cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it

Eugenics

OMG what a gruesome thing to bring into a discussion.  And a wonderful way to assure that nothing beneficial gets done.

 

That kind of stuff is called fear mongering and is very detrimental to any discussion.  But then many of the points made on this board are simply greed and fear mongering.  It is a tactic used by people who do not have a sensical foot to stand on.

 

Good people do not want to take anything away from anybody, nor do they want to give to undeserving.

 

But as Jesus pointed out to us "the poor are with you always".  The thing we need to do is figure out how to help the poor without creating deadbeats.

 

Dairy mom, you aren't looking for a career change are you?   I know of a job opening coming up in Nov. of 2012 and you sure appear to have more common sense then most of the folks currently lobbying for the job.

 

Senior Advisor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it

Good people do not want to take anything away from anybody, nor do they want to give to undeserving.

 

But as Jesus pointed out to us "the poor are with you always".  The thing we need to do is figure out how to help the poor without creating deadbeats.

 

Diary mom, that is what the debate is about. Since the 1960s and the war on poverty we have been trying the method of the government providing for the needs of the poor. If has destroyed the family, especially the black family. There was no longer a need for a dad in the home because big daddy government could provide. In fact the more children you have to more "help" you can get. People no longer looked at it as help but as an entitlement. They were entitled to the government's money simply because they existed and it is all they have ever known. Once you are given what you need simply because you exist you lose self respect. Without self respect you lose respect for anyone else. They have no more right to possessions they earned than you do because the government should "take" that extra wealth from them and give it to the "needy". They view it as an equality issue. If the government refuses to take it from them then the needy will take it themselves, because they view themselves as being entitled to it. They view it as their own.

 

Now we see the war on poverty has been a complete failure. We are at the cross roads. Which direction do we take? The failed policies of the past or do we begin a process in which the needy can earn back their self respect? The Greeks and many other European nation have chosen the failed path of the past. Let that be a lesson to us.

Senior Contributor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it


@kraft-t wrote:

The last days cost money to preserve life whether you are a 50 year old or a 80 year old. You want to determine a check out time for those older folks because you think there is little value in preserving life at that age. That is your right to think that way but it is kind of a callous disdain for older folks. I thought you repubs were against death panels.

 

Why not cut off SS and just let those old folks starve to death. Or is it more merciful to just deny them treatment?

 

Evidently, it is better to let you deduct a $200k tractor in one year while grandma clings to life as best she can.


It is not just older folks Don.

As you point out it is the last few days (or months in some cases) that cost and it is often not a pleasant time for the person dying if they are even a person any longer or just a clump of cells going through the motions of breathing and pumping blood with the 'help' of machines and drugs.

We had the case of an infant in Ontario that had a genetic disorder that was killing him. The medical people wanted to keep him comfortable and let nature take over.

The parents wanted surgery to prolong the clump of cells, which showed no response to stimulous, and take it home until it finally would stop breathing.

A religious person got behind it and sponsored a fund raising to have this baby flown to a hospital in the US and the surgery. Thousands of dollars later and a couple of months later the baby went home where it will breathe its last but for what purpose? A few more months of anguish for the parents who I think were unemployed and unable to afford the care needed to keep it at home.

Heroic measures for people who can reasonably be expected to live a comfortable life but when the end is coming and those 'heroic measures' are only going to prolong the agony then WHY?

Only reason I know of is people have not accepted the facts of life, we grow old and die. ALL OF US! 

Senior Advisor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it

So, who's responsibility is it to decide who is a clump of cells, and what is the name of that board?

Senior Contributor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it

Sorry if I offended you, dairy mom. Did you read the article? I was merely bringing up history, even horrific history, so it is not repeated. If people do not see with their own eyes evidence of something, say the Holocaust, they will merely not believe it occurred. They will call it a fairy tale and a lie. Only by producing shoes of the victims, the facilities, the records, the people, can their remarks be rebuffed. Same with eugenics in this country. So many of my generation never even knew it actually occurred in the US and to what extent. Soon the generations directly affected will have passed and their past will die with them. This country needs a reminder or we will repeat our mistakes.

