As I recall, the Nazis favored euthanasia for the mentally handicapped and physically crippled, a position embraced by much of Germany's medical establishment. From there it was only a short step to the culling of other undesirable elements from society, including gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents and of course, Jews.
Winston Churchill is spinning in his grave.
Won't be long before it will not only be our patriotic duty to pay more taxes, but our patriotic duty to die on demand when reaching old age.
It's astonishing that these people who celebrate the "modern," "advanced," "progressive" world-view would demand primitive solutions from our prehistoric past.
We should practice euthanasia on these monsters first, and cherish those who, despite their infirmities, have graced our lives for far more years than the number of "burdensome" years of their final days.
How long before other decrepit, monstrous, degenerate notions slither to the fore? Will NAMBLA speakers be at future conferences on social issues?
I can't help but note that this psychopath is 84 years old and seeming pretty demented if not suffering from dementia. I say she should take her own advice.
You may also remember a story from a few weeks (months?) back about the Oregon state health care system sending out letters denying patients possibly life saving treatment but offering, very generously I might add, to pay for euthanasia. So right now you get the option of doing the right thing and taking one for the team. I can only wonder how long until it becomes mandatory.
Playing God again, seems like. "Sorry, the godhead of Britain can't support your life any more..."
Thank you for this thought-provoking piece. I find it interesting that the same people who have their views worked out on abortion and capital punishment give befuddled answers when asked who among the feeble should be "allowed to live" by the State.
Also curious how it is *always about funding*, as if this exonerates these death proponents of any serious moral contemplation. I believe the numbers show that this is, at most, a minor fiscal issue. Of course that depends on the breadth of one's study group...
Don't forget that one of the uglier things vomited up from the left regarding Trig Palin was that Sarah and Todd were being irresponsible to knowingly give birth to a Down Syndrome child.
And the Democratic candidate for President voted to keep passive infanticide legal in Illinois.
This is not just a European phenomenon. Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton, has long advocated the murder of infants with handicaps. He's also big on "animal liberation." 'Nuff said.
"""""And the Democratic candidate for President voted to keep passive infanticide legal in Illinois""""""
AND it should be noted that he framed his defense of his position in terms of saving such babies as being a waste of resources (i.e., it'll tie up TWO doctors instead of just one).
""""""Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton, has long advocated the murder of infants with handicaps. He's also big on "animal liberation." """""
Ah yes, Professor McCreepy himself. This goes to the foundation of what hard-core animal rights activists actually believe: They are NOT trying to raise animals to the level of humans, but rather, they are trying to LOWER humans to the level of other animals. Infanticide among animals is a "natural" practice.
""""""I find it interesting that the same people who have their views worked out on abortion and capital punishment give befuddled answers when asked who among the feeble should be "allowed to live" by the State."""""""
I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in noticing that grotesque double standard. Leave criminal monsters alive, but kill the inconvenient innocent.
Again, the greatest grotesquerie of all is that in the guise of "progressive" thought, these "enlightened" beings want to return us to our most primitive and barbaric state.
"""""""As I recall, the Nazis favored euthanasia for the mentally handicapped and physically crippled"""""""
They were inspired by the American progressives-led eugenics movement that preceded Nazism.
The Nazis were also inspired by the Bolsheviks' earlier creation of the Gulag to develop their own network of concentration camps. They synthesized their two borrowed concepts into one huge monstrosity.
C S Lewis saw this coming in the 1950's; unfortunately, we paid him insufficient attention.
The Washington Initiative proposal also to me suggests a tactic encouraging doctors to lie to their patients that they're "dying" of a false condition in order to rush them to be killed off as soon as possible. That's the other perspective in regards to lying about the cause of death. I went to the "Vote Yes" site for the initiative and a former teacher of mine supports this bill but of course not surprising of him considering I knew him to be extremely liberal. Even protesting against the WTO in Seattle back in 1999. But the state endorsing doctors to lie is appalling. I've already texted my dad to tell people to vote against this BS initiative that the state doesn't have the right to lie their ass off especially to my grandmother who is still alive today. My grandmother? Expendable? I don't think so. We've come to this crap today? It's just bullshit and should not be allowed. It's one thing if it's abortion regarding the sanctity of life but among those people who are not suffering of a painful condition and to sneak in this clause that encourages state murder to kill them off? Damn appalling alright.
