Mercy killing is not a crime – it is a brave and selfless act of love
- Thread starter EnglishLady
- Start date
We should NOT be paying to raise them. That is just wrong. Killing is always a better idea than requiring the offending "parents" to live up to their responsibilities. I wonder, has anyone ever heard of ADOPTION? Oh yeah, easier kill them.
Put your $ where your mouth is.....how many are you going to adopt??
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
I don't have too. I RAISED my kids, both of them. I lived up to my responsibility. That is all that I have to do. You see, that is the entire problem, we think that we all are responsible for OTHERS responsibilities, we are not. Or at least we should not be. The entire mess is caused by the "welfare state" that rewards bad behavior and punishes a real work ethic. Want to stop this? Stop the "freebies". NO free welfare, NO public money for those who CHOSE to have babies and REFUSE to accept the responsibilities that come with adult actions.
I agree 100% w/ you ..problem is there will always be all.of.these children born to parents who won't raise them ...now what...you don't.want em ...unless I can raise them in a cargo van I'm no help.....so is adoption the answer.....sounds good not practical....people don't like to hear it but let's be proactive and don't let it even get to this point......better than free abortions...start cuting and tying tubes for free!!!! Better yet give people 5,000 if they will get fixed.....cheaper than 18 yrs of all these "unwanted" kids ........
UOTE=layoutshooter;415052]I don't have too. I RAISED my kids, both of them. I lived up to my responsibility. That is all that I have to do. You see, that is the entire problem, we think that we all are responsible for OTHERS responsibilities, we are not. Or at least we should not be. The entire mess is caused by the "welfare state" that rewards bad behavior and punishes a real work ethic. Want to stop this? Stop the "freebies". NO free welfare, NO public money for those who CHOSE to have babies and REFUSE to accept the responsibilities that come with adult actions.[/QUOTE]
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
UOTE=layoutshooter;415052]I don't have too. I RAISED my kids, both of them. I lived up to my responsibility. That is all that I have to do. You see, that is the entire problem, we think that we all are responsible for OTHERS responsibilities, we are not. Or at least we should not be. The entire mess is caused by the "welfare state" that rewards bad behavior and punishes a real work ethic. Want to stop this? Stop the "freebies". NO free welfare, NO public money for those who CHOSE to have babies and REFUSE to accept the responsibilities that come with adult actions.[/QUOTE]
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Yes, it is a REAL problem. The problem starts with excusing living like animals and paying people to do it. We have to get back to teaching responsible living and EXPECTING people to live that way.
Adoption is practical. The problem here is we DISCOURAGE it. We make is far too difficult and expensive to adopt in this country.
One of my very good hunting buddies, and his wife, found that they were not able to have anymore children. They are young enough for the job of child rearing and have the means to support more children. The found the cost and road blocks to adoption in this country not worth the effort. SO, they went to China and adopted a little girl there. All are doing well, they are wonderful, responsible parents.
They were "discouraged" from adopting children of "other races" here. The requirements for bedrooms and bathrooms for in country adoptions were just plain stupid. An in country adoption REQUIRED a separate bedroom for the adopted child. Now tell me, has any American EVER put two kids in the same bedroom? If so, did it hurt them? How stupid.
The problem is the government. They get in the way of REAL life and it is not by accident.
There is NO need for MOST of the abortions in this country. There is NO need to start tying tubes. There IS a need to get back to the real basics of personal responsibility AND smoothing the road and lowering the ridiculous costs of in country adoptions.
Adoption is practical. The problem here is we DISCOURAGE it. We make is far too difficult and expensive to adopt in this country.
One of my very good hunting buddies, and his wife, found that they were not able to have anymore children. They are young enough for the job of child rearing and have the means to support more children. The found the cost and road blocks to adoption in this country not worth the effort. SO, they went to China and adopted a little girl there. All are doing well, they are wonderful, responsible parents.
They were "discouraged" from adopting children of "other races" here. The requirements for bedrooms and bathrooms for in country adoptions were just plain stupid. An in country adoption REQUIRED a separate bedroom for the adopted child. Now tell me, has any American EVER put two kids in the same bedroom? If so, did it hurt them? How stupid.
