facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[newpolitics]

These idiots don't even know what it is dthey follow. They haven't figured out that the fascist and communist branches of their ideology have united and and abandonned ideological purity in favor of whateverever collectivist authoritarianism method they can use to advance the whole. Their early calls for eugenic ellimination of undesireables is being conducted in our nations cities with the wholesale slaughter of half a generation of black babies in the name of "choice" and now they're pushing thier second facet by seeking to base madical treatments on their "worth" to society wherein the very young and very old are allowed to "die with dignity" because we can't afford the treatment... it's for the greater good.

Hillary might have known what she was advocating when she claimed to be an "early 20th century progressive", but so few people know their history that most people thought that was a good thing.

The biggest difference between a fascist and a communist is where they keep thier scapegoats.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from eachother. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

WTF are you talking about?

What a bunch of garbage.

I don't know how I could have been any clearer. There is such thing as a political spectrum hence why we talk of the right, middle, and the left. The far left being communism, as you go towards the center you pass through liberalism, then you have the center, and moving to the right you have conservatism, and finally, all the way to the right you have fascism, hence, communism and fascism are literally at two opposite ends of the spectrum.

Am I mistaken? Can someone back me up on this? I thought this was basic political science.

 

[BenNatuf]

Most progressives cling desperately to the notion that fascism is a right wing phenomenon. It's their lack of understanding of history that is the culprit.

These idiots don't even know what it is dthey follow. They haven't figured out that the fascist and communist branches of their ideology have united and and abandonned ideological purity in favor of whateverever collectivist authoritarianism method they can use to advance the whole. Their early calls for eugenic ellimination of undesireables is being conducted in our nations cities with the wholesale slaughter of half a generation of black babies in the name of "choice" and now they're pushing thier second facet by seeking to base madical treatments on their "worth" to society wherein the very young and very old are allowed to "die with dignity" because we can't afford the treatment... it's for the greater good.

Hillary might have known what she was advocating when she claimed to be an "early 20th century progressive", but so few people know their history that most people thought that was a good thing.

The biggest difference between a fascist and a communist is where they keep thier scapegoats.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from each other. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

Foolish progressive, fascism and communism are BOTH leftist collectivist ideologies, only their methodlogy and the face they portray to the world of those who make-up of the collective differs. The right end of the spectrum is Anarchy, and the left end is Authoritarianism. Every form of government moves the marker left from Anarchy; and, fascism and communism are but a scapegoat away from being almost identical.

In Communism the collective controls the means of production by owning it, in Fascism it controls the means of production by partnering with it. What is the difference in practice? The only difference is that in Fascism they allow industrialists to amass wealth which ultimately is controlled and directed by the collective. It is nothing more than a charade which allows them to keep thier scapegoats internal. In Communism the body politic amasses the wealth which it then directs and controls and needs to have external scapegoats for its failures.

Modern progressives use both of them, along with Oligarchal control when neither of them will advance the cause. What do you call it when the body politic uses oligarchal means to transform debt to the public into ownership shares of a corporation? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Fascism. What do you call it when the body politic uses Oligarchal means to subvert and ignore the law and transfer unsecured debt created by promises with no capital investments by the recieving party of workers into worker ownership? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Marxism.

Do you know what the difference is between controlling the means of production by owning it and controlling the means of production by exercizing ownership rights? Nothing.

Do you know what the difference is between one party and no parties? Nothing.

The difference between Fascism and Communism is cosmetic.

 

[BenNatuf]

why do you insist on being intellectually dishonest? changing the name of euthenasia will not make it not euthenasia. That its distateful is not a rerason to rename it, its a reason not to do it.

You think using accurate descriptions of the event instead of using your loaded word is intellectually dishonest? Not only is my point accurate, involving the reduction or removal of suffering in the face of impending death, but you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word dishonest. Have a read:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/135767-why-are-you-so-dishonest.html

The only thing you're proving is that you're to damned stupid to know what intellectual dishonesty is. You don't get to rename euthenasia because you don't like it's being done being called what it is. Puposefully killing the sick is unacceptable.

suicide and murder are not the same, and actively hastening death to reduce suffering is neither commonplace nor legal in the other 49 states. Lying will not help.

Suicide and murder are not the same, and actively hastening death secondarily to reduced suffering is both legal and commonplace in every single state. It's known as the double effect, a medically ethical concept which I have brought up and previously linked to multiple times in this thread. "Lying will not help" So dramatic.

Why would I give a shit about what you consider to be a more humane form of euthenasia? People who are suffering in intollerable pain and given massive doses of pain killers to control the pain are not purposefully euthenized, that the doses eventually kill them is a side effect of making their pain tollerable, not the goal. Once again showing you're an intellectually dishonest moron.

