Obamacare: Eugenics

[rationalist]

You are right

A rich guy told me that helping everyone is wrong.

He is a christian too so he should know about the evils of a fairer society.

He told me that it is better for poor people to be poor and to get 2nd class healthcare at best and a second class education.

That way poor people will work in his factory and or be happy to be killed so his rich friends don't have to do any of the fighting.

He also said that it is important that rich people don't pay much in taxes as it is bad for poor people.

This guy really knrew what he was talking about so it must be true.

He told me what a great guy I am too and then saw someone who was also rich and started talking to him instead as though I wasn't there.

But he must be right and so I will campaign to keep him rich and everyone else poor even though it is scientifically proven that this makes society worse for everyone.

And that the US is a model of how capitalism is a complete failure in terms of building social well being.

 

[OldTrapper]

I am sure if you did some research you would be able to find some stories on it. I mostly got my information on the first one via the local radio news and KEZI KMTR exc. But I am sure there is stuff out there on the net about it too.

You don't really expect them to do research for information that would discredit their deepest held beliefs, do you? That would be too rational.

http://disweb.org/cda/issues/pas/golden3.html

•OTHER SUPPOSED SAFEGUARDS. In Oregon's law and this bill, doctors are not supposed to write a lethal prescription under inappropriate conditions which are defined in the law. This is seen as a supposed safeguard. But what's happened in several cases in Oregon is "doctor shopping" - if one physician refuses assisted suicide because the patient doesn't meet the conditions in the law, another physician is sought who will approve it, often one who's an assisted suicide advocate. Such was the case of Kate Cheney, age 85, whose case was described in The Oregonian in October 1999. Her doctor refused to prescribe the lethal medication, because he thought the request was actually the result of pressure by an assertive daughter who was stuck with caregiving, rather than the free choice of the mother. So the family found another doctor, and Ms. Cheney is now dead.

There is one safeguard in this bill - for HMO's and doctors: the "good faith" standard. This "safeguard" provides that no person will be subject to any form of legal liability if they claim that they acted in "good faith." A claimed "good faith" belief that the requirements of the law are satisfied is virtually impossible to disprove, rendering all other proposed "safeguards" effectively unenforceable.


•THIS SO-CALLED NARROW PROPOSAL WILL INEVITABLY EXPAND. As the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law wrote, "Once society authorizes assisted suicide for...terminally ill patients experiencing unrelievable suffering, it will be difficult if not impossible to contain the option to such a limited group. Individuals who are not (able to make the choice for themselves), who are not terminally ill, or who cannot self-administer lethal drugs will also seek the option of assisted suicide, and no principled basis will exist to deny (it)."[5]

The longest experience we have with assisted suicide is in the Netherlands, where not only assisted suicide but also active euthanasia is practiced. The Netherlands is a very frightening laboratory experiment where, because of assisted suicide and euthanasia, "Pressure for improved palliative care appears to have evaporated."[6] Assisted suicide and euthanasia have become, not just the exception, but the rule for people with terminal illness.

"Over the past two decades, the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Once the Dutch accepted assisted suicide it was not possible legally or morally to deny more active medical (assistance to die), i.e. euthanasia, to those who could not effect their own deaths. Nor could they deny assisted suicide or euthanasia to the chronically ill who have longer to suffer than the terminally ill or to those who have psychological pain not associated with physical disease. To do so would be a form of discrimination. Involuntary euthanasia has been justified as necessitated by the need to make decisions for patients not competent to choose for themselves."[7] In other words, for a substantial number of people in the Netherlands, doctors have decided patients should die without consultation with the patients.

Furthermore, assisted suicide proponents and medical personnel alike have documented how taking lethal drugs by mouth is often ineffective in fulfilling its intended purpose. The body expels the drugs through vomiting, or the person falls into a lengthy state of unconsciousness rather than dying promptly, as so-called "death with dignity" advocates wish. Such ineffective suicide attempts can happen in a substantial percentage of cases -- estimates range from 15% to 25%. The way to prevent these "problems," in the view of euthanasia advocates, is by legalizing lethal injections by doctors, which is active euthanasia. This is an inevitable next step if society first accepts assisted suicide as a legitimate legal option.

 

[OldTrapper]

Is it eugenics to allow women to decide what they will do with their own bodies--I don't think so. Merriam Webster doesn't think so either:
1 : a science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities in a series of generations of a race or breed especially by social control of human mating and reproduction -- compare EUTHENICS, GENETICS
2 : the process or means of race improvement (as by restricting mating to superior types suited to each other)

Nor do I save to the point where it becomes selective breeding as is pointed out in your last sentence.

Then I have to ask, why did you ignore Websters fitsrt definition of Eugenics: "concerned with, or encouraging the the PRODUCTION of healthy children" Obviously abortion eliminates this goal.

