Posted on 01/15/2011 12:18:21 PM PST by wagglebee
I’d have to make the decision whether to exhaust my wealth on saving my children. You would decide (and confiscate) my wealth to spend on someone else’s children.
This is what you said: And that baby may also have grown up to be a criminal who mugs and murders me some day. Considering my experience with the demographics of ulta-low birthweight babies the latter scenario is more likely than the former.
Now you are pedaling like mad to add addendum's to it. You said what you said, "Only certain demographic children are worth saving".
I suspect you haven't read The Bell Curve. It is actually a very interesting and important book. It was criticized by ignorant folks who not only didn't understand its message but had never read it.
Quotes mean something. This quote is incorrectly and improperly attributed to me. Your piousness dulls your comprehension.
Your post 7
Yes. And that baby may also have grown up to be a criminal who mugs and murders me some day. Considering my experience with the demographics of ulta-low birthweight babies the latter scenario is more likely than the former.
You have spiraled into incoherence.
It’s tough when you’re quoted directly, isn’t it.
Presented with the option of selling your house, emptying your bank account and making your children destitute, in order to provide extraordinary measures to preserve an ultra-low birth-weight crack baby you wouldn't do it. (Although it's easy to type that you would.) And no one should be critical of that decision.
There you go again.
Would you?
We aren’t discussing me. We’re discussing your Margaret Sanger propensities.
You wouldn’t, would ya’? It seems you comprehend that stark reality demands the analysis of cost:benefit ratio before spending money. As harsh as it may sound, any other approach is unsustainable. Of course we could always tax the rich to pay for it...
Is there evidence that highly intelligent people are more likely to have intelligent children? Certainly.
Are children who are raised in underprivileged areas less likely to succeed? This is generally the case.
However, eugenicists like you operate based upon the immoral assumption that those likely to be high achievers have more of a right to live than those who aren't.
My IQ is above 150, my family is very wealthy and I was raised with every imaginable advantage, yet it would be unthinkable to me to believe that I have a right to life that others don't. Rights come from God, not genetics or culture.
Look, “Good” Doctor, you take the Margaret Sanger approach to the lives of babies. I do not. I find you and your demographic crap disgusting. FR is a pro-life site. You are out of step. You judge the value of a life on where the child is from and money. How many have you killed because they couldn’t line your pocket? If the libs get their way, you’ll beg for your life as you age which is more than these babies get to do.
The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are also interesting and important, sources of evil often are and The Bell Curve falls into this category as well.
It was criticized by ignorant folks who not only didn't understand its message but had never read it.
I understood it perfectly, it's simply another attempt by the evil Darwinists to legitimize eugenics.
If the shoe fits......
It's reprehensible to put a dollar amount on a person's life, reducing it to a mere commodity.
I don't know if you're a real MD or not, but the *good* part is no mystery. Screennames mean nothing, but if you are, could you have the courtesy of putting your real state flag on your home page so I can have a clue about whether to know if I have to worry about being on the receiving end of YOUR "services"? I'd really rather not, if it's all the same to you. I want a doctor who will first, Do No Harm, and will have the ethics to look out for my best interest.
Almost every advance in the medical field starts out borne of necessity and is not cheap. As it proves it's worth, it's refined and cost comes down.
For all your cold hearted, calculating, disgusting cost effectiveness philosophy, trying to save these babies will lead us to learn more.
If you can't find it in you to have enough of a soul to save babies for ethical reasons, perhaps you could reduce that to cost effectiveness and see the value in what we can learn from trying.
You know, the space program back in the 60's was criticized for much the same thing. We were poring money into it and not seeing much of a *return*, but we did. The space program accelerated the development of technology which wasn't considered needed but has benefited us tremendously.
Seems to me that sterile clean rooms, that allow people with no immune systems to survive, were one of those developments.
I noted, too, that your objection was to saving "someone else's baby". And if it were YOUR OWN baby, that would make a difference?
God help you.
I read that book.
It’s people like them that make the difference. People who will not take what the medical community pushes on them and stand up to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Great book.
We’re not debating abortion, and I’m not espousing killing anyone. If God wants a 400 gram baby to live he’ll let them live regardless of what you, me or anyone else wants. The opposite is also true. You want to play God, not me. I’m for leaving it in His hands.
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.