Euthanasia, Eugenics, "approved" murder

"Soon after Hiltler took power, the Nazis formulated policy based on their vision of biologically "pure" population, to create an "Aryan master race." The "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases," proclaimed July 14, 1933, forced the sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases considered hereditary, such as mental illness (schizophfrenia and manic depression), retardation ("congenital feeble-mindedness"), physical deformithy, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcolholism."

www.holocaust-trc.org...


It would appear history is about to repeat itself yet again. This article indicates just how germany went from "jews" can't swim in public pools to the death camps. How can't america continue to "murder" the weak, the innocent, and have its "politicians" stand on the floor of the congress and "justify" the actions.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
It would appear history is about to repeat itself yet again. This article indicates just how germany went from "jews" can't swim in public pools to the death camps. How can't america continue to "murder" the weak, the innocent, and have its "politicians" stand on the floor of the congress and "justify" the actions.

how is history repeating itself in this way? i haven't heard that assisted suicide is alowed. is it alowed now? if not what weak and innocent are they killing, and how?

Originally posted by drogo
how is history repeating itself in this way? i haven't heard that assisted suicide is alowed. is it alowed now? if not what weak and innocent are they killing, and how?

Besides the "terri" case, hundreds of victims are "starved" each year with the process used. It is becoming an "economic" issue. Just as in Nazi germany in the 30's.

How can't america continue to "murder" the weak, the innocent, and have its "politicians" stand on the floor of the congress and "justify" the actions.

I am confused here. Are you saying US politicians are doing this, or something else?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

How can't america continue to "murder" the weak, the innocent, and have its "politicians" stand on the floor of the congress and "justify" the actions.

I am confused here. Are you saying US politicians are doing this, or something else?

Yes, during the "debate" on the floor of the "house" sunday night over the "terri" case, there were several who defended starving a hanicapped woman to death. It just evil.

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by drogo
how is history repeating itself in this way? i haven't heard that assisted suicide is alowed. is it alowed now? if not what weak and innocent are they killing, and how?

Besides the "terri" case, hundreds of victims are "starved" each year with the process used. It is becoming an "economic" issue. Just as in Nazi germany in the 30's.

You're aware it's laws like the Texas Futlie Care Law then Govenor Bush signed in 1999 that allows Hospitals to withdraw life supportive measures even against the wishes of the family aren't you?

You must be aware as you framed it correctly as an "economic" issue. Hospital/healthcare profits. And who is beholden to their political action committees?

Why hold back now Horacid? You think Bush is Hitler, right?

i hadn't heard of this before now. yes that is severly wrong. especialy since starvation is an added cruelty.
as for the life support removal that would depend on the situation like how long someone has been on life support. personaly i hope i never have to decide wheather or not to remove someone's life support. we have a guy at work that was in a coma i believe over a year. yes he is handicapped but he does not let it stop him. he was even able to regain his driver's licence finaly his proudest achivement to date. he was a medium haul trucker before his accident.

Originally posted by drogo
i hadn't heard of this before now. yes that is severly wrong. especialy since starvation is an added cruelty.
as for the life support removal that would depend on the situation like how long someone has been on life support. personaly i hope i never have to decide wheather or not to remove someone's life support. we have a guy at work that was in a coma i believe over a year. yes he is handicapped but he does not let it stop him. he was even able to regain his driver's licence finaly his proudest achivement to date. he was a medium haul trucker before his accident.

This is precisely why the "terri" case is so dangerous. There are far many more people that are in comma's that wake=up than the mainstream media wants anyone to know. In the "terri" case they are withholding food and water to a handicapped sick woman. The world won't allow that to happen to Abu graib terrorist why a sick woman who's never harmed anyone?

Do you know why the torture is going on? It is because conservatives block any type of steps forward on active euthanasia. Like I stated earlier today, what is Dr. Kevorkian doing now?

The fact remains that this is not an economics issue. The current issue is about guardian rights and people trying to change that...as far as Terri's case goes.

Eugenics has not been approved. I have no clue where you got this idea. Please, lets look it up.

Eugenics eu-gen-ics

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

Now, I would love to know where the controlled selective breeding is taking place? After all, I wanna know where I can join in. Definitley not in this over-sexed society. There is hardly a soul who isn't passing on genetic information right this second. I fail to see where that parrallel is. Alcoholics are still passing on their alcoholic genes. And the mildly retarded are passing on their genes. Sickle Cell Anemiacs still pass on those genes...and so on and so forth...

Active euthanasia is not only good, but necessary in this day and age. Especially when we can have someone on life support forever. Is it moral to leave a person trapped in their "cell" for an extra twenty years?

Yes, people come out of comas, but their guardian chooses to let them stay on the machines. But, I believe the guardian should choose that for them...whoever it may be. Whether by law or living will...the chosen guardian should be the decision maker on this issue.

Now, if this is a family issue...does that sound anything like Hitler's plan? Well? It doesn't. Today's euthanasia is not the government unplugging you. It is your guardian choosing that it is time for you to pass on or to see if you can come back. Hitler just ordered people murdered...so poo-poo on your argument. There is no legitimate connection...only a half-assed mele mouthed display of ignorance going undenied.