However, is that not the excuse used by the abortion supporters, "quality of life"? So, in that context abortion is eugenics.

Now if abortions were being demanded for the improvement of the race, then you'd have a point, but they aren't. Women deserve to control their own bodies even if I disagree with their choices. You on the other hand appear to desire that YOUR morals be required of others--so much for your vaunted interest in individual rights.

Women can control their own bodies. However, they have no right to control the body of another unless you regard that other life as nothing more then property of the woman ("owner") subject to her whims.

Then too, it is always the argument of the pro-abortion people that the child does not deserve to live simply because the woman may be poor; there is a physical defect in the unborn entity; or it may inconvenience society as a whole, or the woman in particular, to have to care for the child once it is born. That too is eugenics.

The Court in deciding Roe also stated that if it were ever to be decided that life began at conception then their ruling would be moot. However, even though the vast majority of scientists believe that life does begin at conception, the pro-abortion supporters fight every attempt to make this belief so. As an example, when Tommy Thompson was director of DHHS under Bush he wanted to make prenatal care the law of the land. People such as yourself would not allow this to happen since it would appear to regard the unborn child as a "life", and would be an attack on the "right" to an abortion.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No WONDER Republicans are incapable o' taking-on Health Care!!!

They're MUCH too-busy not doing ANYTHING-ELSE!!!

​

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How many times do I have to say it for you to understand. I am perfectly ok with people killing themselves. I have no issue even with the doctor assisted suicide except if kids are trying to get grandma to do the program so all the money is not sucked into bills. If grandma herself wants to do it then I am all for grandma doing it. If you or anyone wants to do it then go for it.

I draw the line at you making me pay for your killing your self
and people coarsing someone into dying

when its just you killing your own self its all good, notice where I start caring is when you drag me into it or another inocent person.

Id use the bold and caps If I thought it would help you understand.

It's a legal medical procedure, it should be covered. You have no proof that ANYONE has been coerced into dying ahead of their time and the law is specifically drawn to prevent that very thing from happening. I just can't see why everyone's right to choose to die should be restricted because somebody some day may get around the law.

In Eugene transpeople were denied use of bathrooms appropriate to their gender presentation because some people thought that men would dress as women and go into women's bathrooms with evil intent. According to the FBI such a case has NEVER happened in the US, but the fear that somebody some day might try it has denied some people the right to use public restrooms. It's all fear.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No I do not admit this, and I never said this. I said no one was arrested or prosecuted, I never said no one got away with offing grandma for the $$.

There were a few cases where it was not clear the older person wanted to die. When asked if they were ready to die their answer was stuff like, well if I don't my kids wont get any money, it will all go to medical bills.. So I guess I am ready. A few doctors reported feeling unsure if some patience were ready to end their lives in a few cases and I am sure some of those cases the pills were taken. But again it was unintended consequences that were fixed in the second bill.

So, what's your point? That your morals should be used to decide whether a legal medical procedure is covered by insurance? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A bottle of pills to take home and eat so you can die is not health care, its death care. And I want no part of it. I am happy for you if you want to blow your brains out but don’t ask to borrow my gun or make me pay for your bullets and I also do not want to clean up the mess.

Education is not a right neither is you forcing me to pay for your death

So medical care is not a right, neither is education, nor is adequate food, nor shelter... but we can deny a woman the right to an abortion. I don't know, your whole position seems backwards to me somehow. I don't think you are uneducated because I have seen many good posts written by you, but this slavish devotion to social Darwinism puzzles me no end.

A healthy, educated, secure population is a huge asset to a country--don't you think? So why is it wrong to try to make our society work in such a fashion as to provide those things? We've seen what happens when we ignore children and allow them to grow up with no care--we don't value them and consequently they don't value themselves.

It seems insane to me to force women to have children they don't want and then expect them to do a good job of raising those children. If the society at large doesn't value the children enough to see that they are properly cared for, then we should not force women to bear them in the first place.

 

[GenSeneca]

So medical care is not a right, neither is education, nor is adequate food, nor shelter....

You do not have a right to the labor of another individual.

but we can deny a woman the right to an abortion.....

You do not have a right to kill another human being that is no threat to your life.

So why is it wrong to try to make our society work in such a fashion as to provide those things?

You want to use force against people in violation of their rights. That is not compassion, it is oppression.

 

[rationalist]

''You do not have a right to kill another human being that is no threat to your life''

You forgot to add ''unless they are muslims in which case you can kill hundreds of thousands of them''

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your plan of violating individual rights does have a record, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro... Every mass murdering government in history has followed your plan to it's ultimate conclusion.

