme suffering of a child, and had no thoughts of the dollars involved.

I know people who will walk by an animal who is dying painfully on the side of the road and feel pity for it, but do nothing to alleviate it's suffering.  They refuse to get involved and feel they owe nothing to the suffering animal.
Similarly there are those who will keep a terminal loved one alive on life support, prolonging their suffering for years, even against the wishes of the patient.  They put their personal feelings above the terrible suffering of the suffering dying patient.
In life, there are things much worse than dying.  To refuse to eliminate or lessen suffering of a terminal patient is just plain selfish.

Shorter Virginia Ironside: Most Adopted Kids Would Rather Be Dead, Anyway
Posted by Lori Ziganto (Profile)
Monday, October 4th at 10:00PM EDT
58 Comments
According to author and columnist Virginia Ironside, most adopted kids would be better off dead. As would most children she considers “unfit”. In fact, she says, a “loving” mother would smother a sickly child with a pillow, because the “suffering” of being ill makes that life meaningless and not worth living. She made these vile assertions in defense of abortion while appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live during a discussion grossly entitled “Can abortion be a kindness?” First, her odious attempt to argue that abortion is a “loving choice” because some kids, in her mind, are unwanted. Her tunnel-visioned, sad excuse for a mind can’t seem to fathom the fact that the children are always wanted, by someone. You know, like people with hearts and compassion.


Not having an abortion can amount to selfishness…

Abortion can often be seen as something wicked or irresponsible but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act. If a baby is to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely abortion is the act of a loving mother.

I was rendered speechless when I first watched this. Killing a child for being inconvenient to someone is “loving, moral and unselfish”?  So, having a baby is, therefore, selfish? Besides her utter lack of a soul, she is completely morally bankrupt. And I think she has some explaining to do to very happy and loved children who have been adopted as well as to the mothers who, according to her, were so selfish as to give that child life.  My friend, Rick Sheridan, can teach her a thing or two about what an actual unselfish act is. His adopted baby girl can also teach her what a loving mother actually does. Her mama gave her life and gave her A life. She didn’t kill her. She unselfishly bore her and gifted Rick and his wife with a beautiful baby girl. I suggest Virginia look at a picture of Rick and his beautiful daughter and try to explain to her why she would have been better off dead.

Virginia Ironside then followed up her insane arguments for eugenics due to “unwantedness” (it’s so crazy, it needs its own word) by being a proponent of killing children, unborn or born, whose health isn’t up to snuff  for her standards.

It is a sad day in human society when we  equate animal suffering to human suffering. Attaching a criteria for what human life should act and look like in the case of disabilities is beyond words. Should all of the kids who were had debilitating polio have been killed by their mothers in the name of 'love and compassion'? Should all severely autistic children be smothered by their mothers in the name of 'love and compassion'? Should all Alzheimer's patients be smothered by their loving children in the name of 'love and compassion'?

It appears that the Nazi's were defeated in name only! They just don't wear swastikas anymore!   IMHO

There are many things in life worse than death.  When pain is unbearable and it's progress is unstoppable and beyond drugs to remedy... what is the alternative?
Continue to watch another human being forced to endure pain with no relief, until death... possibly months or years of unbearable pain, with no relief.  Compassion is often the harder choice... doing nothing is sometimes the selfish alternative.

Adults can chose to have advanced directives that will end their life and their suffering if there is no alternative.  Children are at the mercy of their parents to protect them and to make the right decisions for them in the event of the same condition.

There's a big difference between taking a person off life support when there is no hope of a fruitful life or giving a DNR order b4 someones heart stops but smothering an adult or a child which is what Ironside believes is called murder in most places. Stephan Hawking was 20 when he was diagnosed with ALS [Lou Gehrig's Disease] and against all odds has lived and contributed an awful lot to mankind in spite of it. Man should not try to play God for who are we to say whether or not a life is of value.

Stephan Hawking has had a productive life... although not what many would consider acceptable, he has hardly led a life of continuous and degenerating suffering and terrible pain.

Some people are trapped inside their own body of pain, with little or no relief until they die, and if they could, they'd elect to end their suffering.  Kids do not have that option, unless their parents are brave enough to make that decision for them.

Your example of Hawking does not apply.

ALS is a terrible disease and I know this first hand as my sister-in-law has the disease and if you don't think that choking to death on your food, drink, can't breath, can't walk, can't talk, and lose all mobility, and by Ms Ironsides standard people like that aren't up to her standards and are not worth saving. Smothering a living child or adult for any reason is murder. There are drugs to control pain which is the only argument that you give to justify your point of view.

These are the people supported by the American Catholic Church and most of the mainstream religions of the "interfaith" You sholdn't worry because there won't be any heaps of bodies being bulldozed by this group and the world socialists. Technology is so much better than the Germans had in the 1940s that it will hardly be noticed

GB--ws the interfaith crack aimed at me.  You know your comment is full of $hit.  Unfortunately I cannot play the tape above since I do not have speakers.  So I don't know what you're selling tonight.  But just for the record...I believe in Catholic social justice.  I believe in G-d's preferential option for the poor.  I believe that abortion is wrong as is the death penalty.  And I believe the Democrats are gonna surprise you dolts in November.

You know Boomer that organized religion is another branch of politcs and if the political intelligentsia is fine with abortion, then so are the churches. I saw some interesting pictures of Paul Tonko at Planned Parenthood doing something called "Stop Stupak Day" several months ago. I am sure the Bishop and all the mainstream faiths will be as silent about that as they are about the minister sitting next to him making calls. Lets face it-the churches are ALL for abortion because its a case of "show me the MONEY, HONEY!" Euthanizing the elderly is next. Give it time.

The majority of US Catholics are pro choice.

So the leaders don't want to hurt the money stream

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

So the leaders don't want to hurt the money stream

EXACTLY!!!