Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ande

Euthanasia

Recommended Posts

In a diffrent thread Damon made this ("bold" ?) statement

Quote:

you see... life isnt a right granted just because you're breathing... that kind of thinking has gotten the states into one of it's biggest problems... the welfare system... Quote end

Yet Euthanasia (and abortion) is eiter ilegal and/or strictly regulated creating a big controversy in most all nations

Even suicide is a criminal act most places.

Rather odd ain't it ? It's not a right to live, nor a right to die

Wich is right ?

This sparked the debate again around her. Identical twins allowed to die together < Belgian news | Expatica Belgium

cut/paste:

[h=1]Identical twins allowed to die together[/h] [h=2]Saturday’s edition of the daily ‘Het Laatste Nieuws’ reports that for the first time anywhere in the world a pair of identical twins has been allowed to be euthanised together.[/h] The two 45-year-olds from Antwerp province were both born deaf and were afraid that they would also soon go blind. They were unable to bear the thought of not being able to see each other again.

The twin brothers have spent their entire lives together. They shared a room at their family home and both qualified as cobblers. When they left home they moved into to a flat together.

The fact that they were born deaf never formed an obstacle to them enjoying a fulfilling life. However, when a few years ago their sight also started to deteriorate they faced losing any way of communicating with each other. The idea that they wouldn’t be able to see each other was unbearable for the two brothers.

Under Belgian law euthanasia is allowed if the person wishing to end his/her life has made their wishes clear and a doctor has ruled that his/her patient is suffering unbearable pain.

However, in the case of the two brothers neither was terminally ill, nor suffering any physical pain. Despite this, doctors at Brussels University Hospital in Jette (photo) agreed to their request to be euthanised.

The double euthanasia on the two brothers was carried out almost a month ago on 14 December.

[Flandersnews.be / Expatica]

Any thaughts on the matter

And for the record I'm not after you Damon I might dissagree with you on a number of subjects, but respect your opinions.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought for quite some time the 'not allowed to die' laws are strange. I don't recall anyone ever stating they want the Govt to make it illegal to die by choice, yet it is across the world.

There is one way it makes sense - we are Owned and our masters don't want their assets taking the easy way out. The US sold its citizens to The Fed to get out of the Great Depression (started by the Fed in the first place) and one can only wonder what the price was for the recent 'Bailout' so I guess we have a direction to look for the Owners.

Other countries have similar laws - look up 'Legal Fiction' or see if you can find why your name always appears in capital letters on financial or legal documents. There are even ways to avoid having the Courts sit in judgement if you know your law and refuse to simply respond to their questions - even answering 'What is your name?' is seen as agreeing to be bound by the court as a legal entity rather than a natural person.

Allowing the slaves to choose to die takes away an Owner's right of life and death over his/her property and we KNOW how harshly crimes against property are viewed in our society. Even graffiti artists get lengthy jail terms and fines and they didn't even destroy anything.

Mind you, effectively it is only trying AND FAILING to kill yourself that is against the law, but woe betide you if you help someone do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

euthanasia isnt exactly where i was going with that... more along the lines of eugenics... but im glad to see that it at least went somewhere... even though it went like an unguided missile...

all i was simply stating was that just because you were brought into this world without your consent, that doesnt mean you get a free ride just because you're alive. if you're not helping society, than you're hurting it. that's a bit closer to where i was going...

do i think everyone should be allowed to have a kid? absolutely not... if someone is already living on government assistance, thus not able to take care of themselves, why should it be the communities burden to not only take care of that person, but also their spawn? i worked with a woman a few years back that had 5 kids. yes, i stated that correctly, 5 kids. she was trying to justify having 5 children on a bartenders salary and trying to convince me that i was wrong for calling her fiscally irresponsible. this is where the line should be drawn... the ability of having kids should be limited to the persons ability to provide for them... it's well known that people learn from their environment, and just as it's been said that children raised in an abusive household are more likely to grow up to also be abusive, the same mentality goes for growing up on government assistance. i look at my local community and see 2nd and 3rd generation welfare families... people defying darwin's law where they make little to no effort to earn their own survival... i work hard to make my salary, and by the time the government is done with me, my take home is less than what these people make on benefits... i have a job, and i make less than my neighbor that plays computer games all day because we as a society we have allowed obesity to become a handicap... this is more of where i was going with my initial statement that life isn't a right granted just because you're breathing...

i've often joked about there needing to be a minimum IQ score in order to have children... but the more i think about a George Carlin joke, the more i take that joke seriously... it goes something like "take a look and think about how dumb the average American citizen is, and now realize that half of the population is dumber than that guy."