You forgot the US, we've been violating individual rights too for a long time according to GenSeca. Because you can point to bad examples doesn't mean that every other instance will work the same. Sweden hasn't started mass murder, but George Bush did in our name. Norway hasn't either, nor Costa Rica, but they will pretty soon, right?

I know, you don't think the rich have any rights, that they should all be killed or pushed out of the country so you can redistribute their wealth. Very Progressive of you.

You're losing it, Gen, you're getting angry and it's messing with your perceptions. I NEVER said that anyone should be stripped of their rights and killed or forced out of the country. I said that there should be limits on how much individuals can hoard as long as there are people who are hungry and homeless. Nobody needs more than a million dollars per year to live on--nobody. If you want to be obscenely rich, then you should work towards making sure that everyone has adequate resources and a level playing field first, and then indulge your taste for self-aggrandizement.

When you let people decide who should die, and who gets to live, that is not personal choice.

When it's inside your body, living entirely off of you, in a culture that doesn't value children once they are born, then a woman should have control over her body. On one hand you want to force women to have children, but you don't value them and don't want to have to help make them into dependable citizens if it costs you a penny. You can't have it both ways. Either children have value to society at large and we should make sure they have what they need to become good citizens or we should stay out of the process and let the women decide.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..." - Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood's legacy of racism and eugenics is firmly established through its founder Margaret Sanger

One quote by a nutcase does not prove anything. If I quote Rev. Fred Phelps does that mean that you agree with him? Gen, are you really saying that because of a quote by Sanger that ALL Planned Parenthood people are eugenic racists? C'mon, you aren't that dumb.

You don't have a right to kill another human being that is no threat to your life, it is a violation of their right to life.

You don't have the right to violate someone else's rights to make them obey your moral beliefs. The fetus CAN be a threat to a woman's life--look up the stats on deaths due to pregnancy for women who have NO HEALTH INSURANCE. You want to ban them from abortions, but you don't want to help them get medical care either. If you don't care enough to help then you should shut up about their decisions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You don't really expect them to do research for information that would discredit their deepest held beliefs, do you? That would be too rational.

http://disweb.org/cda/issues/pas/golden3.html

•OTHER SUPPOSED SAFEGUARDS. In Oregon's law and this bill, doctors are not supposed to write a lethal prescription under inappropriate conditions which are defined in the law. This is seen as a supposed safeguard. But what's happened in several cases in Oregon is "doctor shopping" - if one physician refuses assisted suicide because the patient doesn't meet the conditions in the law, another physician is sought who will approve it, often one who's an assisted suicide advocate. Such was the case of Kate Cheney, age 85, whose case was described in The Oregonian in October 1999. Her doctor refused to prescribe the lethal medication, because he thought the request was actually the result of pressure by an assertive daughter who was stuck with caregiving, rather than the free choice of the mother. So the family found another doctor, and Ms. Cheney is now dead.

There is one safeguard in this bill - for HMO's and doctors: the "good faith" standard. This "safeguard" provides that no person will be subject to any form of legal liability if they claim that they acted in "good faith." A claimed "good faith" belief that the requirements of the law are satisfied is virtually impossible to disprove, rendering all other proposed "safeguards" effectively unenforceable.


•THIS SO-CALLED NARROW PROPOSAL WILL INEVITABLY EXPAND. As the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law wrote, "Once society authorizes assisted suicide for...terminally ill patients experiencing unrelievable suffering, it will be difficult if not impossible to contain the option to such a limited group. Individuals who are not (able to make the choice for themselves), who are not terminally ill, or who cannot self-administer lethal drugs will also seek the option of assisted suicide, and no principled basis will exist to deny (it)."[5]

The longest experience we have with assisted suicide is in the Netherlands, where not only assisted suicide but also active euthanasia is practiced. The Netherlands is a very frightening laboratory experiment where, because of assisted suicide and euthanasia, "Pressure for improved palliative care appears to have evaporated."[6] Assisted suicide and euthanasia have become, not just the exception, but the rule for people with terminal illness.

"Over the past two decades, the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Once the Dutch accepted assisted suicide it was not possible legally or morally to deny more active medical (assistance to die), i.e. euthanasia, to those who could not effect their own deaths. Nor could they deny assisted suicide or euthanasia to the chronically ill who have longer to suffer than the terminally ill or to those who have psychological pain not associated with physical disease. To do so would be a form of discrimination. Involuntary euthanasia has been justified as necessitated by the need to make decisions for patients not competent to choose for themselves."[7] In other words, for a substantial number of people in the Netherlands, doctors have decided patients should die without consultation with the patients.

