Posted on 08/23/2014 6:41:15 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell
“In a bygone era, doctors thought every life was important. Treatment was aggressive and persistent in intensive care units even when it might be futile.…”
A UCLA “academic study” is providing the theoretical basis for denying ordinary care to those deemed “Life Unworthy of Life” (“Lebensunwertes Leben“).
That idea, most prominently advanced by the Nazis, has been repackaged as “futile care theory”, disregarding the fact that all persons are in the process of moving towards death from their earliest moments.
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Health Sciences
Summary: Providing futile treatment in the intensive care unit sets off a chain reaction that causes other ill patients needing medical attention to wait for critical care beds, according to a study. The study is the first to show that when unbeneficial medical care is provided, others who might be able to benefit from treatment are harmed, said the study’s lead author.
The California Catholic Conference, the official organ of the California Bishops, expects that there will be a major push in 2015 in the California Legislature to make Physician Assisted Suicide the law of California. If disability rights groups succeed in blocking the money influence of hospitals and insurance companies in the legislature, plans are for a public relations blitz in 2016 in support of a statewide initiative. The UCLA study provides an x-ray of the disinformation we can expect to be coming over television in the summer of 2016.
I’m talking about how your shooting people for mere proclamation of ideas is holy... at all.
Again, you are being asked to defend your “CURE.”
Hint: Jesus would rebuke you.
If they need sophisticated care I cannot give them be there all the tine. But I can. Many can’t and you and I need to care about them.
“Many can’t and you and I need to care about them.”
Caring about folks that need medical attention and Medicare are two different things.
But complaining about the moral depravity of socialism is an easy thing to do (because it’s depraved). The only way around it is to do it yourself or pay for it yourself, or supplement what socialism gives you. What you are suggesting is another layer of charity. I believe it’s necessary - because medicare is going to get worse than it is already.
Feeding these liberal pukes keeps food from the mouth of babies. We need to be sure not to feed liberals.
Again, you are being asked to defend your “CURE.”
Hint: Jesus would rebuke you.
The basic concept is sedition. But more philosophically, are you arguing that there are no limits to free speech? Or are you arguing that words can do no harm? Because if you admit words can harm, then the foundation for what I am saying stands, given that the harm is properly met by what you call my "cure." So what is the proper response, the proper "cure," for calmly, openly, methodically planned genocide? To wait until millions are dead? Remember, the issue here is not arguing over the possibility of a mysterious side-effect. These so-called medical theorists want to withhold medical care from millions of people simply because they deem them unworthy of it - literally dehumanize them by law.
That, to me, is Hitler. It's Mao. It's Stalin. it's Pol Pot. Pick your mass-murdering tyrant. And you are telling me that if these murderers and their cronies were stopped at the planning stage, if people didn't wait till the horror of WWII ended to string up Mussolini & Co., that Jesus would rebuke those who intervened? Really?
Then let me quote the actual Jesus to you, and correct your fantasy of Him. Jesus said, "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:49–53)
THAT Jesus would rebuke me? I think not - I think He would rebuke you. When millions are dead, I think He would say to you, "Why did you let this happen? Why didn't you speak up? You saw how they were going to kill everyone. They didn't hide it. They said they would judge who would deserve life, and who would be stripped of their humanity. They claimed the powers of godhood in order to commit mass murder, and you called it non-violent free speech. They wore white doctor's coats, and you abandoned your common sense. They spoke of monstrous genocide, and because they kept their voices calm, you claimed they were reasonable and turned your back on your own spiritual duty. Now your country is decimated with dead and dying, their murderous laws are in place, and you pray for relief? Did God not give you a brain and heart and grace to stand up for the truth protect life? Why didn't you use it!?"
That's the Jesus I know. YMMV.
But I'll tell you one thing, this isn't theory. This article is current, and Obamacare is the law. And no, we can't go around trying to string people up. But we damn sure can speak possibly about the seriousness of the crimes being committed. And yes, I believe that a just country would convict people planning - planning - dehumanization in order to support the deprivation of medical care, of attempted genocide, and sentence them to death.
