Laying the Netherlands to Sleep - A Beacon Of Liberalism Is Rotting From The Inside Out
Sound of Trumpet
Laying the Netherlands to Sleep (a beacon of liberalism worldwide is
rotting from the inside out)
ic ^ | October 14, 2009 | Joseph Meaney
Posted on 15 October 2009 00:20:12 by NYer
On my most recent visit to Amsterdam for the World Congress of
Families (WCF), I was once again struck by the remarkable façade of
peaceful, tolerant prosperity the Dutch maintain. Although its famous
openness to lust and license is ever more apparent, Amsterdam's charm
remains in its tidy homes, shops, museums, and beautiful (though
empty) churches.
The simple fact, however, is that this beacon of liberalism worldwide
is rotting from the inside out and must increasingly rely on deception
to keep up appearances as a nation of tolerance, peace, and
prosperity.
That was made nowhere more apparent than at the WCF, a biannual event
that brings together pro-family and pro-life persons from around the
globe. The mainstream press debated the acceptability of allowing it
to take place in Amsterdam and condemned the participation of Dutch
elected officials in the congress. Anarchist anti-family protestors
trashed the WCF office and spray-painted messages with slogans like
"Christian Fundamentalists Go Home and Die" and "Pro-Choice" on the
walls leading up to the conference center. City workers removed the
graffiti within a few hours of its appearance in a remarkable
demonstration of efficiency.
Dutch authorities have become quite adept at painting over the anti-
family and anti-life attitudes that are eroding not only the last
vestiges of their rich culture but what remains of the Dutch people
themselves. Their total population is 16.7 million; those 65 or older
make up almost 15 percent of the inhabitants (as opposed to the United
States, whose 65-or-over citizens account for 12.8 percent of the
population). The percentage of youths aged 15 or younger is declining,
and within that demographic group is an increasing number of foreign
immigrants. It has been reported widely that the most common name
chosen for a male child born in Amsterdam today is Mohammed (as is the
case in London, Brussels, Oslo, and Copenhagen). Arguments about
religion, ethnicity, and assimilation aside, it doesn't take a trained
demographer to notice that this trend does not bode well for the
European Dutch.
This proudly progressive nation increasingly tries to maintain its air
of normalcy and prosperity by sophisticated deception. They frequently
claim their country has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world,
at 6.5 abortions per 1,000 women, or about 22,400 a year. They also
claim a very low teen pregnancy rate.
But this is simply statistical sleight of hand. Although the Dutch
faithfully use birth control, anyone who studies family planning knows
the failure rates for contraceptives are very high. Combine the
inevitable failure of pregnancy prevention with an openly promiscuous
populace, and you inevitably will see large numbers of pregnancies.
So are the Netherlands an exception to this rule? Some claim that
their "double-Dutch" method of using both hormonal contraception and
condoms works better than most other countries' birth-control
practices. Something rarely discussed in this context, however, is the
fact that it is now common practice for a woman in Holland whose
period is late to go to her general-practice physician and receive a
"menstrual extraction," or "menstrual regulation" -- a clever
euphemism for a procedure essentially consisting in manually vacuuming
the contents of her womb.
But here's the catch: In these cases, no pregnancy test is done to
determine if the procedure aborted a preborn human in the first few
days of life. Menstrual extractions are thus never recorded as
abortions, which they almost certainly are in a large number of cases.
The official Dutch statistics therefore grossly underreport the real
number of abortions.
Euthanasia is another area where the official numbers paint a
misleading picture. Dr. Henk Jochemsen, holder of the Lindeboom Chair
for Medical Ethics at the Free University in Amsterdam, reported that
the Netherlands acknowledges around 2,300 deaths by euthanasia each
year, including hundreds of patients who never explicitly requested
such a death. As if this weren't already disturbing enough, he also
revealed that over 11,000 people a year die while under "deep
sedation." This procedure is sold as a compassionate option for the
terminally ill, a way for them to end their lives with dignity. It was
originally designed to be rarely employed, and only then for patients
in their last few hours of life suffering pain that was difficult to
control.
But deep sedation as currently practiced in the Netherlands has become
a widespread form of passive euthanasia. Dr. Jochemsen explained that
the cause of death nowadays is usually not the disease but lack of
food and hydration -- in short, patients are routinely starved and
dehydrated while drugged into an unconscious state, a fact not
revealed by the doctors.
Needless to say, these deaths while under deep sedation are not
counted as euthanasia in Holland, even though they account for more
than four times as many deaths as the "official" euthanasia numbers.
(For more information on these issues, visit www.lindeboominstituut.nl.)
The land of progressivism run amok loves to proclaim itself a diverse
hedonists' paradise and an island of tolerance. Dishonest statistics
may maintain the clever illusion for a time, but the current version
of Dutch liberalism is unlikely to endure much longer. It simply
cannot be sustained: Their enthusiasm for euthanasia may wipe out the
Dutch even faster than the other European nations with below-
replacement birthrates.
Many ethnic groups have disappeared throughout the course of history,
generally by assimilation into other peoples who placed a higher value
on having children. It would be a tragedy if the unique people and
culture of the Netherlands, for love of license and convenience,
decided to cease to exist. Yet this slow suicide is already far
advanced. As European Dutch culture moves from present to past, it
seems they've chosen nationwide deep sedation.
Jon Schild
>
> Laying the Netherlands to Sleep (a beacon of liberalism worldwide is
> rotting from the inside out)
>
cater to the extreme right-wing variety of "christians" to the exclusion
of all other possible ideas.
Emma
Well not really. It makes some good points about
culture and demographic change.
Although the following isn't necessarily just
a Dutch thing:
quote:
"But deep sedation as currently practiced in the Netherlands has become
a widespread form of passive euthanasia."
end quote.
This is common in Britain too.
