Posted on 11/02/2001 5:53:26 AM PST by callisto
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:06:58 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
As I believe they should.
...there is no reason to expect that a government that would incinerate 88 innocent civilians at Waco, or shoot a mother holding her infant at Ruby Ridge, would concern itself with mundane matters like feeding you. Prudence dictates keeping rations sufficient for three weeks in our homes.
I believe they would make the effort to supply the quarantined area -- unless their is a vast disruption to the supply train in which case I am certain they would use a priority system whereby the quarantined area might be excluded from consideration. In other words, I do think it prudent to prepare your home for an extended stay without outside assistance. Heck, when we lived in Reno and the pass would get snowed in for a few days, the grocery store shelves would end up stripped bare. It would be foolhardy not to set aside a surplus of emergency rations just in case daily life gets disrupted for some unexpected reason. Failing to do so is gambling with your life.
We're in agreement here. I don't think that most people realize how long the smallpox quarantine period requires.
Are we so queasy about offing the unfit and and the tainted among us just because they have functioning brains and tongues with which to plead their case?
Surely discretion is the better part of valor and the Many Lives saved by the quarantining, drugging and liquidating of Some Lives "adds up" to the economically-minded. It's like abortion, only on the "living".
And, like abortion, it's a veritable goldmine of subjects for Humanitarian Research to benefit the rest of us. The testing of "cocktails" and other fixes on these unfortunates would provide FAR more "human" responses than the testing of drugs on animals or even the unborn. Isn't it important our government and its choice of Preferred Providers have the tools with which to protect us?
Why protect or grant equal rights to the burdensome and costly folks -- however "living" they might be -- who might endanger the Quality of Life for the rest of us? We shoot a horse who breaks his leg. It's the charitable and merciful thing to do to any animal, human or otherwise. What could possibly be the point in not only withholding this Ultimate Merciful Act but adulterating the evolutionary potential of the Collective Soul by dragging along these sick individuals and their tainted genes like so much excess baggage?
For Pete's sake, just kill them if they're too stupid to realize it's their duty to invoke their "Right to Die" once they're no longer of any use as test subjects for the healthy and more perfect human specimens as yet untainted with the disease du jour.
After all, we're all in this together ... are we not?
The medical community -- with their protocols on "extreme measures" -- understands this perfectly already. No reason the average Joe can't understand that sometimes it's a person's Public Duty to die and die quickly if they no longer are of any possibly benefit -- even as human guinea pig -- to the Science and Technology of the more perfect Living.
With any luck, a few good outbreaks and John Q. Public will be DEMANDING to see black smoke billowing from the Quarantine Camps. After all ... it's the Government's job to protect us By Whatever Means They Deem Necessary.
Well, isn't this even richer....they want the states to be able to quarantine for smallpox (30% mortality rate) YET fedgov won't allow states to do anything about AIDS patients.....hospital workers certainly are not allowed to know that the patient they are drawing blood from is AIDS positive or negative, as well as the hepatitis(s)!
Thanks....but keep the friggin university professors (especially lawyer types) out of our lives!
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.