Expediency vs. Humanity

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,291
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Whether one considers it political, religious, scientific....there is a huge divide over the value of an innocent human life.
Consider the following with an eye toward the importance of human life.




1. "A senior university lecturer and Czech government adviser, 78-year-old Miroslav Mitloehner, has been sacked from his positions over the views he expressed in Časopis zdravotnického práva a bioetiky (Journal of Medical Law and Bioethics).

2. .... children born with a severe disability should be left to die.

He explains in the abstract: “It should be possible to abandon the effort to save lives (even when there is a chance of survival) when the malformations of the neonates are so severe that they exclude the future possibility for meaningful and conscious human existence.”



3. This is not just a common argument; it is effectively legal in the Netherlands and it is a common practice in many other countries.

4. .... he used a word to describe these children which has been translated as “freaks”. Disability activists exploded and Mr Mitloehner became an unemployed bioethicist.

5. I have learned an important lesson from this imbroglio: language matters in discussing infanticide. If babies are called “freaks”, you will lose your job. If you speak respectfully about killing them, you will (like Peter Singer) get awards from your government."
BioEdge: An unemployed Czech bioethicist




When Illinois was debating a law that mandated that children born alive after a botched abortion deserve medical attention to keep them alive...how do you think Miroslav Mitloehner would have voted?

Once the question is answered in the manner of Dr. Mitloehner, "... born with a severe disability should be left to die....' how big a leap is it to see entire segments of the population as having such a "severe disability" and dealt with similarly?




It is instructive that Marxism, from which modern Liberalism is derivative, was the first modern political philosophy to authorize genocide as a political expedient.

6. "Early socialists publicly advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust."
Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981



Whether one child....or entire "classes and races," they must perish.....

Expediency, the efforts at efficiency by the Left.
 
Yeah, those anti-war hippie liberals are always advocating genocide.

Republicans are thinkers.
 
Yeah, those anti-war hippie liberals are always advocating genocide.

Republicans are thinkers.




So....having carefully studied your two posts, neither of you disputes that Barack Obama and Miroslav Mitloehner have the same view about the death of unwanted babies...?

Or that genocide is endorsed by communism and its derivatives?

Well, more than a good start.

Excellent.
 
Last edited:
I have a nephew who has Cerebral palsy. We were told that he would never live past 18. He has now exceeded that expectation by 2 decades. He has had a happy life although it has not been easy for my sister and our family.

He just returned from a Cruise were he even got to para sail.

Sooooooooooooo Dr. Mitloehner can kiss my rebel ass.

If anyone had tried to prevent this divine spark from this life they'd be..................

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Talk some more about the value of innocent life as you pray for drone strikes against whoever.

Republicans are thinkers.
 
An aborted fetus does not have the right to life sustaining measures;

if it did, it couldn't have been aborted in the first place.

True.

An embryo/fetus has no right to Constitutional protections, where a woman does (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).

Of course, contempt for individual liberty is nothing new among conservatives.
 
Liberals believe that all human beings belong to the state. As the owner of these bodies, the state has the full right and power to decide whether that person should live or die. The state keeps those who benefit the state and disposes of the rest. If a disabled infant should die, at what age should a disabled person not be required to die? People who are injured and no longer able to function will also be required to die. Not only are they of no benefit to the state, but they are required to have caretakers who also are not benefiting the state.
 
Mind your own fucking business or go full on bible-based christian authoritarianism where everything that is "sinful" is illegal. Trying to be both anti-abortion and anti-government makes you people seem incredibly hypocritical and not at all anti-government, you just want to seize the levers of power do your own kind of big government christian tyranny.
 
Liberals believe that all human beings belong to the state. As the owner of these bodies, the state has the full right and power to decide whether that person should live or die. .

It's the state that would own a pregnant woman's body, in order to force her to carry the fetus to term.
 
Last edited:
Liberals believe that all human beings belong to the state. As the owner of these bodies, the state has the full right and power to decide whether that person should live or die. .

It's the state that would own pregnant woman's body, in order to force her to carry the fetus to term.

Forcing women into domestic bondage is a long held conservative value.
 
I have a nephew who has Cerebral palsy. We were told that he would never live past 18. He has now exceeded that expectation by 2 decades. He has had a happy life although it has not been easy for my sister and our family.

He just returned from a Cruise were he even got to para sail.

Sooooooooooooo Dr. Mitloehner can kiss my rebel ass.