One of my own elderly relatives had a massive heart
attack, was terminally ill, very frail and in a lot of
pain, so he was allowed to die under deep sedation.
We don't have euthanasia here, so that is not
euthanasia in the legal sense.
Anyway, I don't care about the legality, because it was
the loving thing to do. He was never going to get better
and the only thing that was left was endless pain,
and we didn't want him to suffer like that.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
http://www.cfoi.co.uk/
Franco
wrote:
I remember a student from the Netherlands at an American university
when asked how he liked America replying, :"It's nice to be in a
country where you don't need to be so clean all the time."
Will in New Haven
One of the really odd things I have read, and admired, about the
Netherlands is how many voters are fairly traditional and religious in
their personal views on many issues but manage to vote to _mind their
own business_
--
Will in New Haven
Syd M.
wrote:
If only most American could learn to do that... <Sigh>
PDW
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Even the Dutch who came to the US in the past century or so don't seem
to have the hang of it.
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
snip crap
I think I finallly understand why theistic morons continue to claim
that post-Christian societies in Europe are in decline. It's because
they're not talking about the *usual* measures of a society's health
(wealth, health, levels of crime, etc.). They only measure a society
by how well it upholds the tenants of their myth. It doesn't matter
that the Netherlands is a largely peaceful, happy nation, getting
along just fine on their own..they're "rotting" simply because they
don't choose to live the same way as the kind of idiot who wrote the
article.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
W.T.S.
news:ac814e6c-41fb-46bc...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362546/posts
> Laying the Netherlands to Sleep (a beacon of liberalism worldwide is
> rotting from the inside out)
> ic ^ | October 14, 2009 | Joseph Meaney
> Posted on 15 October 2009 00:20:12 by NYer
the need to keep filthy religious people out of their lives and their
country!
Bible, sick, degenerate and evil. Sex, good!
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Panama Floyd" <panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sound of Bullcrap"<SoundOfHa...@dcemail.com> wrote:
><snip crap>
> I think I finallly understand why theistic morons continue to claim
> that post-Christian societies in Europe are in decline. It's because
> they're not talking about the *usual* measures of a society's health
> (wealth, health, levels of crime, etc.). They only measure a society
> by how well it upholds the tenants of their myth. It doesn't matter
> that the Netherlands is a largely peaceful, happy nation, getting
> along just fine on their own..they're "rotting" simply because they
> don't choose to live the same way as the kind of idiot who wrote the
> article.
NICE summary!
The Netherlands is doing just FINE -- and there just may
not be a BETTER place on the entire planet to live than in
Amsterdam!
They'll CONTINUE to do fine as long as they continue to
REJECT the RRR Cult and its hateful, sociopathic, repressive,
and unconscionably-absurd and irrational agendas.
And I extend that same advice to ALL of the OTHER nations
of the world. This is a uniquely-AMERICAN infestation. Every-
one should ensure that it REMAINS such, until we in America
DISPOSE of all of those hate-agendas and render them EXTINCT,
forevermore, never to be heard from again.
>-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
>aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
Edward A. Falk
policy is not based on religion or emotion. If they have a problem,
they study it, figure out what works and what doesn't, and then do the
right thing.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Terry Cross
> The thing I remember about my visits to the Netherlands is that public
> policy is not based on religion or emotion. If they have a problem,
> they study it, figure out what works and what doesn't, and then do the
> right thing.
How different from the US, where the patter is to select a problem,
study it, figure out what works and what doesn't, and then do the
wrong thing.
How do you know Netherlands does the "right thing"?
TCross
Terry Cross
> In article <hd1sl9$ev...@news.xmission.com>, Jon Schild says...
>
>
>
> >Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
> >> Laying the Netherlands to Sleep (a beacon of liberalism worldwide is
> >> rotting from the inside out)
>
> >Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten because it doesn't
> >cater to the extreme right-wing variety of "christians" to the exclusion
> >of all other possible ideas.
>
> Well not really. It makes some good points about
> culture and demographic change.
> Although the following isn't necessarily just
> a Dutch thing:
>
> quote:
> "But deep sedation as currently practiced in the Netherlands has become
> a widespread form of passive euthanasia."
> end quote.
>
> This is common in Britain too.
>
> One of my own elderly relatives had a massive heart
> attack, was terminally ill, very frail and in a lot of
> pain, so he was allowed to die under deep sedation.
>
> We don't have euthanasia here, so that is not
> euthanasia in the legal sense.
Heh! Isn't Emma cute?
> Anyway, I don't care about the legality, ...
Herself the height of parody, her comments are impossible to parody,
satirize, or even characterize.
TCross
James A. Donald
<j...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten
> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing
> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other
> possible ideas.
Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep)
ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each
year.
Though I see that as an argument for private medical
insurance, rather than as a slippery slope argument
about abortion. If we are going to have government
medicine, we realistically have to get rid of those that
are poor, sick, and excessively expensive.
If you are in favor of that, say so, as I just did. If
you deny being in favor of that, you are being
hypocritical and dishonest when you disagree with the
original poster.
If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have
government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then
you have to agree with the original poster that the
Netherlands is rotting from within.
Ray Fischer
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362546/posts
>
>Laying the Netherlands to Sleep (a beacon of liberalism worldwide is
>rotting from the inside out)
Fascists hate liberalism.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4rt9f5dfdf04sr9ra...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild
> <j...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten
>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing
>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other
>> possible ideas.
>
> Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep)
> ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each
> year.
>
> Though I see that as an argument for private medical
> insurance, rather than as a slippery slope argument
> about abortion. If we are going to have government
> medicine, we realistically have to get rid of those that
> are poor, sick, and excessively expensive.
Of course, and without it we would have unlimited resources just like all
sick people in the US have now.
>
> If you are in favor of that, say so, as I just did. If
> you deny being in favor of that, you are being
> hypocritical and dishonest when you disagree with the
> original poster.