Senior Contributor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it


@r3020 wrote:

So, who's responsibility is it to decide who is a clump of cells, and what is the name of that board?


That r3020 would have to fall on people who are knowledgable about those things.

The medical people that are treating the illness.

The problems arise when people off the street do not accept the opinion of these people.

 

I really think these decisions are made every day by the patients themselves and their families but what hits the news are the cases where extraordinary measures are demanded for someone who is already dead for all intents and purposes.

I guess the question that should be asked is why they put a body through that kind of torture for no purpose. Are they afraid of death or have they just not accepted the inevitable outcome of all living things.

Senior Contributor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it

HBO recently aired a documentary called "How to Die in Oregon" which explored the state's controversial death with dignity act.  One of the people in the documentary was a lady dying of cancer that kept coming back and getting worse each time who had decided to move to Oregon so she could die on her own terms.   The lady said that she grew up on a farm and that they would put their animals down when extremely ill as opposed to letting them suffer and she could not understand why some people are against allowing people to have that same option.

 

 

I may not agree but I do understand how some religious people can be against euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide based on their belief that all life is sacred and it is only God's decision when people die.  However I get confused when people in favor of abortion on demand can be against it.  On one hand you are saying it is alright for a woman to kill her unborn child who has absolutely no say in their life being terminated in a barbaric manner.  Yet you don't think an adult person with a debilitating terminal illness does not have the right to end their life and suffering when they decide it is best???

Senior Advisor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it

How many lefties do you know that favor abortions and at the same time stand strongly against euthanasia?

 

It seems to me that referring the Terry Shiavo case it was the dems that opposed gov't intervention in that end of life situation. Bush and the righties strongly opposed the life support disconnect and wanted to prolong that life even against her husbands wishes.

Senior Contributor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it


@dagwud wrote:

HBO recently aired a documentary called "How to Die in Oregon" which explored the state's controversial death with dignity act.  One of the people in the documentary was a lady dying of cancer that kept coming back and getting worse each time who had decided to move to Oregon so she could die on her own terms.   The lady said that she grew up on a farm and that they would put their animals down when extremely ill as opposed to letting them suffer and she could not understand why some people are against allowing people to have that same option.

 

 

I may not agree but I do understand how some religious people can be against euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide based on their belief that all life is sacred and it is only God's decision when people die.  However I get confused when people in favor of abortion on demand can be against it.  On one hand you are saying it is alright for a woman to kill her unborn child who has absolutely no say in their life being terminated in a barbaric manner.  Yet you don't think an adult person with a debilitating terminal illness does not have the right to end their life and suffering when they decide it is best???


Dag, I could live with the idea of euthanasia but it has to be handled carefully so no one is forced into it by any means.

When I think of medical procedures being carried out on someone who at best might have their life prolonged for a few months and often with much reduced abilities I wonder about the decisions that have been made by someone. As I have noted with the infant that was dying it seems to often be religious zealots who are behind these extra heroic prolonging of 'life' which often is just keeping the heart and lungs working, nothing more.

I am old enough to have seen many relatives die and it is possible to go in a dignified way when the end is near. To be kept comfortable with adequate pain relief and let nature take its course. No heroic measures to prolong the agony.

Senior Contributor

Re: Entitlements, nothing hard about it


@kraft-t wrote:

How many lefties do you know that favor abortions and at the same time stand strongly against euthanasia?

 

It seems to me that referring the Terry Shiavo case it was the dems that opposed gov't intervention in that end of life situation. Bush and the righties strongly opposed the life support disconnect and wanted to prolong that life even against her husbands wishes.


As is often the case, the strongly religious who are afraid to let death come peacefully.