If anyone had tried to prevent this divine spark from this life they'd be..................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RFeIj-xwEM







Your nephew is very lucky to have a family like yours.

Former communist Arthur Koestler puts in stark juxtaposition the two ways that human life is viewed in this world.

7. In “Darkness at Noon,” published in 1940, Koestler writes about the 1938 Moscow Show Trials. This, from the novel:

“There are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units.

The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit or a sacrificial lamb.

The first conception could be called anti-vivisection morality, the second, vivisection morality. Humbugs and dilettantes have always tried to mix the two conceptions; in practice, it is impossible. Whoever is burdened with power and responsibility finds out on the first occasion that he has to choose; and he is fatally driven to the second alternative.” (p. 157)






Is that a truth about our society...that we are "fatally driven" and, therefore, "the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit or a sacrificial lamb"?

Doesn't it sound like "I was only following orders...."
 
8. In the OP we see the journal named "Medical Law and Bioethics." Based on the policy under discussion, the term 'Bioethics' seems Orwellian at the least.



Of course, we have our charlatans who use the same name. They were involved in the creation of the government healthcare plan designed to reduce costs by rationing and delay of said care, the main component very much the same as the plan in the OP: those with " a severe disability should be left to die."



9. Dr. Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother is the prime 'bioethicist' in ObamaCare.

" No one should subscribe to the reasoning of a bioethicist, even one as eminent as Dr Emanuel, without kicking the tyres. He should be asked two questions: what makes us human and what makes right right and wrong wrong. If we can agree on the philosophical bits, it is much more likely that we will agree on the practical consequences which flow from them.

Let's say that your mother has Alzheimer's and breaks her hip. Let's say that all the bioethicists on the hospital ethics committee have degrees in behavioral economics, psychology, decision theory or sociology. Would you find that reassuring?

When tough decisions have to be made about her future, would you expect them to treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity? Probably not. Probably the thought would cross your mind that these guys may know a lot about quality-adjusted life years, but not a lot about how precious a human life is.



In fact, the thought might cross your mind that this looks more like a death panel than an ethics committee.



No doubt the ASBH would respond, “Trust us! We are honourable men. Decent people like us would never ignore your mother's dignity.” Hopefully this is true of most members of the ASBH.

But “trust us” is not a very persuasive argument.” Bioethicists cannot cope with the death panels issue
 
10. And, fitting into the discussion of the uniqueness of each human life is this interesting quote:
"I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Obama Says He Doesn't Want His Daughters Punished with a Baby

That was President Obama providing insight into his understanding of the uniqueness of each human life.



Do you believe that that quote was merely a slip of the tongue?

President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience


a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals."

He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born.



In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



Again.....this man, this thinking, was selected by Barack Obama.

Time and again we find Leftists of every variety cold and calculating when it comes to considering human life.
 
8. In the OP we see the journal named "Medical Law and Bioethics." Based on the policy under discussion, the term 'Bioethics' seems Orwellian at the least.



Of course, we have our charlatans who use the same name. They were involved in the creation of the government healthcare plan designed to reduce costs by rationing and delay of said care, the main component very much the same as the plan in the OP: those with " a severe disability should be left to die."



9. Dr. Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother is the prime 'bioethicist' in ObamaCare.

" No one should subscribe to the reasoning of a bioethicist, even one as eminent as Dr Emanuel, without kicking the tyres. He should be asked two questions: what makes us human and what makes right right and wrong wrong. If we can agree on the philosophical bits, it is much more likely that we will agree on the practical consequences which flow from them.

Let's say that your mother has Alzheimer's and breaks her hip. Let's say that all the bioethicists on the hospital ethics committee have degrees in behavioral economics, psychology, decision theory or sociology. Would you find that reassuring?

When tough decisions have to be made about her future, would you expect them to treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity? Probably not. Probably the thought would cross your mind that these guys may know a lot about quality-adjusted life years, but not a lot about how precious a human life is.



In fact, the thought might cross your mind that this looks more like a death panel than an ethics committee.



No doubt the ASBH would respond, “Trust us! We are honourable men. Decent people like us would never ignore your mother's dignity.” Hopefully this is true of most members of the ASBH.

But “trust us” is not a very persuasive argument.” Bioethicists cannot cope with the death panels issue

We can prolong every life to the maximum with every resource available if you're willing to pay the taxes needed to fund it.

Otherwise it simply becomes a privilege of the rich, if privilege is the right word for it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top