>
> If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have
> government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then
> you have to agree with the original poster that the
> Netherlands is rotting from within.
>
How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have
euthanasia involuntary or otherwise. Reality is so annoying isn't it?
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild
><j...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten
>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing
>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other
>> possible ideas.
>
>Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep)
>ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each
>year.
Your rabid hatred isn't reality, kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Terry Cross
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:4rt9f5dfdf04sr9ra...@4ax.com...
How odd, indeed. We do NOT have government financed medical care, yet
we DO have euthanasia, involuntary and otherwise.
Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death) part, though in her
case it was far from "eu" (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
TCross
Terry Cross
James A. Donald
> > If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have
> > government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then
> > you have to agree with the original poster that the
> > Netherlands is rotting from within.
"thomas p."
> How odd, we have government financed medical care, yet we do not have
> euthanasia involuntary or otherwise.
I don't believe that. Rather, I believe that disposal of the poor is
furtive. But if you believe that, then you are going to have to agree
with the original poster that Denmark is rotting from within, and that
this is evidence suggesting that abortion creates a slippery slope to
euthanasia.
James A. Donald
> case it was far from "eu" (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
But in that case, her estranged husband offed her. I have more
confidence in wives and husbands, than in bureaucrats.
Emma
Terry Cross says...
>
>On Nov 6, 11:28=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> This is common in Britain too.
>>
>> One of my own elderly relatives had a massive heart
>> attack, was terminally ill, very frail and in a lot of
>> pain, so he was allowed to die under deep sedation.
>>
>> We don't have euthanasia here, so that is not
>> euthanasia in the legal sense.
>
>
>Heh! Isn't Emma cute?
>
>
>> Anyway, I don't care about the legality, ...
>
>
>Herself the height of parody, her comments are impossible to parody,
>satirize, or even characterize.
>
Hmmm.... maybe I should re-phrase that.
I obviously do care about the law. I meant that I approve of
doctors - *very* occasionally, and out of concern and compassion
for the patient - pushing the law to its limit.
We need a law against euthanasia to protect the vulnerable,
but we sometimes need to give doctors room to allow for
compassion.
Emma
>
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild
><j...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten
>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing
>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other
>> possible ideas.
>
>Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep)
>ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each
>year.
Where do you get your statistics from, and what do you
mean by "involunatarily"? Do you mean
death under deep sedation? I imagine that happens
everywhere in the West. I would very surprised if doctors
are leaving terminally patients in unbearable pain.
Do you seriously think anyone would choose to have a long, drawn
out, and agonising death?
Better to have that massive dose of pain relief that indirectly
leads to a peaceful end.
>Though I see that as an argument for private medical
>insurance, rather than as a slippery slope argument
>about abortion. If we are going to have government
>medicine, we realistically have to get rid of those that
>are poor, sick, and excessively expensive.
Whereas in the American system, people die much earlier
through lack of any health care at all.
Anyway, apparently assisted suicide is legal in one
part of the US.
>
>If you believe, or pretend to believe, that you can have
>government medicine without involuntary euthanasia, then
>you have to agree with the original poster that the
>Netherlands is rotting from within.
The Netherlands is a great country. Euthanasia really isn't
very widespread. It's far more controlled than this article
says.
Emma
Sound of Trumpet says...
>
I read the article too quickly the first time round.
This statement is just plain silly:
quote:
Their enthusiasm for euthanasia may wipe out the
Dutch even faster than the other European nations with below-
replacement birthrates.
end quote:
The euthanasia statistics are tiny. So how can it possibly
"wipe out the Dutch"?
Emma
Terry Cross says...
>
>
>How odd, indeed. We do NOT have government financed medical care, yet
>we DO have euthanasia, involuntary and otherwise.
>
>Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death) part, though in her
>case it was far from "eu" (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
>
Well exactly. Euthanasia is a very difficult and emotive
area and has nothing to do with the different types of
health systems. It happens everywhere.
There are Christians on both sides of the debate; for
and against euthanasia.
I support death under deep sedation because I've witnessed
the peace it brings in the *very last stages* of terminal
illness.
It also seems to be commonly accepted as compassionate
and right in the *last stages*. I hadn't considered it
to be "euthanasia" in the commonly accepted understanding
of the word, since it is not directly ending a life.
thomas p.
Ah, I see that you do not allow reality to bother you. In any event, and so
you can ignore it again, you said that (in effect) government financed
health care would inevitably lead to involuntary euthanasia; and I pointed
out that in my country we have government financed health care, but
euthanasia is illegal. Never mind though; it is just reality.
thomas p.
Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The poor are receiving
excellent medical care. They have the same health insurance that everybody
has, and both hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in exactly
the same way as for the care of others. Euthanasia is illegal in this
country, abortion is not and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark
is doing quite well thank you. Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope
to euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a great number of
people, i.e. that euthanasia is an evil to be avoided. Accepting that
people should have control over their own lives is, in my opinion,
sufficient justification for legalizing euthanasia - that and compassion.
There is no "slippery slope", unless one is afraid of people gaining such
autonomy.
tirebiter
Of course the United States practices euthanasia in private
healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy. Hospices are permitted to
provide morphine drips for "pain control", only the dosage is
guaranteed to kill a very sick and weak person. The whole purpose of
it is to cause the patient to die within days, instead of lingering
for weeks or months.
---
a.a. #2273
Terry Cross
You have confused the posters on this thread. Would you like to try
again?
> Never mind though; it is just reality.
Nothing in human society is "just reality."
TCross
Terry Cross
Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse. In
traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a murder
trial, consent is not a defense.
Euthanisia is a threat to that principle. No doubt all the people in
Denmark are nice to each other, all the doctors are law-abiding, and
nothing bad ever happens to anyone. But euthanasia would create
problems in America because we live among real people.
