|
I've always found it interesting that
most societies insist that human beings endure incurable medical
conditions which cause great discomfort and/or pain, when if we had a PET
with the exact same condition the accepted belief is that "the kindest
thing to do" is put the animal to sleep...
It doesn't make
much sense that if Fifi or Rover has incurable cancer, for example, it is
considered CRUEL to have the animal suffer, and yet that is exactly what
we demand human beings do; if it is CRUEL to expect an animal to suffer a
certain condition, why isn't it also considered cruel to demand that human
beings suffer that exact same condition?
It should be up to
each individual to decide their own fate; I like the Netherlands' model,
where a patient signs a pact with their doctor authorizing VOLUNTARY
euthanasia when the patient reaches a certain point in their medical
condition...
But this subject is like the argument for and
against abortion -- all the arguments in the world are never going to sway
the opposing side, those who are 'for' (abortion or voluntary euthanasia)
will always be 'for', and those who are 'against' (abortion or voluntary
euthanasia) will always be 'against', no matter the number or quality of
arguments presented opposing either stance...
June
-------Original Message-------
Date: Saturday, January 25, 2003
11:29:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] Read This
WHITEHOUSE.ORG Article IMMEDIATELY!
-Caveat Lector-
And I hope you are never in
a situation where your are in incurable pain day
in and day out and are
prevented from ending your life and forced to live in
misery because
someone, for you own good, made it illegal for you to die
when you
wish.
on 01/25/03 9:51 PM, Zuukie at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
>
You missed the words "voluntary" followed by population control.
>
International Planned Parenthood isn't about doing favors for women
who
> find themselves carrying a child and then decide to change
the
> situation. If so, this largest providing abortion operation
would be in
> the business of providing free abortions. The idea is
to keep
> population numbers down, particularly numbers of those who
they feel are
> a drain on society. Here where money is available to
pay for abortions,
> the goal is to sell the idea to gullible women
in ways that are no
> different than telling them that certain
cosmetics will enhance their
> lifestyle. There is no difference
between parents feeding their babies
> to Moloch for population
control and abortion on demand. Take a good
> look at population
control measures under the UN and International
> Planned Parenthood
in third world countries.
>
> If it was just a matter of
letting women have "control over their own
> bodies" there wouldn't
be such an attack on people who are pro-life:
> throwing law suit
after lawsuit against in an attempt to bankrupt them,
> attempting
to stop them in every way possible from dissuading women
> against
abortion, creating situation where parents do not have knowledge
>
of what is happening to their female children's bodies. If
pro-lifers
> were given free reign, population numbers would go up,
something the
> controllers do not wish to allow. The bottom line is
that the rich in
> society cannot afford to support in any way
"useless" eaters.
>
> "Choice" over one's death is another con
game being played by the
> population controllers. Old people cost
the government and medical
> insurance companies too much money. So,
what's to be done? Convince
> the elderly that what is being done to
them is a burden on their
> families. (Ever watch the films played
in the hospitals? I have.) Get
> them to sign pieces of paper which
say the doctors can determine if
> their lives have value beyond
what the costs to keep them alive are. I
> have a friend whose
husband was sent home "to die" with hospice care,
> saying he needed
no further treatment beyond a visiting nurse. He's
> been alive for
seven years now. Did you ever have a HMO doctor rush a
> relative
with pneumonia out of the hospital because the HMO only would
> pay
for three days in the hospital? He had refused over and over again
>
to sign a "living will" to their disappointment.
>
> Thew, I
hope you never find yourself in a situation where the value of
>
your life is out of your hands because someone convinced those
around
> you that your life had no value. There is nothing that
limits a
> culture's respect for life to those who survive birth and
who are
> somewhere before a quick death. Respect for the life of
another is a
> very subtle thing. How strange that a woman can
determine that her
> child's life has no value and society accepts
this. Destroy aspects of
> respect for life and you destroy your own
future. Are you going to wait
> until someone proposes public
guidelines as to which lives are of value?
> Are you aware that at
the Nuremberg trials it was determined that it all
> started with a
little book called "Release of a Life Devoid of Value?"
|