really... the spartans did it and thrived as a society for centuries before they were decimated by another waring nation... so it's been proven, sort of, that special perpetuation based on strict selection does work, even though it's morally questionable. but it was natural selection at it's finest, and they were made legendary for it. we do it to other animals to gain the best results... except we call it selective breeding... so what's the difference between doing it to dogs, horses, and other animals for show and doing it to the human population? inhumane you say? what i think is inhumane is allowing people with genetically predisposed illnesses to have children... people born with debilitating defects that are raised a vegetable, trapped in their own bodies, and i pray that their mind doesnt work, because if it did, it's a life long prison with no way to communicate with the outside world... it's sad... heart breaking... we've been so focused on the quantity of life and it being a right for everyone that we've let life's quality wither away...

and when it comes to people wanting to die... if it's their wish, why not let them have it? i've never understood why they jailed people for attempted suicide... if they want to make space for those of use that contribute, then by all means let them go... i know it sounds cruel and heartless... but sometimes in order to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs...

i know it's talks like these that bring up some pretty harsh emotions... so im trying to tread the waters lightly... but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in academia that will say that population control isn't the inevitable ugly elephant in the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often felt there should be a death with dignity type law. Someone that is terminally ill or in chronic pain that there is nothing left, but pallative care should be able to end there suffering particularly if they were advanced in age. While I'm against society choosing to end there life, I feel that person should be able to have that decision available to them.

I'm also against society deciding to euthanize non conformers as a way of population control. Imagine if it were legal and agreed upon how many people would disappear. I would have to object if some decided to euthanize Damon for instance :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is why are they leechs. An old experiment with a dog was to put in a cage and shock one half of the cage and the dog would move to the other side. Then they shocked that side and the dog would go to the other side. Then the got the bright idea to shock both sides, and the dog just laid down, resigned to its fate and would not move if they went back to shocking only one side of the cage. They could not unbreak the broken spirit. So I ask, since I really don't know, but is it possible that these "leeches" are people who have simply had their spirits crushed for so long that they are afraid to try and risk being shocked again?

For a so called "Christian Nation", we seem to have a lot of trouble following the compassion and charity that was preached. This is especially so , for the so called "religious right", so much so, I have to ask, should they be renamed the "religious wrong"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it's more than a right and wrong... it's a whole system of gray zones that gets deeper and deeper the further we stray from Darwinism... the big debate, before it's inception, was that people on welfare would lose the drive to fend for themselves... but the compassionate majority won the vote... and now, decades later... we're slowly trending towards proving those with the Darwinistic views correct...

i saw an unsettling graphic a few days ago that had shown the states that have passed the tipping point of having more citizens on some sort of government assistance than the citizens without... now, i do realize that not all of those people are living only on government aid... but at what point will there be a wake up call? does the government plan on assisting all of us at some point? is there a contingency plan for when the number of people actually working and paying taxes can no longer support those that dont?

it really is a sickening thought... for humans to go back to their roots and readopt darwinism... but sometimes the answers to life aren't always pretty...

we find ourselves at this weird stage in economics where with each passing year the number of people paying taxes gets smaller and smaller and the number of people receiving benefits gets larger and larger... can we even really call it a capitalist system anymore when a large portion of our taxes go towards paying for things that we as tax payers don't benefit from? i have my own personal insurance, and yet i have to pay taxes so people without jobs can have medicade? i have a job that pays my bills, but i have to pay taxes for those that don't work and need food stamps because they chose to have 5 kids on a $20k / year wage? i mean, i could understand if we could option into those taxes... you know, donating a portion of my wages to help, but being forced to help those that wont help themselves? i had mixed emotions about voting down a local school levy... and now im glad i did... this new fiscal cliff poop took another percentage away from my earnings... the same amount that could have gone to the schools now goes towards my governments awesome spending record...

it's nice to sit here and talk about our belief's and how we feel about something... but when your back is against the wall and you have to make the choice between supporting another family at the cost of your own or cutting that other family loose to fend for themselves... what do you really think you'd choose to do? we can all fool ourselves into thinking we are humanitarians and would help our fellow man... but those ideas were born in a world where we all have enough to share... what's going to happen when there isn't enough to go around? do you think the willingness to share will be the same? forget ideologies and religious dogma... forget the fact that for now we all have a net to fall back on when times get hard, and forget that for now there's food on the shelves... when it comes down to the last pig in the village and there's 10 families to feed, would you give up your families share, mind you there is no more food, so someone else's family could eat...? and yes, we can play the "what if" game or "if we prepare." but pretend for a second there are no more "if's" to explore... now after thinking about how hard of a decision that would be, ask yourself, why let it get that far? why not make people responsible for their own survival instead of burdening the rest of society that is earning their keep? why not pull back the reigns on the influx of new mouths to feed, im not saying kill people, but put regulations on the number of people a family is allowed to have or number of children a family can have at one time based on rate of income? why not make people accountable, again, for their own actions, or lack there of?

survival for those willing to earn it has worked for hundreds of millions of years... and in under a century we've seen what turning our backs on that can do, economically that is.... so yes it may seem cruel to go back to survival of the fittest... but then how do you justify forcing one portion of the population to support another? and that game can only last for as long as the tax payers can survive on their incomes... as the number of government assistance dependents grows, the higher the taxes will get, and at some point everyone will need to be on government assistance because they will literally be taxed into it.