TCross
Will in New Haven
To kill their spouses? Certainly. Whatever ones opinion of state
medicine, and mine is negative, marriage leads to more murders than
almost any other human institution.
And no, dear reader, war isn't murder.
Great Dayne
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> To kill their spouses? Certainly.
You get help for your dissociative identity disorder yet?
Ray Fischer
>Terry Cross says...
>>Herself the height of parody, her comments are impossible to parody,
>>satirize, or even characterize.
>
>Hmmm.... maybe I should re-phrase that.
>
>I obviously do care about the law. I meant that I approve of
>doctors - *very* occasionally, and out of concern and compassion
>for the patient - pushing the law to its limit.
>
>We need a law against euthanasia to protect the vulnerable,
>but we sometimes need to give doctors room to allow for
>compassion.
But "Terry" is a rightard and they hate compassion and have no regard
for people. To them the only thing that counts is what they want.
And no, he doesn't care about legality when the law isn't what
he wants.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
><j...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten
>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing
>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other
>> possible ideas.
>
>Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep)
>ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each
>year.
Unless you're a raving idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
On the other hand a legal act, such as euthanasia within the legal limits
set is not murder. I do not know who "recognizes it
as a highway to abuse", but I also do not know of anything that cannot be
misused.
>
> Euthanisia is a threat to that principle. No doubt all the people in
> Denmark are nice to each other, all the doctors are law-abiding, and
> nothing bad ever happens to anyone.
I made no such claims, nor does anything I said depend on such claims being
true.
It is unfortunate that you feel the need to play the provincial clown.
But euthanasia would create
> problems in America because we live among real people.
As I said, euthanasia is illegal in Denmark. Some people think it should be
legal. Apparently
you do not wish to actually discuss the issue and would rather make
insulting remarks having nothing to do
with anything I posted. That is too bad.
thomas p.
Just let me know when you would like to discuss the issue.
>
>
>> Never mind though; it is just reality.
>
>
> Nothing in human society is "just reality."
How very profound.
James A. Donald
> Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The
> poor are receiving excellent medical care. They have
> the same health insurance that everybody has, and both
> hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in
> exactly the same way as for the care of others.
> Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not
> and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is
> doing quite well thank you.
Yet the alarmingly large number of people dying in a
state of "deep sedation" indicates that Denmark is
*not* doing quite well, and the only real question is
whether the cause of the rot is atheism as the OP argues,
or welfarism, as I argue.
The original poster argues that unchristian people will
not be concerned for the lives of others, leading to
abortion, leading to abortion being redefined as
"menstrual extraction", leading to involuntary
euthanasia being redefined as "death under deep
sedation".
I argue that people are not in fact much concerned for
others, and the Christian claim otherwise is as much
pretense as the welfare state claim, and so the welfare
state, which proposes to treat people as children,
necessarily winds up treating them as pets.
> Furthermore talking about a "slippery slope to
> euthanasia" makes an implied judgement not shared by a
> great number of people, i.e. that euthanasia is an
> evil to be avoided.
The people who were "deeply sedated", generally did not
consent to "deep sedation", nor were informed as to what
was in their IV.
James A. Donald
> > > Terri Schiavo is evidence of the "thana" (death)
> > > part, though in her case it was far from "eu"
> > > (beautiful). It was simply starvation.
James A. Donald:
> > But in that case, her estranged husband offed her. I
> > have more confidence in wives and husbands, than in
> > bureaucrats.
Will in New Haven
> To kill their spouses?
Given the power to dispose of the inconvenient, who is
more likely to dispose of the inconvenient? Spouse or
bureaucrat?
Obviously the bureaucrat is more likely to dispose of
the inconvenient, which is what is happening on
an alarmingly large scale in Denmark.
Which internal decay I diagnose as coming from welfarism
and bureaucracy, rather than irreligion.
Ray Fischer
>> Actually I feel compelled to agree with reality. The
>> poor are receiving excellent medical care. They have
>> the same health insurance that everybody has, and both
>> hospitals and doctors are reimbursed for their care in
>> exactly the same way as for the care of others.
>> Euthanasia is illegal in this country, abortion is not
>> and it is covered by our health insurance. Denmark is
>> doing quite well thank you.
>
>Yet the alarmingly large number of people dying in a
>state of "deep sedation" indicates that Denmark is
The lack of credible evidence to justify your idiocy indicates that
you are really just motivated by a deep hatred for all things
"liberal".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
James A. Donald
> The euthanasia statistics are tiny. So how can it
> possibly "wipe out the Dutch"?
It is a start. Since there are no end of people who are
inconvenient to bureaucrats (for example, we emit
carbon) there is no end of people who might need to be
euthanized.
More generally, the original poster has a valid point on
social policy and reproduction. The patriarchs
persuaded, indoctrinated, and coerced women towards
chastity and fidelity, resulting in higher male
investment in children, and thus higher reproduction
rate - less contraception, abortion, late abortion, and
early infanticide, more paternal discipline and
development for young men.
The fiscal left kills people off at the end of life as I
have been arguing, the social left prevents them from
beginning as the original poster argues.
Civilization is largely a male activity, transmitted
from fathers to sons. Reduced male investment, due to
easy divorce and lower female fidelity, interrupts this
transmission, so we get a general civilizational
decline, which manifests as Detroit and Liverpool
turning to wilderness occupied by wild animals on two
legs.
That people are not being born, makes extended care for
an ever more long lived aged impractical, so the social
left results in the fiscal left taking ever more
murderous measures.
Of course, the patriarchal society only worked because
it was upheld by patriarchs. The original poster wants
the state to do what the patriarchs did - but the
patriarchs necessarily pursued their own interests, and
the bureaucrats necessarily pursue their own interests.
The bureaucrat wants everyone on welfare. The patriarch
wanted young men to support and protect his daughter's
children, rather than the patriarch having to do it.