And one last thing I'm sure everyone can agree on. Hitler did not do euthanasia. To say that is to belittle the word and strike fear within other people. It is intellectually dishonest to call what he did euthanasia when they had to create a word for his actions, genocide.

Originally posted by OXmanK
Eugenics has not been approved. I have no clue where you got this idea. Please, lets look it up.

Eugenics doesn't need to be approved to be happening. Negative eugenics has been practiced in this country for years. People abort 'sub-normal' fetuses daily for their own selfish reasons, reducing the value of human life to a set of probabilities and genetic 'predispositions.' Eugenics has a long and sordid history in this country. If you're really interested, read "War on the Weak," By Edwin Black.... great perspective and history on eugenics in America. For a more up to date story on eugenics in America, please read: Backdoor to Eugenics, by Troy Duster. This book offers an extraordinary perspective on the ways in which the eugenics movement is 'backdooring' itself back into mainstream acceptance.

And I would love for you to read a few things. Most importantly, the post above yours. And further more, the definition of eugenics. I don't really feel like reposting it. I guess in a "if you squint your eyes in the right way" you could call aborting the sub-normal fetuses eugenics, but I don't believe so. And besides, I doubt it is backdooring itself anyway. The only type of eugenics that we have is our own choice on who and who not to screw...

Originally posted by OXmanK
And I would love for you to read a few things. Most importantly, the post above yours. And further more, the definition of eugenics. [

The post above mine was pretty uninformative. And while appreciate your attempt to educate me re: the definition of eugenics, perhaps YOU should look up the definition of eugenics. It's certainly much more encompassing than your post would have us believe.

I guess in a "if you squint your eyes in the right way" you could call aborting the sub-normal fetuses eugenics, but I don't believe so.

Hmmmm..... maybe if you actually tried something radical, like actually reading something about eugenics BEFORE commenting about it, you'd understand how aborting 'sub-normal' fetuses (something that happens daily in this country) IS negative eugenics.

And besides, I doubt it is backdooring itself anyway. The only type of eugenics that we have is our own choice on who and who not to screw...

Profound statement.... seemingly based in total ignorance about what's actually happening in this country, and the world in fact. Classic; you obviously don't know a thing about eugenics, yet post like you're an authority.

Let's watch the tone folks.

For starters, I don't know if the link you provided changed, but it is all roughly the same definition. I don't know how many times you can reproduce, "The study of hereditary improvement by selective breeding." Oh, wait...ten more times. One difference; one of them tells of the early 20th century, in Canada, about the movement there.

Sorry for not making myself clear enough. In my opinion, it is "negative eugenics" if you believe that aborting "mentally deficient" children is actually done to clean up the gene pool or other dubious intentions. I tend to believe that goes into the euthanasia category. I don't think any mother is thinking that she doesn't want her child to grow up and procreate or anybody on the outside looking in on the issue. Most of them are doing that so the kid does not have to have a daily struggle to live. I'm pretty sure it is heartbreaking for any parent to have to do. And I am damn sure parents are not doing this with an ulterior motive.

Not an authority...just many opinions. I formed some of them from a medical ethics class. I have done reading...and I just have my opinion on it. I guess we are just going to agree to disagree. Mainly because I don't see either of us budging an inch on it.

Originally posted by OXmanK
In my opinion, it is "negative eugenics" if you believe that aborting "mentally deficient" children is actually done to clean up the gene pool or other dubious intentions. I tend to believe that goes into the euthanasia category. I don't think any mother is thinking that she doesn't want her child to grow up and procreate or anybody on the outside looking in on the issue. Most of them are doing that so the kid does not have to have a daily struggle to live. I'm pretty sure it is heartbreaking for any parent to have to do. And I am damn sure parents are not doing this with an ulterior motive.

Well, I actually believe people do it because they don't want children that aren't 'normal.' Children with Down's Syndrome don't have to stuggle to live, neither do children with disorders such as cleft pallate. People are making these choices for their own selfish reasons. Do you know anyone with Down's Syndrome? Ever spent ANY significant amount of time with a mentally disabled person? It's doubtful. If you did, you'd realized that mentally disabled individuals live lives that ARE important to them, irrespective about how you or I feel about it. Mentally disabled and physically disabled people can and do live fulfilling lives, and enrich the lives of those around them.

Not an authority...just many opinions. I formed some of them from a medical ethics class. I have done reading...and I just have my opinion on it. I guess we are just going to agree to disagree. Mainly because I don't see either of us budging an inch on it.

I can agree to disagree, but I don't want to reduce eugenic tendencies to the concept of individual choice, that's all.

Not mentally, but terribly physically challenged. Two of my friends have brothers who have, I believe it is called, Hunter's Syndrome. It is horrible. There are some diseases and birth defects that can hinder someone to the point of a daily struggle to live.

And, yes I have spent time with a child with Down's. They are capable of having a fulfilling life. But, aren't many of them born sterile? As awful as aborting them is, I just don't view it as eugenics.

I can agree to disagree, but I don't want to reduce eugenic tendencies to the concept of individual choice, that's all.

Ok...I can agree to that...

Originally posted by OXmanK
But, aren't many of them born sterile?

My understanding is that MOST of the boys are sterile. Females with Down's have given birth to healthy children. I personally know of a single incident wherein a Down's boy fathered a child. Heard about it just recently at an AZ special olympics.