really... it doesnt matter what you choose, because in a few decades, with population expansion growing at it's current rate... we'll be forced to make a decision in a few short decades... the planets natural resources wont hold out much longer. even if we recycle and go back to the old ways... the numbers are too large... and even if we manage to stave off the inevitable for a while... in a century we'll run out of space for everyone...

i hate to be such a debbie downer about it all... just getting ready for the tough decisions that may lay ahead. (if im here long enough to make them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.whitehouse.gov/2011-taxreceipt

I suggest you look at this site. It will tell you how much of your income goes to these things your complaining about. I agree, I would not like to have to pay for the things I do, but at the same time, I'm not going to get caught up in the lies spun to make us take our eyes off the real problem. I input 25K a typical salary for an unskilled or limited skilled labor and the amount of money paid per year to help these dead beats you speak of. The total was $339. If you include health care that brings it up to 760. Yes a lot of money, but hardly the "last pig in the village".

That was for a single person. Interestling is that if you double that and add one child, then the 760 figure drops to 425. By the way that includes your social security you will likely draw double of what you put in when you retire.

Of course we pay close to the same amount for our military to be able to go to countries that have not openly attacked us and kill them. Heh, maybe that is the purpose of our military, euthanasia of foriegn people. Even if you believe that 9/11 was legit, how do you justify killing innocents by the million while trying to hunt down a few hundred terrorist? Does that not make Bush seem closer to Hitler? Does it make us Americans that support this as much chumps as the ones who supported Hitler?

Frankly I would rather spend my money on the "lazy Leechs" and keeping them alive and possibly not robbing us "hard working makers" , than on mass murder. What do you think? BTW, you do know that George Romney, Mitt Romneys dad, was one of those leeches right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is one way it makes sense one can only wonder what the price was for the recent 'Bailout' so I guess we have a direction to look for the Owners.

I think that is a bit one dimentional, the "moneytary price" of the bailouts are a known factor (the figurs).

The social price is yet to be seen.

So society, have to look at those figures, and decide, wich is moste importante.

Could it be that all are of some importance? and carries a potential value(s) (asset), Is the lot worth any ? or only a particular kind and mind set?

Why is it that "tearing apart" all of one kind, or kind of system, often is presented as "the only" and "best" way ?

("YOU ARE EITHER WITH US, OR ...................")

Iff you where handeling fish, you would maybe? reroute the Water (cash flow) as a starter ?

Isolate ? then and salt, O2, medication...........threat, one badge(or more), maybe quarentine some for a period, ultimatly you might have to kull some, to save the lot/individual(s) ? In worst case you might even have to scrap the system it selfe, but most often you can salvage a lot, and only a reconfiguration is sufficiant .

You look at the hole system, not only in one direction IMO.

Might be a easy fix, like just adjusting the flow direction, grading the stock, maybe one(or a few) individual(s) have become so big,so that it dosen't only get all or most of the feed, it's also starting to feed on the hole lot ?

It would allways depende on your goal.

If you ask the lot, wich is the most important specie and/or individual, The lot, or the predator, feeding on directly on them, and/or consuming the largest % of the total inputt/produce, or the other way around, ask the predator.

"The answer" "truth" "final solution" what ever, is often a given. That is iff there is no room for, biodiversety sustainabiliety etc.

it is simply taken out of the equation. (not even a considered option)

Like in a monoqulture system, such as "one of" Cecils systems. (Nothing wrog with that or Cecil only a given example)

The single purpose of raising, is to get one particular (or a few) individual(s), within a specific specie, with "the chosen species" spesifical collor/patern caracteristics, preferable "the bigest" of it's kind, it's (often) even a wanted refinement, that it can't reproduce naturaly, any kind of manupilating for the benefit of a single individual(s) is OK ?

All the input(FCR) is consumed, for "the chosen individual(s)" to grow past or beyond it's own kind........ ultimatly all resources is to be used for the "choosen specie" and the "final solution" is the being, of the individual most "valued" of it's own kind.

A super jumbo KOI could be another example (I think the higest price achived in UK auctions are beyond £ 1 million)

The care fore such a fish in infrastructure, medicare, travelling to/from shows.... etc is beyond most peoples imagination,

Monetary vise and in footprint, the investement and constant runing expences could feed a village in some parts of the world, and a few avarege housholds around here (Norway). Nothing wrong with that either, particularly if privatly owned payed and cared for.

Realy iff privat, It be would axceptable, that upstream water is, diverted/witheld/poluted/whatever, no matter the cost/consequenses downstream after all it is privat, so it's surley a matter of principals, it's even written in the laws, that constitutes the most important of all values.(somtimes even in holly books)....................... then it can't be wrong or ?

Mind you, effectively it is only trying AND FAILING to kill yourself that is against the law, but woe betide you if you help someone do it!

Yeah, got to think of a way to punish those that sucseed, or is it so that they get their punishment in the afterlife (like hell?)

