Posted on 08/12/2009 10:45:03 AM PDT by Winged Hussar
We previously compared Obamacare to the German Aktion T4, in which "life unworthy of living" was to be eliminated through denial of medical care or even palliatives such as Zyklon B. In fairness to the health care bill HR 3200, of which we downloaded a complete copy, the section on end of life counseling does not mandate or even encourage euthanasia. ...However, Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel's brother, with close ties to Barack Obama) is on written record as advocating denial of "discretionary" medical care to patients with dementia such as Alzheimer's Disease: a position entirely consistent with Germany's Aktion T4 health care plan. The Hastings Center Report in question also talks about "communitarianism," and the Communitarians are on record as advocating practices that all responsible hunters and firearm owners would define as slob hunting and vicious cruelty to animals.
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
|
Will zeke emanuel be the czar over obamacare? If so, he will be the head of the death panel and will certainly implement all of his evil beliefs.
They don't even feel the elderly are worthy of the right to choose suicide; they want to make that decision for themThat was a thought-provoking point to me, and later in my hopping around I came across this:
One such theorist, Adolf Jost, issued an early call for direct medical killing in a book published in 1895 and significantly entitled The Right to Death (Das Recht auf den Tod). Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American tradition of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individuals right to die or right to death or right to his or her own death, as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the states right to kill. While he spoke of compassion and relief of suffering of the incurably ill, his focus was mainly on the health of the Volk and the state. He pointed out that the state already exercises those rights in war, where thousands of individuals are sacrificed for the good of the state. Ultimately the argument was biological: The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life. The state must own death must kill in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy.²*from here:http://www.mazal.org/Lifton/LiftonT046.htm
So, whatever you do, don't call the Obama administration Nazi, even though it's plagiurizing the Nazi Manual.
See you have been doing some research, I am in a discussion with a liberal and cannot find who said that a child is not a person until 2 years of age, was it Dr. Emanuel or was it the Science Czar Holdren?
Thanks.
It’s Peter Singer. He believes that a baby can be “aborted” up to the age of about two years old simply because it cannot reason until then. Lots of info on him out there.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thank you, check out post #26 also.
This is what I found on Singer. Is he one of the czars, if not, what position does he hold in this administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
n his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a “human” or “alive” at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.
Singer lecturing on medical ethics.
Singer’s argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:
[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life.[27]
Thanks, as I really haven't been doing that much research. Just glances at Emanuel's paper for the NIH in which the Complete Lives System is described.
There is such a thing as "scarce medical care": for example, ten people need a heart, 3 are available. This is a matter that cannot be ignored.
The danger is that the framework of "allocating scarce resources" will be transposed across the board, once government completely f)cks up the market allocation of all medical resources, which currently are not scarce, but surely will be once the elephant stomps into the marketplace.
That possibility, FRiends, is fearsome indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.