Posted on 09/21/2009 2:12:38 AM PDT by Scanian
A virulent moral blindness has seized hold of a substantial slice of America's educated elite. Convinced they know better, they argue for a shallow, illogical, and horrifying vision of people as disposable.
I was wrong last week when I declared that Newsweek's cover showing a baby next to a headline declaring that we're all born racist was evidence that the mainstream media had hit bottom and destroyed itself. It was intellectual arrogance on my part that led me to underestimate the determination of Newsweek's editors to find new deeper bottoms to hit.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This is the twisted logic of godless atheists. An absence of morality allows them to devalue life as they have done at its start and now at its finish. It is only a matter of time before they devalue all life at all times.
God help us.
A lot of people don't realize this. They think they're "just" sentencing useless old Granny to an early death, but once the principle is accepted - that it's better to let the person die than to treat a possibly expensive condition, unless for some reason the government considers you especially worthy - then everybody has gotten that same sentence.
So no matter what they think about the moral aspect, people should consider the practical implications of this "end of life" withholding of treatment and its very real threat to their own lives, regardless of their age.
‘Killing Granny’
~~~
Then they will have to deal with GrandSons...;0)
Some people in the Obama administration think that babies only become human beings after “essential early socializing experiences” (Holdren) Other people in the Obama administration think that animals might be “people” (Sunstein).
So, if we can kill animals, and animals are people (and babies might not even be people), therefore we can kill people.
The theoretical foundations are with Bentham and Utilitarianism hundreds of years ago, and Peter Singer now at Princeton.
It might be useful to some degree to point out all the nasty, ugly thought coming out of these “elite” institutions. Princeton has Peter Singer. Columbia had Piven and Cloward.
Logan’s Run re-release in 2010. They should make LASTDAY your 65th birthday. That should bring it more in line with the elites current plan.
I’m glad Grandma didn’t live to see this.
Just think, if we combine Logan’s Run with Soylent Green we could save the smelt fish (turn San Joaquin Valley into a desert) and fix health care (get rid of Grandma). /s
As age 65 approached how many seniors would begin to lash out at The System?
It could be a very dangerous world for the Death Panels, bureaucrats and politicians.
Logans Run.
Many of us have read sci-fi books and have seen the futuristic views on the big screen of the ideas of what future America has become.
Surprisingly a lot it is becoming the truth.
And the common denominator of what propels this kind of trend, law or ruling is that its seated with Islamic influence.
Bottom line is that Islam will destroy a normal society, they too may succumb but they will take everyone out.I can imagine a near future America where women over 35 will be stoned, all young girls will be commonly sold like cattle and will become the future Dow Jones market indicator.
Exactly. Of course in the original book and movie “Lastday” was on your 21st birthday, however, that would be a really hard sell for the progressives. Grandma and Grandpa are a much easier target...so they think.
Go to some competitive shooting events and you will see that gramps can still shoot "targets".
Beware of the person with a death sentence (rationed health care) they may bite back.
Shhhhh...don’t give him any ideas!
Yep. I would love to see them come for my Grandfather or Dad. It would be a bloddy mess!
Note to Grandfather and Dad:
It is easier to hose off the front porch before the blood dries.
Very hard to remove stains from the carpet.
A lot of the problems that we’re currently having now are simply based on that age 65.
The numbers will not add up in the future with the number 65.
It really has to be changed. Something like 75 would work.
People would be pissed, but it should be a bipartisan effort.
When Social Security was started, people didn’t live anywhere near as long as they do now. Back then, there were a lot of workers, and not a lot of retirees. Now there aren’t a lot of workers and a lot of retirees, and it’s gonna get much worse real soon.
Changing it from 65 to 75 would solve our problems without killing old people, or forcing healthy young people to buy insurance they don’t want or really need.
But that means I would have to give up 10 whole years of golfing on the Govt. dime! Sorry, can’t support it. ;)
GIVE IT TO US STRAIGHT
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215347
“These critics charge that Obama would curtail Medicare benefits or create “death panels” to deprive ill seniors of desirable care. Not only are these charges mainly false (as Obama says), but they wrongly suggest that we put some important subjects off-limits. Medicare represents one-fifth of personal health spending. Why shouldn’t we debate what should be covered and who should pay? Similarly, doctors, patients and families should discuss end-of-life care. It’s not just that 25 to 30 percent of Medicare spending occurs in patients’ last year. Expensive, heroic care often compounds suffering.
The candor gap reflects a common condescension. One side believes it must fool Americans into thinking “reform” will do more than it will; the other thinks it must frighten Americans into believing that it will harm them in ways that it won’t. Given Americans’ contradictory expectations, any health-care proposal can be criticized for offending some popular goal. We refuse to face unavoidable—and unpleasant—choices.”
Yes, we need to *rethink* the way we think. After all, we’re all Socialists now.
Well, the numbers don’t add up. And it’s very possible
that many wouldn’t support that.
It would have to be bipartisan. And that rarely happens.
It would be a fairly easy fix, just change the numbers.
I’d say it should happen somewhat gradually, raise it one year every 2 years. You don’t want a 64 year old suddenly hearing that instead of retiring in 1 year, he’ll be retiring in 11.
That would really screw up that person’s retirement planning.
So, it would work something like this: in 5 years, the retirement age is raised to 66, in 7, to 67, etc., up to in 25 years, raised to 75. The numbers don’t really matter.
But 65 hasn’t changed since the 1930’s. But people live on average to 77 now. Back in the 1930’s, they didn’t even live to 65 on average. And people stopped having as many babies as they used to. So, we’re pretty much screwed unless we change those numbers.
You’re right. And that is why the progressives want to kill off the elderly now. 25 years is a long time and too much can happen between now and then. They want a 4-7 year plan that can be executed (pun intended) quickly.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the baby boom generation that gave us abortion on demand were killed because they had become inconvenient to the productive young
Thanks for reporting on this.
There’s a lot to blame on the boomers and near boomers
but not Roe v. Wade. The judges there were quite a bit
older IIRC.
And a very short time it will be I fear. Oddly, I first
saw this issue on the newsstand today.
Glad you liked the post.
Absolutely! “Oh sorry Mrs Jones that your child has lukemia, you know how much treatment costs so instead we will make Jonny comfortable while you watch him die”, it IS what is coming.
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.