We could maybe find some others to punish(just to be sure to punish some) in lack of the deads present

Punishment is afterall importante, as a preventive measure (wouldn't want any criminal act seen unpunishable)

Also the helpers, must be punished, in particular the doctors carrying out such acts of hooror, like euthanasia and abortion

After all it's the ultimate crime,murder, even by the holly books, standing above all constitutions/laws ........ "thy shal not kill"

I vote for Capital punishment on this matter, no other way to deal with killers. Execute them

(not by stoning, that would be sharia laws , and they are inhumane laws and plainly all wrong, I'w been told).

Monty Python - Stoning - YouTube

Realy confusing all this right wrong I think, why is it that all the time someone have to mess up the estabished thruts these days, in the god old days it was alot easyer everything better.................. lets go back hehe.

What was the topic again ?

the right to live or lack of such ?................the welfare system, or the lack of such ? Eutansia......... ?

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've often felt there should be a death with dignity type law.

I agree 100%

All dough I feel more for a life with dignity type law, both would be best ?

Then again laws take away or limit freedoms so I'w been told, I'w even seen it, writen in ..........

“Never take a person's dignity. It is worth everything to them, and nothing to you.â€

Frank Barron

cheers

oh almost forget + 1 you'r objection towards e on D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but im glad to see that it at least went somewhere... even though it went like an unguided missile...

Like Sadams SCUD's

He fired some of those at random during desert storm remember ?

hehe

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Damon

people born with debilitating defects that are raised a vegetable, trapped in their own bodies, and i pray that their mind doesnt work, because if it did, it's a life long prison with no way to communicate with the outside world... it's sad... heart breaking...

I had this serious etichal disscusion with my father, not on born with such defects, but rather iff any of us (me/him) got in to a acsident and ended up in a hospital bed totaly paralysed, not neceseraly in a vegetativ state, but traped in our own body.

We both agreed that it would be worse than geting killed, so we sealed a deal If I/he could blink a eye to answer a go would be possible to confirm, if no respons that would also be a go, to pull the plug.

A few years later I got a call, me father had chrashed (helicopter sling load operation) he was still alive (puls/breath) stabelised doctor on scene securing all vital functions, but it didn't look good. Still awaiting medivac to nearest hospital (2houers), but would need further medivac aprox 10 houers (heli and fix wing) he was working(pilot) in the bush.

He died during the medivac of the complex trauma, in combination with, transport time/lack of of propper rescue equipment

I spoke with the doctor (on site) and the hospital staff when I went to pick up his body to bring home for buriel.......

I'm a man of few prayers, I allmost only belive in God(s) when all other options are out (sounds bad I gues)

The doctors said they would probably have been able save him given shorter timelines and a propper hospital near bye, However the damages to his head where so severe, he would have been in a vegetative most probably in a deep coma.

Realy sent some chills thru me, still does now, 25 years later, just wrighting about it.

I thanked the Lord for leting me of the hook,not having to seal the deal (I admit to have cursed the Lord for taking my father also)

I really think it's so easy to have a academic viev on a matter (most any) but when it comes down to real life and It's actually hapening to you, notin theory the real deal.............. Your loved, it's a different world all together.

braking eggs to make omelette no big deal (any numbers)

Darwin(ism) ? Any woord, you can attatche (ism) to, should get your guard up IMO

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems awfully easy to impose a tax, prison sentence or punishment, or death sentence or euthanasia when it's the "other guy". What people need to remember is that they are the "other guy" to everyone else.

Ande,

I'm so sorry for your loss and that you had to go through that. I remember how my grandmother acted after my Grandfather passed away. He was diagnose with parkinson's disease and his body rejected all the drugs at the time that would have helped him. I watched him live as a vegetable for the last 10 years of his life and she stood by his side and never complained where we could hear it. He finally died at 87 and instead of feeling sorrow it was more like gladness that he finally got relief. After he passed, my Grandmother sold their house and went on a shopping spree buying lots of things like a tv and a vcr. She died of alzhiemers a decade later, but I had been amazed at the way the weight of the world had been lifted from her shoulders after his death. I do not know if he would have used a "death with dignity type law" had it been available, but I still feel he should have had that option.

I can tell from your posts that your a compassionate person and believe if things had not worked out, you would have made the best decision you could have in that situation.

Edited by Ravnis (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

An old experiment with a dog was to put in a cage and shock one half of the cage and the dog would move to the other side. Then they shocked that side and the dog would go to the other side. Then the got the bright idea to shock both sides, and the dog just laid down, resigned to its fate and would not move if they went back to shocking only one side of the cage. They could not unbreak the broken spirit.

I've reared my own birds and animals for meat for decades (and my own fish for over six years) and I've hunted for food - but I have absolutely no patience with people who conduct questionable experiments on animals.

i know it's talks like these that bring up some pretty harsh emotions... so im trying to tread the waters lightly... but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in academia that will say that population control isn't the inevitable ugly elephant in the room.

