With a splintery old shovel handle.
You control-freak bastards don't have the power to tell someone "You can't have that treatment"; I know you're trying, but you don't.
I wonder if these bastards have considered that, sooner or later, they tell someone "You/Your wife/husband/sister/brother/child/spouse cannot have that treatment, it's not cost-effective enough", and someone will take it personally? Very harshly permanently. Bureaucrats decorating trees/lampposts/rafters is a distinct possibility.
More here:
The Orwellian ramifications of Blow’s worries over an aging population are vast. If individuals are only worthy of membership in society if they are able bodied, where does the line get drawn? If life-extending treatments become verboten, lest society be burdened with what Blow seems to believe are useless individuals, would the physically and mentally infirm also be denied life-saving treatments? While eugenics is often seen as part of the past, one cannot forget the legacy that those who championed its use carry in our modern world. The mother of what is now Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was outspoken in her support of eugenicist policies. In her 1920 book Sanger argued that “birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives.” Those questioning how effective Sanger’s campaign to weed out the unfit has been can look at the latest data on abortion rates for fetuses who test positive for Down Syndrome (studies place the number at over 90 percent).
'Physically and mentally infirm', where have we heard that before... Oh yeah
'Because Democrats CARE(to screw people over at any opportunity)!'
The NSA is all butthurt that we're pissed at them. Really?
No comments:
Post a Comment