The problem is the government. They get in the way of REAL life and it is not by accident.
There is NO need for MOST of the abortions in this country. There is NO need to start tying tubes. There IS a need to get back to the real basics of personal responsibility AND smoothing the road and lowering the ridiculous costs of in country adoptions.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I have a serious question for those who think he is doing the right thing.
If you are so against the government forcing themselves into your life on the subject of medical decisions or having a hand in end of life decisions, how can you even think of supporting this guy when his purpose is to change the mind of the public and create medical access for those who are involved with end of life issues by having the government involved in the first place?
A follow up question is: Do you actually think he wanted it any other way but to have the government involved?
I feel that if you are the type that doesn't get what he is all about but feels the government has no business being involved and that he is actually doing everyone a great service, then you need to clearly understand two important facts;
1 - that this issue was never an issue for most of the public because it was something that was between the doctor and the patient AND THAT IS A PRIVATE MATTER.
2 - He alone damaged that very important relationship the doctor has with the patient by interjecting his beliefs about a subject that wasn't talked about, but dealt with case by case - doctor by doctor. He alone forced the government, hospitals, insurance companies, but more importantly family members of someone terminal to second guess the doctor with their motives and/or their actions. AND this stopped a lot of people from getting not just end of life help but other things, like drugs that helped them but were not allowed to be prescribe for their condition.
SO to me you can't support him and want the government out of the decision making process because he helped the government come into the process by kicking the door down and shoving them into the room.
Yes I think that is worst than Charles Manson.
If you are so against the government forcing themselves into your life on the subject of medical decisions or having a hand in end of life decisions, how can you even think of supporting this guy when his purpose is to change the mind of the public and create medical access for those who are involved with end of life issues by having the government involved in the first place?
A follow up question is: Do you actually think he wanted it any other way but to have the government involved?
I feel that if you are the type that doesn't get what he is all about but feels the government has no business being involved and that he is actually doing everyone a great service, then you need to clearly understand two important facts;
1 - that this issue was never an issue for most of the public because it was something that was between the doctor and the patient AND THAT IS A PRIVATE MATTER.
2 - He alone damaged that very important relationship the doctor has with the patient by interjecting his beliefs about a subject that wasn't talked about, but dealt with case by case - doctor by doctor. He alone forced the government, hospitals, insurance companies, but more importantly family members of someone terminal to second guess the doctor with their motives and/or their actions. AND this stopped a lot of people from getting not just end of life help but other things, like drugs that helped them but were not allowed to be prescribe for their condition.
SO to me you can't support him and want the government out of the decision making process because he helped the government come into the process by kicking the door down and shoving them into the room.
Yes I think that is worst than Charles Manson.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Greg wrote:
With that statement , there is no credibilty to anything that you have written on this topic....
Again as I stated, yes you can make a case for how he dealt with the etablished policies and establishment itself...but has I said, he did not seek out the people that CAME to him, he simply did what their own doctors / the establishment wouldn't , abide by their wishes....
With that statement , there is no credibilty to anything that you have written on this topic....
Again as I stated, yes you can make a case for how he dealt with the etablished policies and establishment itself...but has I said, he did not seek out the people that CAME to him, he simply did what their own doctors / the establishment wouldn't , abide by their wishes....
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Really, how about yours ...
Let's see, when you put into the context of the actual ramifications of his actions, then your statement is rather a fallacy at best.
First there were no established policies, this was an issue between the doctor and the patient, not the doctor, the patient and the hospital lawyer or the doctor, the patient and the end of life advisor but between the doctor and the patient. He forced hospitals to watch doctors while their lawyers looked at the liabilities that the doctors caused if they were caught.
Second he actually did seek out patients, his activists stunts tied the publicity was an advertisement of his services which again negatively impacted the actual issue of privacy because of his method of concealment of an event then publicizing the event to gain more exposure while causing more of an examination to take place within the medical community.