The problem with some of your ideas in this area, are that when those who are appointed to make the decisions about who lives and dies run out of the elderly, the demented, the sick and the disabled....they start to look around at who's left and they see the incarcerated, the marginalised, the Jews and the Gypsies.

Your problem, Damon, is what happens when they run out of all of those people......and someone says "Let's get rid of the short people.".......what do you do then?

i've often joked about there needing to be a minimum IQ score in order to have children... but the more i think about a George Carlin joke, the more i take that joke seriously... it goes something like "take a look and think about how dumb the average American citizen is, and now realize that half of the population is dumber than that guy."

The problem with your contention about IQ is that there is no automatic connection between IQ and worth as a person. The universities are packed full of useless buggers with a high IQ.

Perhaps, since you have claimed (on several occasions) to have a very high IQ, you might tell us what special powers accrue to people of high IQ? What is it that folks like you can do, that the rest of us cannot?

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I've reared my own birds and animals for meat for decades (and my own fish for over six years) and I've hunted for food - but I have absolutely no patience with people who conduct questionable experiments on animals.

I share your sentiment, but I'm afraid there was a lot of questionable experiments conducted in the 1950s through the 1970 time period. I'm also sure that was not the only ones. It recently came out that they purposely injected people with veneral disease in that time period. This was also when eugenics as Damon has proposed was done on a scale I don't know about. Groups that formed such as the ACLU helped put a stop to it.

Which brings us back to the point if we start devaluing people or animals what atrocities will the collective we, be willing to do to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

en elevated IQ usually results in the ability to maintain a job, or at least have sense enough to know when they've had more children than they can afford... i use my level of intelligence to see beyond my personal feelings and do what's best for the situation i'm facing... i'd love to have more children, i always joked about having enough for a swim team relay... that's 4 children in rapid succession... but i know enough to know that i can't possibly afford that... unless i get a $20k pay increase in the next 3 months... but then i guess if we just limited the amount of children all families were allowed to have at one time then i guess IQ wouldn't matter... and you don't see people with below average IQ's running the show... even though most times it seems that way. yes, a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and a while and someone with below average intelligence hits it big... more often than not in the entertainment department... but i bet if you tested everyone in charge of a company or the government, even though we hate to admit it about the governmental leaders, they are all fairly intelligent on paper. and yes, there are plenty of smart people in university that aren't worth a damn in the working world... but these people are also smart enough to not have children they cant afford and stay in college... i have a younger sister that's a bit of an airhead... book smart.. but lacks common sense most of the time... she asked me one time how long it would take to drive to hawaii from ohio... but she's still smart enough to use contraception to not screw up her financials by having a child and lose the ability to go to school.

and like i said before, im not all for the killing of people that are already alive... letting people fend for themselves and killing them are two different things... one is out right murder, and the other is making people responsible for their own lives... for thousands of years people got along without money and super markets, so why is having a garden or raising your own food only seen as supplementing food income... instead of going to the grocery store being the supplement... if there are no steady jobs to provide for your family, why not provide you own food... after all, isn't that what most of this site is about? sustainable food sources? i know that when hunting is in season i go to the store for the odds, ends, and enjoyable... what can i say i like my soda... but i dont need them... a bulk of what i eat comes from the woods this time of year... i know hunting cant be the solution because eventually we'd run out of animals... but i also havent paid for eggs in months... a friend has more than his family can eat or sell... and he raises them in his backyard inside of the city limits, along with ducks and rabbits... so to say that people couldnt fend for themselves and forcing them to do so would be murder is a bit of a stretch...but i bet if it happened there'd be a resurgence of victory gardens... also in the barter system...

i also know that cutting people off of assistance isn't as easy as it sounds... crime would shoot through the roof because it's easier to steel food and things to sell for food than to provide it for yourself... which is another reason why it's a sticky situation.... we've kind of dug ourselves into a hole on this one...

what i'm am an advocate for is stemming the flow of new people brought into this world... especially for those that cannot afford them... very rarely do i see a family buying grocery's at wal*mart with more than 2 kids and not see the yellow slips for food assistance programs... this is a problem... i have no doubt that a family can easily support 1-2 children... i could support my daughter alone if i had to, but thankfully i have a girlfriend to share that with... we also know that we'd have to draw the line at 2 children at a time... people with lower IQ's just might have less of an understanding... overhearing these people deal with the cashiers and listening to them speak... it more or less reaffirms the lack of intelligence that i mentioned... there's no reason these people should be allowed to have children that they rightfully cant afford to have, and really, what kind of life does that give the child? what kind of example does it set for the children? have as many kids as you want because the government's got your back when you can't afford to feed them? the government pays for the medical bills because most of these people cram their families they can't afford into smaller domiciles so when one gets sick they all do...? the girl i mentioned before had to take 3 weeks off of work because her family kept passing around pink eye like it was ketchup at the kitchen table because they didn't have enough space in their 3 bedroom apartment to quarantine the sick children from the healthy... how is this a good situation for anyone? the kids remain sick because they can't get away from each other... the parents are perpetually sick because they can't distance themselves from the kids... and none of them have the common sense to wash their hands or lysol the holy hell out of everything... and we're supposed to say that all of this is acceptable, allowable, or even just OK?