Thus the patriarch enforced chastity on his daughter,
and monogamy on his son in law, while the bureaucrat
wants to destroy marriage. The original poster wants a
theocracy that imposes patriarchal values, but a
theocracy, being a state, will always impose
bureaucratic values, and if Christianity fails to
enthusiastically support bureaucratic values, will find
a religion that does - in this case, a theocracy that
upholds faith in global warming and Gaia worship.
If you want patriarchal values, need patriarchy, not
theocracy.
Ray Fischer
>> The euthanasia statistics are tiny. So how can it
>> possibly "wipe out the Dutch"?
>
>It is a start.
You're nuts.
> Since there are no end of people who are
>inconvenient to bureaucrats (for example, we emit
>carbon) there is no end of people who might need to be
>euthanized.
Paranoid insanity.
>The fiscal left kills people off at the end of life as I
>have been arguing,
Yeah, that whole business of proving people health care really does
shorten lives.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> The euthanasia statistics are tiny. So how can it
>> possibly "wipe out the Dutch"?
>
>It is a start.
You're nuts if you really believe that people are being systematically
killed off just because they're old.
> Since there are no end of people who are
>inconvenient to bureaucrats (for example, we emit
>carbon) there is no end of people who might need to be
>euthanized.
Paranoid insanity.
>The fiscal left kills people off at the end of life as I
>have been arguing,
Yeah, that whole business of providing people health care really
does shorten lives.
How much are you getting paid by the health insurance corporations?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Taemon
<snip>
Hahahahahahaha!
T. (Dutch)
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Where do you get your statistics from, and what do you
> mean by "involunatarily"? Do you mean death under deep
> sedation? I imagine that happens everywhere in the
> West. I would very surprised if doctors are leaving
> terminally patients in unbearable pain.
If patient dead of IV drug overdose with a drug clicker
in his hand that controls the IV, suicide.
If patient dead of IV drug overdose with NO clicker in
his hand, murder.
Pain control is morphine. "Deep sedation" is lots of
barbiturates - and barbiturates are deadly in large
doses.
Barbiturates are not to prevent pain, but to prevent the
patient from making a fuss about his medical treatment -
or from making a fuss about lack of medical treatment,
lack of food, and lack of water, hence given with IV,
but without clicker.
The usual procedure for extreme pain control is to give
the patient a clicker, whereby the patient directly
controls the level of morphine, up to a limit. If no
limit, this also gives the patient the option of
voluntary euthanasia, by clicking hard enough.
"Sedation" means barbiturates, which means not
controlling the patients pain, but rather controlling a
dying patients propensity to make a fuss about dying.
These barbiturates are applied through the IV, without
the patients knowledge, consent, or control, thus death
during deep sedation is involuntary euthanasia - murder
of the inconvenient and unwanted.
If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of
morphine inside him, and morphine clicker in his dead
hand, obviously voluntary euthanasia.
If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of
barbiturates inside him, the barbiturates administered
by IV with no barbiturate clicker, obviously involuntary
euthanasia - murder.
"Deep sedation" is never given with a clicker, therefore
always involuntary euthanasia.
Paying patients get clickers and morphine, government
patients get barbiturates and no clicker. Death "during
deep sedation" is barbiturate overdose, barbiturates are
not given with clicker, since the objective is to
control the patient, not to control the patient's pain,
thus death "during deep sedation" is murder.
James A. Donald
> Of course the United States practices euthanasia in
> private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy.
> Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for
> "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill
> a very sick and weak person.
If the morphine (or these days fentanyl) is controlled
by a clicker that the patient holds, and the limiter and
dose per click on the clicker is set high, then it is
voluntary euthanasia, that is to say, suicide.
Involuntary euthanasia, which is to say murder, is done
by putting a large dose of barbiturates ("sedative") in
the IV, and is not controlled by a clicker.
Yes, private patients in the United States often get a
clicker that they can kill themselves with - but they
don't get an IV full of barbiturates that will kill them
whether they like it or not.
James A. Donald
> morphine inside him, and morphine clicker in his dead
> hand, obviously voluntary euthanasia.
>
> If the patient is dead with a lethal quantity of
> barbiturates inside him, the barbiturates administered
> by IV with no barbiturate clicker, obviously involuntary
> euthanasia - murder.
Correction: These days people use fentanyl clickers,
rather than morphine - but the use and effects are
similar.
Terry Cross
Yes, it's true they don't use morphine any more. The Powers are
afraid the poor patient will become addicted, and it will ruin the
rest of her life!
TCross
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Euthanasia is a very difficult and emotive area and
> has nothing to do with the different types of health
> systems. It happens everywhere.
It happens everywhere - but who gets to decide?. Who
gets to decide *does* depend on the health system.
Further, though it happens everywhere, it is apt to
happen a lot more in a health system where bureaucrats
decide, and a lot less in a health system where patients
decide.
Ray Fischer
Yeah, it happens where there is health care and not where people
are just expected to die without medical care.
Are you really this stupid?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> Of course the United States practices euthanasia in
>> private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy.
>> Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for
>> "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill
>> a very sick and weak person.
>
>If the morphine (or these days fentanyl) is controlled
>by a clicker that the patient holds, and the limiter and
>dose per click on the clicker is set high, then it is
>voluntary euthanasia, that is to say, suicide.
You're completely nuts. Apparently you think that letting
people treat their pain is killing them. You would rather
that they be in agony without any medical care at all.
You are a prime example of what happens when cult ideology
trumps common sense.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Franco
The USA has government healthcare (by means of Medicare) for those
most likely to be subjected to euthanasia, ie, the elderly. Is there
evidence of widespread euthanasia taking place among the elderly in
America today? Is there any evidence for increases in the rate of
euthanasia among the elderly since Medicare was started more than 40
years ago? It seems that if this were truly a problem, the opponents
of government healthcare would have revealed the evidence by now.
thomas p.