He acted in a selfish manner, causing doctors to stop helping patients end their lives, hence his actions caused the suffering of more than the 130 patients that is claimed he has directly helped.
I think you don't see the negitive impact of his actions but think in terms of rights and all of that. If he kept it quiet and helped without making a cause out of it, the doctors who actually were stopped would have helped him with his cause. BUT that wasn't the case. Instead he forced an issue that wasn't an issue into the public spotlight and got everyone involved when no one needed to get involved. There were no doctor or spouse assisted suicides laws making it a crime until he brought it to the spot light. Now if a husband helps his wife died with dignity, then it is a crime - pretty bad I would say.
I still stand by the Manson comment. If he has stopped one person from receiving relief from their doctor because of his personal beliefs and he did so he is worst than Manson.
Again I'm glad you are so perfect and never make mistakes
...you comment on everything on here like your opinion is the gospel.....always telling everybody how it is .... can you render the thought that your possibly wrong....u have this conspiracy theory on the man......can't it be he just wanted to help people?? And comparing him to mason just shows your train of thought.....believe it or not there are good people out there..........
QUOTE=greg334;415083]Really, how about yours ...
.
Let's see, when you put into the context of the actual ramifications of his actions, then your statement is rather a fallacy at best.
First there were no established policies, this was an issue between the doctor and the patient, not the doctor, the patient and the hospital lawyer or the doctor, the patient and the end of life advisor but between the doctor and the patient. He forced hospitals to watch doctors while their lawyers looked at the liabilities that the doctors caused if they were caught.
Second he actually did seek out patients, his activists stunts tied the publicity was an advertisement of his services which again negatively impacted the actual issue of privacy because of his method of concealment of an event then publicizing the event to gain more exposure while causing more of an examination to take place within the medical community.
He acted in a selfish manner, causing doctors to stop helping patients end their lives, hence his actions caused the suffering of more than the 130 patients that is claimed he has directly helped.
I think you don't see the negitive impact of his actions but think in terms of rights and all of that. If he kept it quiet and helped without making a cause out of it, the doctors who actually were stopped would have helped him with his cause. BUT that wasn't the case. Instead he forced an issue that wasn't an issue into the public spotlight and got everyone involved when no one needed to get involved. There were no doctor or spouse assisted suicides laws making it a crime until he brought it to the spot light. Now if a husband helps his wife died with dignity, then it is a crime - pretty bad I would say.
I still stand by the Manson comment. If he has stopped one person from receiving relief from their doctor because of his personal beliefs and he did so he is worst than Manson.[/QUOTE]
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
...you comment on everything on here like your opinion is the gospel.....always telling everybody how it is .... can you render the thought that your possibly wrong....u have this conspiracy theory on the man......can't it be he just wanted to help people?? And comparing him to mason just shows your train of thought.....believe it or not there are good people out there..........
QUOTE=greg334;415083]Really, how about yours ...
.
Let's see, when you put into the context of the actual ramifications of his actions, then your statement is rather a fallacy at best.
First there were no established policies, this was an issue between the doctor and the patient, not the doctor, the patient and the hospital lawyer or the doctor, the patient and the end of life advisor but between the doctor and the patient. He forced hospitals to watch doctors while their lawyers looked at the liabilities that the doctors caused if they were caught.
Second he actually did seek out patients, his activists stunts tied the publicity was an advertisement of his services which again negatively impacted the actual issue of privacy because of his method of concealment of an event then publicizing the event to gain more exposure while causing more of an examination to take place within the medical community.
He acted in a selfish manner, causing doctors to stop helping patients end their lives, hence his actions caused the suffering of more than the 130 patients that is claimed he has directly helped.
I think you don't see the negitive impact of his actions but think in terms of rights and all of that. If he kept it quiet and helped without making a cause out of it, the doctors who actually were stopped would have helped him with his cause. BUT that wasn't the case. Instead he forced an issue that wasn't an issue into the public spotlight and got everyone involved when no one needed to get involved. There were no doctor or spouse assisted suicides laws making it a crime until he brought it to the spot light. Now if a husband helps his wife died with dignity, then it is a crime - pretty bad I would say.