you're right gary, there is no guarantee that a couple of higher intelligence would have a child of equally elevated intelligence... but that child would stand a better chance at learning from their parents if their parents were a bit on the smart side... and there are many different knowledge bases, so to choose form which one was better than the other would be an act of futility... i guess going by an IQ would be sticky... i guess i should have worded it something like elevated intelligence in either the general or specific... meaning people that either know a little bit about alot, or people that specialize in certain fields... but to allow these cheese puff munching television zombies to breed isn't going to help... reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"... the first 5 minutes of that movie paints a pretty good, yet comical, picture of what could happen if the uneducated were allowed to breed uncontrollably...

we cant fix the problem we've already cause with the population unless well kill people off... which as i've said before im against... murder isn't the answer... that is unless someone wants to take their own life... which as i've also said before i dont understand why that's illegal in the first place... but what we can do is try to limit the rate at which the problem gets worse... and this would be done by limiting the growth of the population, not killing off those that are already living...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to leave you with a quote from last century:

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

- Calvin Coolidge

I first learned of this quote working for a man in a factory he started with his kids. He had dropped out of the 9th grade and yet was making 5 million a year in a town of 20,000 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... so many ways to post about this... :D

Let's start with Religion - Thous Shalt Not Kill: not the 1st commandment, nor even the 2nd - from memory it's down around 6 or so. Only just worse than adultery which is only just worse than stealing... :lol:

But the same God who supposedly said, Thou shalt not kill had no issues with killing, either himself (Pharoah's men, all of Noah's world, Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of Jericho or anyone opposed to the Hebrews, even if they weren't opposed before the Hebrews came to steal their land. (which incidentally broke the 'Covet' commandment as well as the stealing one)

And it is no good even changing the 'kill' to 'murder' because most of the God situations have to have been murder. Not only was it done for ulterior motives, it was done by a God who, if anyone could, should have been able to find an alternative. He CHOSE to kill! Maybe it's a good thing we didn't get to eat that other fruit in Eden - we'd have been just like God and his mates then.

And even then, the 'kill' commandment doesn't seem to cover deciding you want out of this life. Why does anyone get to say you have to stay and suffer, PARTICULARLY anyone at the top of the tree who is having a lovely life compared to yours? How is it a stranger says you have to live miserably or in pain, or have someone else wipe your bum for you?

The Eugenics danger is high - let it be legal to finalise a life and you can bet there are people who would grab at that power with both wallets... I mean hands.

Eugenics is an interesting issue - started and practiced almost exclusively in the United States against the blacks and poor, the use of race and/or circumstances to neuter or even remove people was seen as good Science. Of course when the Nazis copied, almost to the letter, the US system, it was de rigeur to exclaim in horror about how such barbarity could be condoned by any modern society.

But it BEGAN in the Land of the Free.

A very similar attitude came along around the same time - Public Education. Why waste valuable University time on people who, due to birth and circumstance, were destined solely to be labourers and cannon fodder. It was clear they couldn't contribute meaningfully to a 'real world' so a system was set up to train them to be useful workers.

These people, the ones who thought Eugenics made so much sense and who pushed through the alterations to schools that dumbed each successive generation more and more from what was once considered a 'decent education' are the ones who would happily sit in judgement and decide who gets to breed and who gets to die.

And they are, by definition, the least qualified to do so. It is like the Queen and workers of a hive letting the drones decide which bees have to die. All the drones would live and the hive would die before the drones suddenly realised their entire existence just vanished from under them.

Banksters, Corporateers and Bureaucrats should never be allowed to decide the fates of anyone who actually contributes to Society - for their sake as much as ours.

I go a step further than just the terminal choice for euthanasia. Being able to choose when there is no hope of recovery, when you are trapped in a body or when the only thing keeping you alive is a no-brainer, I think. The body is just a vehicle, not the entirety of the Being. Leaving a worn out body and going to get a new one is no different than trading in your broekn down car for a new model.

But how about the guy who has spent his life getting his family comfortable and who then gets leukemia or some other bank-draining illness that Doctors will not cure and Govts refuse to allow alternative cures for? Does he have to lay there and watch his entire life's work vanish into the coffers of Big Pharma just because some bureaucrat says he cannot choose to die?

How about the person who, after a childhood of abuse, faces a life of clinical depression, only relieved by locking them into a permanent LOW state of being and for whom life has no joy, no chance for happiness and not even the chance of revenge against those who committed the abuse? Why could this person not choose to move on and find a new car to drive?

How about the person who, for whatever reason, comes to the reaslisation they have ruined the lives of many others. Should (for example) Hitler be allowed to kill himself when he realised just how badly he had damamged the world?

