8mm
Posted on 11/04/2006 5:15:44 PM PST by Pokey78
"Killing someone is a management option."
It's a natural progression of Liberal philosophies and Socialized Medicine..
Why waste precious assets on those who will only be a burden on the system for thier entire lives?
Much better for all that they simply die now, so that the Party-Approved can live better...
How very Orwellian of them...
Right!
The incompetent doctor who blinded Fanny Crosby could have "corrected" his error
by just dismembering her as they do aborted babies.
In addition, of course, the good doctors always use extreme cases. Since a survey recently showed that a substantial number of women would abort a baby if it seemed that the baby had a genetic predisposition to be fat, I think we can see how broad the definition of "disability" becomes once the door is opened.
Even aside from that, however, medical science essentially owes all its advances to an attempt to cure and heal or at least palliate in the case of conditions that, once upon a time, all seemed hopeless. The unwillingness to let death and pain sneak by unopposed is based on our view of ourselves as having a certain human solidarity with even the most damaged among us. Not surprisingly, it has worked out that the attempts to heal the most wounded have brought advances for all of us and resulted in medical discoveries and cures and prevention that have benefitted us all. In other words, even leaving aside ethics and religion, trying to cure the very ill has been good for us all, from a purely utilitarian point of view.
If doctors and society are willing to just shrug and say "kill him," what's the point of scientific research and development? It's much cheaper and easier to just let somebody die or even actively kill him than to seek to heal.
No man is an island, and the good doctors and their credulous listeners do not realize that by designating a group of human beings as having a "life not worth living," they have just undermined the very basis of their profession and in fact the future of medicine for us all.
And just who is to determine what is painful to another? You? Do you know what is painful to me?
Actually, I think that is a VERY good point! When some take upon themselves the "authority" to terminate the lives of others, how will they react when others take on that same "authority" and target THEM? In the hands of one man, it's a societal imperative, in the hands of another, it's just plain old murder.
I am appalled! Perhaps they have not listened to the stories of the parents of children who are physically or mentally challenged! These children are HUGE blessings to their families and those around them. Often they have MORE love to share than those who are considered "normal"!
This is just another reason to STOP the abortions, to legislate them as illegal!
Dr Alveda King had some powerful presentations in South Dakota this past week!! I think we need to send her message over the waters to these people!
Make no mistake this is about the cost of taking care of one disabled child as opposed to that money being used elsewhere in the medical system. Also make no mistake that once this is allowed the killing will not be just the severely handicapped it will be those who are not perfect.
You are correct the "Final Solution " didn't start at SS headquarters it started with Doctors & Nurses at hospitals & asylums . web search "T 4 program" & see for yourself.
That is a great link. Bookmarked...
Yes but there are many here who want to emulate this insanity. Peter Singer at Princeton, for one, and Ted Turner, and that crazy reptile expert... there are hundreds, I'm sure.
I thought we won WWII but Satan never gives up.
Excellent post. I doubt there would be such a rush to identify those who should be denied medical care or arguments for euthanasia if society had not been so quick to hand our medical autonomy over to government and insurance bureaucrats.
Beneath all the so called concern for suffering, and desire to ease the burden of hurting families lies the true reason for this monstrous proposal. The reason is money. In socialism people are just another commodity whose labor belongs first to the State. The State may be willing to spend money on this commodity if they know their investment will return equal or greater value in the form of future taxes and other revenue from the person.
To spend money on health care for the severely disabled, elderly, and the very ill do not make good investment sense in such a system.
What better way to eliminate this than to kill populations that are judged to be a disproportionate financial burden on the State?
Moloch is very pleased.
Doctor Mengele to the abortuary, paging Doctor Mengele.
This poster is from the 1930's, and promotes the Nazi monthly Neues Volk (New People), the organ of the party's racial office. The text reads: "This genetically ill person will cost our people's community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP."
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.