> On 7 Nov 2009 04:16:03 -0800, Emma <em...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>> Euthanasia is a very difficult and emotive area and
>> has nothing to do with the different types of health
>> systems. It happens everywhere.
>
> It happens everywhere - but who gets to decide?. Who
> gets to decide *does* depend on the health system.
No, it depends on the laws, which, regardless of the health system, can
allow, restrict or forbid euthanasia.
>
> Further, though it happens everywhere, it is apt to
> happen a lot more in a health system where bureaucrats
> decide, and a lot less in a health system where patients
> decide.
>
What is there in a public health system that absolutely requires that
euthanasia not be voluntary?
William December Starr
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> said:
> Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse.
Or not, depending whether or not you, Terry Cross, get to make up
your own facts.
> In traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a
> murder trial, consent is not a defense.
>
> Euthanisia is a threat to that principle.
And that's a good thing, since the principle is wrong.
-- wds
panam...@hotmail.com
Then why is it not only *legal*, but even considered *moral* when we
euthanize our older pets? They are also in pain. Why does our society
allow a more dignified death for the "lesser" animals than it does for
ourselves?
> In
> traditional law, no one may consent to her own death.
So every "traditional law" is worthy of our continued allegiance to
it?
I guess that means I can go buy m'self a couple of slaves to clean the
house now. Except for the fact that I'm a "blasphemer", and have a
date with the stone-throwing folks tomorrow morning.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Terry Cross
Not everyone considers it moral. If you think i is moral, I am no the
best one to explain the source of your ideas. Logic is not your first
language, is it.
Killing a pet is not criminal, except in the "cruelty to animals"
family of laws that was promulgated by the same political pressure
group that advocates euthanasia for animals.
> They are also in pain.
You said they were "older."
> Why does our society
> allow a more dignified death for the "lesser" animals than it does for
> ourselves?
Because euthanasia for pets does not open the same highway to abuse as
human euthanasia. Even "consenting" euthanasia leaves open the
possibility for abuse.
> > In
> > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death.
>
> So every "traditional law" is worthy of our continued allegiance to
> it?
Your problem is that you do not understand the operation of law in
society well enough. Since the penalty of murder is so high, you
cannot design the law in such fashion that murder is excused when
evidence is shown of consent of the victim. If you don't understand
that, you need to consider why prosecution for domestic abuse is
removed from the participation of the victim.
Think hard now. Real hard.
> I guess that means I can go buy m'self a couple of slaves to clean the
> house now. Except for the fact that I'm a "blasphemer", and have a
> date with the stone-throwing folks tomorrow morning.
Whatever are you babbling about?
TCross
Terry Cross
> In article <4f315278-72ff-46d4-82d6-4e199c067...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse.
>
> Or not, depending whether or not you, Terry Cross, get to make up
> your own facts.
>
> > In traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a
> > murder trial, consent is not a defense.
>
> > Euthanisia is a threat to that principle.
>
> And that's a good thing, since the principle is wrong.
It is the same principle that is carried into the laws on domestic
abuse. Is that wrong, too?
TCross
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 7, 9:51�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> James A. Donald �<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:59:53 -0800 (PST), tirebiter
>> >> Of course the United States practices euthanasia in
>> >> private healthcare, but with a veneer of hypocrisy.
>> >> Hospices are permitted to provide morphine drips for
>> >> "pain control", only the dosage is guaranteed to kill
>> >> a very sick and weak person.
>>
>> >If the morphine (or these days fentanyl) is controlled
>> >by a clicker that the patient holds, and the limiter and
>> >dose per click on the clicker is set high, then it is
>> >voluntary euthanasia, that is to say, suicide.
>>
>> You're completely nuts. �Apparently you think that letting
>> people treat their pain is killing them. �You would rather
>> that they be in agony without any medical care at all.
>>
>> You are a prime example of what happens when cult ideology
>> trumps common sense.
>
>most likely to be subjected to euthanasia, ie, the elderly. Is there
>evidence of widespread euthanasia taking place among the elderly in
>America today?
No.
> Is there any evidence for increases in the rate of
>euthanasia among the elderly since Medicare was started more than 40
>years ago? It seems that if this were truly a problem, the opponents
>of government healthcare would have revealed the evidence by now.
But they're crazy. They don't deal with the facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Taemon
> One of the really odd things I have read, and admired, about the
> Netherlands is how many voters are fairly traditional and religious in
> their personal views on many issues but manage to vote to _mind their
> own business_
Yes, well, that's kinda true, but let no one tell you that the Netherlands
are anywhere close to tolerance these days... that's a thing of the past.
Although I still think it'll return after a few more government changes. It
has to get worse before it can get better, I fear. But we don't let dying
people suffer horribly and I don't think we'll lose THAT.
T.
Taemon
> And I extend that same advice to ALL of the OTHER nations
> of the world. This is a uniquely-AMERICAN infestation.
I think it's a pretty big problem in Italy, too.
T.
Taemon
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:03 -0700, Jon Schild
> <j...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten
>> because it doesn't cater to the extreme right-wing
>> variety of "christians" to the exclusion of all other
>> possible ideas.
> Also because it involuntarily euthanizes (lays to sleep)
> ten thousand inconvenient and unwanted sick people each
> year.
Are you referring to death penalty? Because we don't have that in the
Netherlands. Neither do they in Denmark.
T.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> The Netherlands is doing just FINE -- and there just may
>> not be a BETTER place on the entire planet to live than in
>> Amsterdam!
>>
>> They'll CONTINUE to do fine as long as they continue to
>> REJECT the RRR Cult and its hateful, sociopathic, repressive,
>> and unconscionably-absurd and irrational agendas.