And where do people who lie, cheat and connive for petty power get the right to decide ANY of this? - and I am talking about preists and minsiters as well as politicians and bureaucrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the crazy thing is they only punish you if you aren't successful in offing yourself... as if at that point punishment matters? 24 hour surveillance in a room with no projections or movable furniture... wearing clothes with no buttons or draw strings... velcro shoes... costing more and more by the minute... it'd be a bit ironic if the person who was looking to let themselves go were trying to save their family a mountain of debt by fighting a terminal cancer as mentioned above...

in a world of dwindling freedoms they've really taken away (legally) the one and only thing we as people can control... or at least try to... "every time you don't throw yourself down the stairs is a choice. every time you breathe you reenlist. -Chuck Palahniuk- on suicide... and it's the truth... and really the government can't police everybody... not even in the strictest forms of government... so why bother making it illegal...? im sure with the hundreds of thousands of lawyers the united states has there must be at least one of them that could draw up paperwork to make it legally possible for assistance in this area... i mean, they already have DNR (do not resuscitate) papers... so the only difference is the person would have to wait miserably for the end instead of have some sort of control over the last piece of their lives...

it's a psychological principal... in times of certain demise a very generous amount of people would rather have control of how they die instead of just waiting for it to happen... that's why people jumped from the world trade towers when they knew that the chances of them surviving the ride down were slim to none...

in some circumstances i do think suicide is cowardly... like for instance killing a bunch of children and taking your own life before you're made to pay the consequences... which undoubtedly would be the ending of your life after a lengthy stay in the prison system, that is unless you can become so obese while in the prison system in states like ohio where the government sees it as cruel and unusual punishment because they cant find a vein or you'll break the gurney or they might not be able to get the chemical mixture right... but when that guy killed himself in CT he robbed those families of any sort of justice... in other circumstances, suicide can be heroic... letting yourself go as to not be a financial burden to those around you, or to save yourself what could be weeks or months of excruciating pain which in turn will take it's tole on your family... so even in suicide there are line of division... but those would only be moral ones... and really you only have to answer to yourself in those situations...

technically we're all dying... and some choose to die faster than others by smoking, drinking to excess every day, or by doing drugs... so what really is the difference between killing yourself over the course of decades or just a few moments? not saying that i would do this... but i bet if i set my mind to it i could smoke enough cigarettes to cause my blood to become acidic and lungs give out in just a few hours... that is if the nicotine poisoning doesn't get me first... but would that be punishable or not? i guess if i did it with the intent to harm myself it would be... but let's say i just had a really bad day and chain smoked really quickly for a few hours... accidental attempted suicide i dont think carries a punishment... just a "be careful next time" word of advice...

euthanasia should be a personal choice, which really in every respect of the able bodied is... and to ask for help for those that are unable to do so themselves should be allowed to... but with a trail of certifiable paperwork to prove that i was that person wish... but by no means should a government or any governing body have the right to determine who gets killed once they are alive... population control and eugenics can be carried out in more humane ways than that...

when i made the statement that sparked this whole thread it was about population control, not mass genocides... and although to some, those two things can seem like the same thing, they can also be completely different... and like i said before you'd be hard pressed to find any leader in the highest levels of the scientific community that would tell you that over population of this planet isn't an increasing problem... my suggestions have always been in preventative measures... limiting births... not offing those that are already alive against their will, or at the whim of the ruling class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Prohibitions against suicide have their origins in organised religion.....and religious power-brokers push politicians to play the game by enacting laws against suicide. In ancient times, the priests (who were second only to the aristocracy in the power dungheap) were probably influenced by the lords who could see that it was counterproductive to have the serfs killing themselves in advance of them being worked to death.

In modern times, the church is still pursuing the same old outdated doctrines (which is why it is of diminishing importance in people's lives) but the government's only real interest in suicide (other than having a cheap tradeoff for when the religious lobbyists come knocking) is that folks jumping off buildings is a real drain on public resources.

People who commit suicide aren't being selfish - or anything else - they've undergone a psychological shift where all of their problems are about to leave them behind.....and they are conscious of very little else.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was just in the news. Prosecutors going easier on assisted suicide among elderly - latimes.com.

A horrible way to go by cutting and bleeding to death , because of assisted suicide being illegal. I wonder if he will try again. I do see a big difference between an elderly person doing this and somebody young, that is probably just going through a rough patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder just why people see such a difference in the age. What is is about living longer that makes it more OK to terminate? It's like there's some expected amount of suffering you have to endure before it is OK to say 'Enough!' Did we sign some kind of guarantee that we would 'stick it out' when we came here? Is it that those who stay and suffer through a life are perhaps jealous of those who get out early?

Nasty thought here - could it just be that those who get left behind when a young person dies are upset about their loss more than the pain of the person choosing to go?

If life is horrible, it is horrible and age doesn't really matter surely? And a young person has a lot more reason to terminate things - the older you are, the less of a horrible life there is to endure. At 18 and miserable, depressed and hopeless, there is another maybe 70 or 80 years, another 4 entire lifetimes before you can expect release.