THX1138, anyone? Why should we let anyone get to the old and feeble point, when 30 is suffcient?
I's dumb, lemme see if I can git this straight: the lefties are advocating killing off those that are a financial burden, but they also want to expand welfare at every turn, taking more from the rich to support those that can't support themselves, right? But those that can't support themselves should be killed, right?
Are they creating a target rich environment?
Hopefully soon, before she does any more damage, this despicable woman Warnock will die of natural causes.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
KILL all the old people
and the mentally ill
when they pay no more taxes
I hope it happens soon!
A madadory experation date.
It's a good idea.
People used to live to 25 then it became 35
Then 50 - It wasn't that long ago that used to be VERY rare.
Now 80, 90, 100 some guy was saying 150 might become common.
Enought is enought!
I am fifty and I say 75 and its over.
How much more would we do with our lifes if We KNEW that it would not go on forever.
The self-centered have been heard from so far here.
What about doing what is right for our world and the others on it.
An Upper limit on how old you can get
A Limit to the number of kids you can have in your life time.
I say, YES!
The time has come to stop acting like we don't know there are others on this world. Yeah, the I want to live forever crowd
What are you 12?
Nazi's That's your argument Nazi's Geese
The only psychopaths & demented ones here seem to be the ones saying one person living till 150 and another dying at 30 is "Natural"
Time to Nut up, Pull the boot straps up and know when its time to leave the game and give others a seat at the table.
Live Fast - Love Hard and Who wants to Live Forever
by the way being confined to a place and being poked, prodded and stuck an't living it's existance and those who force others to that existance.
Well I don't belive in an invisble papi in the sky but if I am wrong - let's hope they have there own little speacal plot of God's Green Acre
Well, that'comment's a keeper if only for the sheer insane spew of it all.
Few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and Naziism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.
It is no accident that Germany, the country that inaugurated the social security system, was the cradle of both Marxism and Naziism.
We did not want to understand the development which has produced totalitarianism because such an understanding might destroy some of the dearest illusions to which we are determined to cling--
Hayek and Mises
Gerard, what "Brad" doesn't realize in his ignorance is that the "life expectancy" statistics for ancient and medieval times are tremendously distorted by infant mortality, plagues, and wars. Humans on average lived into what we now consider late middle age throughout our history as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
The concept of leisure for the non-wealthy is only about 110 years old. By then, even the working class could take an excursion ferry from NYC to Massachussets or Rhode Island. Closer to home was Coney Island and Far Rockaway. This was a new concept for ordinary Americans and Europeans.
The concept of retirement for a majority of ordinary folk is mostly a post-WWII concept. The "Greatest Generation" and many of their Depression-Era parents are the first majority of senior Americans who could actually retire and have a substantial number of years of relative, if modest, leisure.
The whole point is that this was a fulfillment of the Pursuit of Happiness that may not have been anticipated by the Founding Fathers, but it is considered a priviledge that ordinary citizens could aspire to. And why not? They earned it from years of toil and hard work.
Now after this rather brief period in our history, we are to be considered "parasites" in our old age.
Solyent was "Green". Figures.
Sunk New Dawn
Of course, nobody in the USA media has addressed this, which is the true agenda. There are 78 million boomers headed to retirement and there is no way to pay for their benefits so the obvious and easiest path is to “kill them off” asap. Otherwise the next generations face 85% tax rates and the pols face riots… better to sacrifice the oldsters “for the common good”.
Coming soon…. constant media examples of oldsters living comfy contrasted with the younger generation (and future leaders) barely scratching by— to create that generational war and make the die-off more palatable.
The most dangerous human for the government would be the inventor/chemist who creates an effective life-extension technology…. now THAT would be a Disruptive Technology !
My father is 91 and my mom is 88 and they live independent, productive lives other than needing transportation help as they cannot drive due to health issues. Dad planned well for their future and they own their home and have health insurance that covers them beyond medicare.
They participate in their church, community, vote and work each day. They take complete care of their home, 1/2 acre yard, a bit of flower/vegetable garden. Dad makes furniture and wooden toys while Mom sews clothes and makes dolls with clothes which are then donated to
needy people identified through their church.
I dare anyone to tell me that they should be denied health care for their various age related
On September13, they will have been married for 75 years.
Our seniors are a national treasure. Their experience and advice in just getting through the 30's and WW II and beyond should be sought and used to help us make better decisions today.