Furthermore, assisted suicide proponents and medical personnel alike have documented how taking lethal drugs by mouth is often ineffective in fulfilling its intended purpose. The body expels the drugs through vomiting, or the person falls into a lengthy state of unconsciousness rather than dying promptly, as so-called "death with dignity" advocates wish. Such ineffective suicide attempts can happen in a substantial percentage of cases -- estimates range from 15% to 25%. The way to prevent these "problems," in the view of euthanasia advocates, is by legalizing lethal injections by doctors, which is active euthanasia. This is an inevitable next step if society first accepts assisted suicide as a legitimate legal option.

Well, first off it takes two doctors and not just one to make the decision. Second, if there was actually proof of murder, then the people and the doctor would be charged--Heaven knows there are enough people out there waiting for a chance to prove that the law doesn't work.

Your slippery slope argument is a fantasy just like the endless drug war based on the same slippery slope idea was pointless.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You do not have a right to the labor of another individual.
You do not have a right to kill another human being that is no threat to your life.
You want to use force against people in violation of their rights. That is not compassion, it is oppression.

As do you, we just use force in different places. You would force women to labor for society in 9 month stints. I would cap income at a million dollars a year and no one would be required to work more than that if they didn't want to. Rich people don't work because they have to, they do it because they are driven.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nor do I save to the point where it becomes selective breeding as is pointed out in your last sentence.
Then I have to ask, why did you ignore Websters fitsrt definition of Eugenics: "concerned with, or encouraging the the PRODUCTION of healthy children" Obviously abortion eliminates this goal.
However, is that not the excuse used by the abortion supporters, "quality of life"? So, in that context abortion is eugenics.
Women can control their own bodies. However, they have no right to control the body of another unless you regard that other life as nothing more then property of the woman ("owner") subject to her whims.

Then too, it is always the argument of the pro-abortion people that the child does not deserve to live simply because the woman may be poor; there is a physical defect in the unborn entity; or it may inconvenience society as a whole, or the woman in particular, to have to care for the child once it is born. That too is eugenics.
The Court in deciding Roe also stated that if it were ever to be decided that life began at conception then their ruling would be moot. However, even though the vast majority of scientists believe that life does begin at conception, the pro-abortion supporters fight every attempt to make this belief so. As an example, when Tommy Thompson was director of DHHS under Bush he wanted to make prenatal care the law of the land. People such as yourself would not allow this to happen since it would appear to regard the unborn child as a "life", and would be an attack on the "right" to an abortion.

A woman doesn't want to have a baby, then it's not eugenics for her to have it aborted, it's personal decision about her own body. For you to say that you know why a woman does it is disingenuous because there is no way for you to know what goes on in her mind in making the decision.

The only way it could be eugenics is if other people are in on the decision and it's made for the reasons I posted in the definition of eugenics.

 

[GenSeneca]

You forgot the US, we've been violating individual rights too for a long time according to GenSeca. Because you can point to bad examples doesn't mean that every other instance will work the same. Sweden hasn't started mass murder, but George Bush did in our name. Norway hasn't either, nor Costa Rica, but they will pretty soon, right?

More than 50 million already dead and another 1 million per year, thanks to the violation of individual rights.

You're losing it, Gen, you're getting angry and it's messing with your perceptions. I NEVER said that anyone should be stripped of their rights and killed or forced out of the country.

Oh... Did you find it irritating that someone would claim you held a position you do not hold? For some reason it doesn't stop you from making outlandish claims about things I've NEVER said...

You can't have it both ways.

Is that not what you want? If a woman chooses to abort her child you want me to pay for it... If she chooses to keep the child, you want me to pay for it... Why is it that you can have it both ways?

One quote by a nutcase does not prove anything.

You seemed to think one quote from one nutcase was enough when you were quoting Noam Chomsky.

You don't have the right to violate someone else's rights to make them obey your moral beliefs.

But it is you who wants the power to do that, the whole forced redistribution of wealth is you forcing your morality on others in violation of their rights.

As for abortion... Should we repeal the laws that make Murder illegal?

The fetus CAN be a threat to a woman's life

It's not a fetus, it's a human being... Which is why I specifically said: You have no right to kill another human being that is no threat to your life.

If you don't care enough to help then you should shut up about their decisions.

That's strange... You want to decide how much people can make, who gets how much in redistribution, where the money goes, how they can spend it, etc. etc. So you want to put yourself in charge of other peoples decisions when their decisions have nothing to do with them violating the individual rights of other people.

At the same time, I'm the bad guy because I don't want my rights violated in order to pay for people to violate the rights of others.

 

[GenSeneca]

As do you, we just use force in different places.

You want to use force to violate rights, I do not.

Do you have a right to murder another human being who is no threat to your life?

Rich people don't work because they have to, they do it because they are driven.

And you think that justifies you violating their rights and turning them into slaves?