If we had decent mental health services I might think different but the success rate of psychiatry and psychology is abysmally low; drugging people into stupor doesn't deal with their issues and removes any possible quality of life. While they maintain we are only a body and a brain and everything is chemicals it will remain so and we will never start teaching our kids how to deal with tough times.

On the other hand, psychiatry seems to be developing a very high success rate in creating mass killers. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This difference as I see it is this. I have seen many young people come in depressed and suicidal. Typically it involves pressure at school, or conflict with parents , or lack of direction in their lives. I've seen it happen so many times that once they learn some coping skills and get out of the abusive home, or learn that if they make a less than perfect grade that it is not the end of the world that they go out and lead good lives. They often will call and say thanks and here are my kids, or I got a job at so and so etc, I'm so happy I didn't kill myself. If it wasn't for that I might agree that age should not be an issue, but this happens often.

At 80, your already past the average lifespan and might live another 20-30 years, but it's the quality of life that matters. A lot of time that quality of life is not that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do wonder just why people see such a difference in the age. What is is about living longer that makes it more OK to terminate? It's like there's some expected amount of suffering you have to endure before it is OK to say 'Enough!'

IMO it's not a exlucive age thing, but wery much a matter of, amount of suffering experienced, and likelyhood of future changes in such. I really think there is a difference as to what are the causes of your sufferings.

Are you terminal ill, with nothing but pain and suffer before you, I lean in favour of euthanasia as a legal opotion.(woulenter)

To me that is a different disscusion, than the issue suicide/assisted suicide, all thoug I see, that as long as euthanisia, not being a legal option, there will be a surtain % of suicides, and/or assisted such, amongst the total numbers of suicides.

IMO the rulings refered in Ravnis article are right, the sircumstances given.

I can't see how a jailsentence would have a preventive function, and the likelyhood of new "killings" are remote, so serving time would only be, a sort of "revenge" from sosciety, on behalf of the victime ? for "the crime" commited.

Nasty thought here - could it just be that those who get left behind when a young person dies are upset about their loss more than the pain of the person choosing to go?

I doubt there is only one answer to this, but both, and a truck load of other emotions and personal guilt, for not understanding the signals before it's to late, I gues ?

If it's a kid, youth, middleaged person,, the loss will most probbably be harder to come to terms with compared to iff it's a person close to or above the age where your death is expected anyhow, It would seem so unnesacery under most sircumstances, I can think of, but then again not all.

If life is horrible, it is horrible and age doesn't really matter surely? And a young person has a lot more reason to terminate things - the older you are, the less of a horrible life there is to endure. At 18 and miserable, depressed and hopeless, there is another maybe 70 or 80 years, another 4 entire lifetimes before you can expect release

Well here I would politely dissagree, a young person would much more likely get passed the missery/depression/........

but again there are exseptions offcourse.

I find it easyer to understand a suicide(bomber)when born in to permanent missery,being missguided by a religous leader, rather than a suicide comited, by a norwegian for failing to pas a dr.degree in university ?

But I gues for those loosing their loved, the emotions and feelings, are much the same no matter how why where ? It is final

If we had decent mental health services I might think different but the success rate of psychiatry and psychology is abysmally low; drugging people into stupor doesn't deal with their issues and removes any possible quality of life. While they maintain we are only a body and a brain and everything is chemicals it will remain so and we will never start teaching our kids how to deal with tough times.

I partly agree here, but I can't blame health services around here they are good.

More so I think the secresy/shame culturaly conected to mental illnes is to blame.

And our need to medicate away all symptoms take a pill for this and another for that on all matters in life

And if you are down and out (we all are to a degree at some times) keep it a secret, don't sheare it or get propper treatment.

Keep it within the "family" put on a brave face, smile and move on. It can and will be used against you or others(family)......

So we fix some selfemedication or quasicare, to keep the symptoms away instead of getting propper medication and/or care.

On the other hand, psychiatry seems to be developing a very high success rate in creating mass killers. :frown:

This statement is IMO confirming my above thaughts, don't seek help psychiatry turns the mental ill into masskillers and you wouldn't become one of those.

What a ignorant reflection ?

Her is a typical occurence along those lines Science-Based Medicine » Anti-psychiatry and anti-vaccine activists shamelessly taking advantage of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings

Our mass killer ABB was not insane or on drugs other than (ilegall) anabolic steroids, to be fit, strong, win (like in spots)

He was one of "us", not one of "them" trying to make him something else would be the moste dangorous thing to do.

Then we don't have to deal with it, he could have been my brother classmate colegue and he was active on the internett

in political debates sharing opinions with a load of people, in particular the elderly generation shared a lot of his vievs before he became a monster. (sadly some still do)

This video documentary looks a bit in to his mind set

Anders Behring Breivik - Norway Massacre: The Killer's Mind (Documentary) - YouTube

Yeah Damon a real misguided missile hehe what was the topic again ? eugenics ABB was really in to that as well

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...