And in response, I believe Jesus would extend His blessing and protection and say, "well done."
No, Jesus would not extend a “well done” to an “execution for illegal speech” squad. You are just pleasuring yourself.
Think for a change. Who’s going to constitute this squad? How will it remain free of corruption? Given that the more power it has, the more corruption possible?
The old fashioned answer, that the people at large are responsible for trusting God individually and thus refusing lies, is the only correct one.
Think for a change. Who’s going to constitute this squad? How will it remain free of corruption? Given that the more power it has, the more corruption possible?
The old fashioned answer, that the people at large are responsible for trusting God individually and thus refusing lies, is the only correct one.
Okay, last reply. The idea is that people who are deliberately trying to create laws to reframe mass murder should be treated by law for what they are actually trying to do. As for legal precedent, there's crying fire in a crowded theater times a few million, sedition, conspiracy, crimes against humanity, etc. So calling this mere "illegal speech" is, well, I'll give you a break and call it merely disingenuous on your part.
That you refuse to believe people can effectively plot mass murder by changing speech descriptions of it simply means you aren't acquainted with NLP or its related disciplines, not politically correct speech. I won't ask how that's possible in this age of Obamacare, but apparently it is. Because you're perfectly happy paying the price with your life for those who believed the Democrat lies about healthcare, right? Because that's what Jesus wants - your pain and the pain and suffering of your loved ones as a result of liberals believing in socialism? M'kay.
Solzhenitsyn said, “It is unthinkable in the twentieth century to fail to distinguish between what constitutes an abominable atrocity that must be prosecuted and what constitutes that "past" which "ought not to be stirred up.” Likewise,, to me it is unthinkable that Americans should protect those who are openly planning to kill millions of Americans by extending such plotters free speech protections, or in the case of Muslims, religious protections.
And I'm not talking about subtleties - I'm talking about people who are grouping together to point at the elderly and the sick and saying "you have to die, you get no medical care." Where is the nuance in that? Or "you have to die or pay a slave tax, because you're not Muslim." Where is the nuance there?
Constitutional protections for that? Jesus wagging His finger and saying leave them alone, for that?
No.
No and hell no.
But unfortunately, most Americans think the way you do. It's a catastrophe, and a tragedy. But it's not coming down like lightning from God, or out of the Book of Revelations. No, it's coming from people who choose to use laws given by God to protect good, in order to protect evil.
Well, I might not be able to do anything about it, but I damn sure am not going to agree with it. As Isaiah said, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
Woe indeed to all of us, for the tremendous suffering such blindness of the few inevitably brings to so many.
Once you admit that you are changing your rhetoric, then you might be taken seriously.
Come on where are the wall shooters? Why did you cram them back in the closet?
Come on where are the wall shooters? Why did you cram them back in the closet?
I changed nothing, as you well know. As for the wall shooters, they'd come from the same ranks as those who pull the switch on the electric chair, push the button to drop the gas pellets, pull the trap-door lever or inject the hypodermic needle - in other words, you're floating a straw-man. The issue is whether people should get away with openly admitting to plotting mass-murder if they use politically correct speech. You say yes. I say no.
And as for taking me seriously, 200 million people support every word I'm saying. Unfortunately they're dead, murdered by their own politically-correct governments who terminated their existence in the 20th Century.
But don't worry, history shows that no laws were broken and it was done for the good of the people because it saved on resources that could be better utilized by members of society that bureaucrats deemed sufficiently productive.
Now let's see, who else might be speaking those exact same thoughts, for those exact same reasons? Brutal dictators in far-off countries? Or doctors meeting at fine hotels in LA? The only difference is the former got their way through armed revolution, whereas the latter are being praised, supported, defended and protected - not to mention elected - for their... "humanity."
Muslims hide behind freedom of religion. Liberals hide behind freedom of speech. But calling for the death of unbelievers is where they both come together. Ignoring that fact is suicide, whether anyone takes me "seriously" or not.
You said that would be your last reply... you lied.
But anyhow, such drama comes from such minds as Che Guevara.
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.