>>
>> And I extend that same advice to ALL of the OTHER nations
>> of the world. This is a uniquely-AMERICAN infestation. ...
> I think it's a pretty big problem in Italy, too.
In Italy, I think the biggest problem is with the RCC Cult
and Pope Benedict Arnold's disdain for personal liberties. The
hatefulness and stupidity of the RRR and RCC Cults overlap
quite a bit. Particularly when it comes to reproductive rights/
abortion, death-with-dignity, and equal rights for gays.
The good news is that most Italians have proven themselves
surprisingly resistant to such hateful ignorance, despite the HQ
of the RCC Cult's being within it.
>> ... Everyone should ensure that it REMAINS such, until we in
>> America DISPOSE of all of those hate-agendas and render them
>> EXTINCT, forevermore, never to be heard from again.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
jos boersema
On 2009-11-06, Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> wrote:
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>>
>> Laying the Netherlands to Sleep (a beacon of liberalism worldwide is
>> rotting from the inside out)
>
> Long boring rant on how The Netherlands is rotten because it doesn't
> cater to the extreme right-wing variety of "christians" to the exclusion
> of all other possible ideas.
Right. I'm Dutch and I don't recognize the content of that vicious
virtually fascist attitude in that article. What a disgusting piece
of hatred. When I read that some morons had painted those slogans
I was disappointed at my fellow Dutch, but after reading the kind of
rants that are produced by ppl sympathetic to that organization ...
By the way, i don't agree at all with the now indeed common practice
in Holland that ppl behave casually toward marrying and even some
pretend that divorse is casual. This has changed from the past and
is possibly a backlash result of the too agressive & violently
prosecuted ideas where parents meddle in the afairs of their children
in deciding who they marry and not, and also in allowing abuse of
the women in a marriage to go on for the sake of maintaining a pretty
facade of normalcy, also extended to child abuse. The whole community
would then look the other way while the man of the household abused
his family, leaving things to happen 'because marriage was sacret.'
I can imagine such attitudes have caused hatred against marriage itself,
quite understandably. I'm not saying most ppl in Holland behave so
violent in marriage, but some of course do and did, as in all nations.
I'd also agree that this has now produced a cavelier attitude to
getting children and abortions basically, which is generally not a
good thing. Children need steady and save homes to live, and parents
that behave as adults (note how that goal is the same as a possible
(speculative!!) cause of the breakdown of an excessively brutal form
of marriage.)
The idea that euthenasia might wipe out the Dutch is absurd.
While the dark Empire (America) collapses, they lash out viciously
at others in an effort to try to make themselves believe they are no
more evil or wrong headed then the next nation. Unfortunately in doing
so they also close their eyes from learning something useful from
another nation; for sure there are things that we do better then the
USA while there may also be things the USA does better then us. It
would be nice if we could attempt to learn from each other.
By the way: when you are in A'dam, you are in "the Randstad," which
is all those west/central cities like The Hague, A'dam, Rotterdam,
Utrecht, etc. Those are the cities most of the immigrants travel
to, because if you are an immigrant you obviously want to live with
other immigrants. Many Dutch ppl are also moving out of these cities,
I have read. Hence, if you are looking around in A'dam or those
cities, you are probably not confronted with what is the regular
Dutch culture at the moment. Perhaps particularly A'dam has its own
provincial culture, every province obviously has its own type of
culture. A'dam seems to be particularly proud of itself. Hence you
might not have gone to the most Dutch part of Holland by going to
A'dam. But in any case regional differences seem to be quite large
I guess (but this may be an internal view.)
Germany is a very nice nation as well, very well ordered and its
public transportation works well. Go to Hamburg next time, for
example.
Maybe one day we should throw the Randstad out of Holland, or break
away with the North. Maybe we should join Finland or something here
in the North, why not, at least they pay cleaners a fair wage.
--
jos boersema
> The thing I remember about my visits to the Netherlands is that public
> policy is not based on religion or emotion. If they have a problem,
> they study it, figure out what works and what doesn't, and then do the
> right thing.
Lol, i wish that where true, but it isn't.
The same idiotic capitalists rule Holland as the rest of all nations.
But what is true is that we do manage somewhat of a multi-party
system here, which does seem to be more about content *compared*
to some other nations where it is all about the personality of
the next puppet to front for capitalist looting.
Here the looting is more of a group effort ...
--
Don Martin
From what I have seen of history, the Dutch have never been averse to
wealth. The benefit of this concentration of wealth to the world is
some really great painters patronized by the wealthy to create some
really great paintings. (Include the Flemish, and over a million such
were produced by 1750).
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
jos boersema
You know why Rembrandt is so famous ? He stepped out of the bounds
of painting (dis) nobility criminals for their portraits, and instead
went on to paint the suffering of the people.
James A. Donald
> By the way, i don't agree at all with the now indeed common practice
> in Holland that ppl behave casually toward marrying and even some
> pretend that divorse is casual. This has changed from the past and
> is possibly a backlash result of the too agressive & violently
> prosecuted ideas where parents meddle in the afairs of their children
> in deciding who they marry and not, and also in allowing abuse of
> the women in a marriage to go on for the sake of maintaining a pretty
> facade of normalcy, also extended to child abuse. The whole community
> would then look the other way while the man of the household abused
> his family, leaving things to happen 'because marriage was sacret.'
The crime victimization survey shows a far lower rate of crime
victimization among married women in a household with male head of
household. It does not do anything so terribly politically incorrect
as ask people if they are in a natural family or not, but the married,
male head of household category is an approximation to this. From
such information, we can infer that members of non natural family
households experience an extremely high rate of non stranger violence
and sex crimes, and that members of natural family households
experience an extremely low rate non stranger violence and sex crimes
- a very great difference it is politically incorrect to mention.
From divorce law and the crime victimization survey, we find that
society seems far more concerned to protect children from their
natural fathers, who have a motive to protect them, than to protect
them from stepfathers, who have a motive to kill them.