I still stand by the Manson comment. If he has stopped one person from receiving relief from their doctor because of his personal beliefs and he did so he is worst than Manson.[/QUOTE]
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
greg334
Veteran Expediter
OK I will make this really simple for you, seeing you are not reading what I'm saying.
I have not said a word about the subject of mercy killing - whether it is right or wrong. I have not to interject the ethical and moral obligations involved with killing another human being when they are suffering. I have not said if it is a crime or not. So my perfection or lack of has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.
What I have said is that the relationship AND PRIVACY between the doctor and the patient is RUINED by the actions of one man.
What I have said is that the government's involvement in YOUR LIFE began with his actions. It didn't begin with Obama care or Clinton's attempt to take over health care, it didn't begin with the congress but it began with this guy.
What I have said is Doctors are more reluctant or refusing to provide any life ending services because they are under a constant legal vigil thanks to this man.
What I have said was before this guy got involved, it wasn't an ISSUE because it was between the doctor and patient, it wasn't discussed, it wasn't treated as a crime and it wasn't scrutinized by the hospitals, lawyers or law enforcement.
What I have said is that the DIRECT HELP he provided for the 130 people PALES in comparison to the help that he prevented to the thousands who no longer had that option.
What I maintain along is that his actions caused the suffering of others as a result of his crusade to drag the government into the subject of medical care, which to me is worst than what Manson did or could ever do. You can't take the position that he did good for people while screaming that you don't want government involved in YOUR LIFE.
No where did I say that his work wasn't the right thing to do for those who he helped.
HOWEVER THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING ABOUT THE GUY.
Greg just hates him because he drives a GM
Posted with my iPhone EO Forum App
Posted with my iPhone EO Forum App
Let me make this simple for you...as you might think I am not.an idiot ......don't talk down to me 1 st and for most !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I ge t 100% what you are saying it ...his actions caused these problems......my point is I don't think his.grand plan was for.all of this to happen ....he wanted to help people and what happened happened ...again don't talk to me in like I'm a child period.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
I ge t 100% what you are saying it ...his actions caused these problems......my point is I don't think his.grand plan was for.all of this to happen ....he wanted to help people and what happened happened ...again don't talk to me in like I'm a child period.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well I sincerely apologize for my delivery, it isn't meant to talk down to you but it has been something that I have argued with people for years who just don't get the real issues and only want to see what they want to see.
The need to help people is one thing, but he isn't an outsider who just discovered that there is no recourse for their loved ones but he was a professional who knew exactly what was going on but ignored the practices of the doctors and patients to provide care that worked. Until he went on this crusade, he never had patients or dealt with the issues of dying.
Who decides when you die?. My Uncle was diagnosed with terminal Prostate & bone cancer in August 1996 @ age 83. He was immediately was slapped into Intensive Care for three days, then into a room. The hospital was clearly thinking of SS\Medicare money for a few months at least. When they learned he had never filed for SS so was ineligible for Medicare insurance, I was called and asked how soon could I get him out of there.
A hosiptal will keep you alive for ever if someone is paying for it.
A hosiptal will keep you alive for ever if someone is paying for it.
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
Who decides when you die?. My Uncle was diagnosed with terminal Prostate & bone cancer in August 1996 @ age 83. He was immediately was slapped into Intensive Care for three days, then into a room. The hospital was clearly thinking of SS\Medicare money for a few months at least. When they learned he had never filed for SS so was ineligible for Medicare insurance, I was called and asked how soon could I get him out of there.
A hosiptal will keep you alive for ever if someone is paying for it.
So what would happen to a patient if there were no known relatives/friends?
This is only my own opinion.
But if a person has Insurance. Private or State or Federal Government I firmly believe a hospital or rest home Will do what ever they can to keep the money coming in.
But if a person has Insurance. Private or State or Federal Government I firmly believe a hospital or rest home Will do what ever they can to keep the money coming in.