Franco
PROOF:
Palin: Dems will apply abortion mind-set to elderly.
Terry Cross
> > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. In a murder
> > trial, consent is not a defense.
>
> set is not murder.
So you mean to say as long as Dr. President says it's OK to murder,
it's not murder?
You prove it without being asked: too many Atheists have no moral
compass. Whatever their masters tell them, there they will happily
march, kill, and die as so ordered.
An "authority" cannot make OK what is not OK. And here is the irony:
the one thing Nuremberg had to teach was no lesson at all to those who
worship at its altars.
TCross
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 7, 11:54�pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 11:07�pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <4f315278-72ff-46d4-82d6-4e199c067...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>> > > Euthanisia is generally recognized as a highway to abuse.
>>
>> > Or not, depending whether or not you, Terry Cross, get to make up
>> > your own facts.
>>
>> > > In traditional law, no one may consent to her own death. �In a
>> > > murder trial, consent is not a defense.
>>
>> > > Euthanisia is a threat to that principle.
>>
>> > And that's a good thing, since the principle is wrong.
>>
>> It is the same principle that is carried into the laws on domestic
>> abuse. �Is that wrong, too?
>
>
>Palin: Dems will apply abortion mind-set to elderly.
The right to choose for yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
Why do you have to post such nonsense? The above is absurd and a
vicious lie. It also makes reasonable discussion nearly impossible; could
that
possibly be the motivation?
>
> An "authority" cannot make OK what is not OK. And here is the irony:
> the one thing Nuremberg had to teach was no lesson at all to those who
> worship at its altars.
When I went to Catholic school I was taught that bearing false witness is a
sin.
I do not believe in sin, but I certainly believe that bearing false witness
is wrong; how
do you excuse it? It is more than a little ironic that you have the nerve
to accuse
others of being immoral.
panam...@hotmail.com
Hmm...I've not seen much evidence of that. Where are the vetenary
hospitals full of elderly dogs & cats connected to respirators?
> If you think i is moral, I am no the
> best one to explain the source of your ideas. Logic is not your first
> language, is it.
Oh, it serves me well enough to see when someone is attacking my
simple rhetoric in an attempt to derail the conversation...
> Killing a pet is not criminal, except in the "cruelty to animals"
> family of laws that was promulgated by the same political pressure
> group that advocates euthanasia for animals.
Are you attempting to claim that euthanasia for elderly animals is
"immoral"?
Oh, of course not. you're just attempting to "imply" it, so that when
I say you claimed such a thing, you can back out by stating, "...I
never *said* that!..."
> > They are also in pain.
>
> You said they were "older."
Do you deny that as an animal ages, it suffers from pain? Hell, I'm
only 47, and I already have problems with my joints.
> > Why does our society
> > allow a more dignified death for the "lesser" animals than it does for
> > ourselves?
>
> Because euthanasia for pets does not open the same highway to abuse as
> human euthanasia. Even "consenting" euthanasia leaves open the
> possibility for abuse.
Please expand upon this point. Your previous insult to me wasn't
strong enough to discourage my curiosity about why you'd think such a
thing.
> > > In
> > > traditional law, no one may consent to her own death.
>
> > So every "traditional law" is worthy of our continued allegiance to
> > it?
>
> Your problem is that you do not understand the operation of law in
> society well enough.
And yours is that *you* do not understand how often "law" fails
society. Which was the point I was making in my rhetoric later in my
post.
> Since the penalty of murder is so high, you
> cannot design the law in such fashion that murder is excused when
> evidence is shown of consent of the victim. If you don't understand
> that, you need to consider why prosecution for domestic abuse is
> removed from the participation of the victim.
Bad example. Domestic abuse is most often between two people who are
young and healthy.
> Think hard now. Real hard.
No reason to, when your nonsense doesn't require it.
> > I guess that means I can go buy m'self a couple of slaves to clean the
> > house now. Except for the fact that I'm a "blasphemer", and have a
> > date with the stone-throwing folks tomorrow morning.
>
> Whatever are you babbling about?
Your original implication that current law actually adresses modern
concerns. It was intended as an experiment in thought to your comment
about "traditional" law. Buying slaves and being killed for being a
"blasphemer" were once legal. The statement was supposed to remind you
that law often does not progress as quickly as society does.
Since you failed that experiment, allow me to suggest something that
might help you comprehend such a comment in the future:
http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Howard Brazee
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So you mean to say as long as Dr. President says it's OK to murder,
>it's not murder?
>
>You prove it without being asked: too many Atheists have no moral
>compass. Whatever their masters tell them, there they will happily
>march, kill, and die as so ordered.
You say that as though atheists are more likely to go to war than
theists. Have you looked at the world?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
William December Starr
Franco <ffr...@mailandnews.com> said:
> PROOF:
>
> Palin: Dems will apply abortion mind-set to elderly.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091107/pl_politico/29267
Do you really think that words coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth
constitute proof? Do you really think that anybody else (outside
of Teabagerry, Inc.) believes it?
-- wds
William December Starr
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> said:
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> In traditional law, no one may consent to her own death.
>>> In a murder trial, consent is not a defense.
>>>
>>> Euthanisia is a threat to that principle.
>>
>> And that's a good thing, since the principle is wrong.
>
> It is the same principle that is carried into the laws on
> domestic abuse. Is that wrong, too?
It is when it's applied to consensual S&M games.
-- wds
Howard Brazee
Starr) wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091107/pl_politico/29267
>
>Do you really think that words coming out of Sarah Palin's mouth
>constitute proof? Do you really think that anybody else (outside
>of Teabagerry, Inc.) believes it?
>
>-- wds
Even Fox is starting to check her "facts":
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/even-fox-news-fact-checks-palins-claims-about-dollar-coin.php