Sounds like you don't understand the term quality of life or it's ethical applications, seeing as you're applying your own subjective value statement to it. But let's look at your statement anyway. "Life's quality is in living it." So what kind of quality of life do you think this baby had for the 15 minutes it asphyxiated? Let's say scale of 1 to 100, where 100 is awesome and 1 is the worst possible quality of life possible. I just want to see where your subjective reasoning stands. Give me a ballpark number.

Life is its own reward the quality of it is in living.

Whats your ballpark number for killing off people? Is 49 low enough? You cannot make subjective judgements about other peoples quality of life, you're not qualified. No-one is. On a scale of 1-100, 100 is living and 1 is not, and those are the only two numbers on the scale.

While you're thinking of that, please go read up on straw man, because it's clear you don't know what it means. Alternately, if you'd like to support your point, just point out whose argument I misrepresented in the above quote.

all you have is strawmen and you're just too damned stupid to know it.

lets not, you don't get to frame the argument with your strawmen and then claim everyone else must maintain the discussion in your boundaries. You ain't that smart.

Once again you don't understand what quality of life means and are just assuming I'm making up new terms and applying similarly fabricated definitions to them. Clearly in your mind that means I'm making a straw man argument, which even if the previous sentence were true is still not a straw man, and therefore you refuse to participate in any ethical discussion on the matter.
Quality of life definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms
Quality Of Life -- Medical Definition
Assessment of Quality-of-Life Outcomes - New England Journal of Medicine

Amazing! One of the most prestigious medical journals in the world is writing about this topic and yet you think I was the one who first created it while "dishonestly lying." I should be getting royalties for all those experts using my lying terminology!

What the fuck do i care about some other persons subjective judgements about quality of life are? Your appeals to authority are rejected.

induced labor was available to her and was denied only because the hospital put its questionable legal opinion ahead of the medical opinion of the doctors.

Aha, a solid point instead of unsubstantiated name calling. Progress. You are partially right in that the hospital put its legal issues above the medical opinion. You are incorrect in stating that induced labor was available to her. If that were the case, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HER.

But you bring up a good issue regarding the prevention of ethically sound services by legal uncertainty. Would you like to enter ethical discussion now?

Why would I enter an ethical discussion with an idiot supporting euthenasia? There is nothing ethical about it and there never will be. And once again you miss the entire point, by law the procedure WAS AVAILABLE and there need be no changes in the law to make it so. What there needs to be is smarter lawyers working for the hospital.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

That's great, you can be taught. But all the erroneous bs aside from the link - you could have left all that shit out. It's completely irrelevant. And I don't read blathering crap from people who just like to bloviate.

Oh I see. You claim I'm making stuff up, and then in your usual fashion when proven wrong, claim it is all irrelevant anyway. If it's all irrelevant, why did YOU take the time to pull it out and demand proof?

I am always amused when you are directly proven wrong and then try to squirm away with some dumb back pedal. Did I mention I am amused often on this board?

Nevertheless I'm glad to see that you are first learning how the baby died, 29 pages into a thread involving the ethical issues surrounding life and death of this case. That kind of makes every one of your posts before this point completely clueless as usual for you.

As usual, I look forward to you making up ridiculous twisted interpretations of things I said in this post, and completely ignoring all the areas where I point out your deficiencies.

Gargoyle?

Which video? I remember someone posted a youtube clip a while back and I believe they said they didn't watch it, so I didn't. Did you have a point to make? Go on, use your words!

So what happened to the "legal in every state" argument? It seems to have disappeared...

Yes, things tend to disappear when your eyes are closed. If you would just direct your limited attention span to another one of my posts higher on THIS PAGE, you will see:

REGARDLESS of physician assisted suicide, you are still completely ignoring the double effect, which IS an established and non-controversial method of secondarily bringing about death through the administration of pain relieving medications, that is NOT controversial in the medical community. Every major medical organization, including but not limited to the American Medical Association, sees the double effect as ethically sound.

complete with link for people who are not familiar. The double effect is legal and common in every state.

If you actually try reading people's posts you'd probably have an easier time with representing their points correctly, avoiding straw man arguments, and actually following a thread. Just a suggestion.

Yes Gargoyle, because to call you a cockroach would would be a complement for you, and an insult to them. There is no life form on Earth the video depicts the procedure that would have been performed, and what you advocate . I wont watch it because I have seen the procedure and it is disgusting. Go watch it if it is all well and good with you.

 

[newpolitics]

These idiots don't even know what it is dthey follow. They haven't figured out that the fascist and communist branches of their ideology have united and and abandonned ideological purity in favor of whateverever collectivist authoritarianism method they can use to advance the whole. Their early calls for eugenic ellimination of undesireables is being conducted in our nations cities with the wholesale slaughter of half a generation of black babies in the name of "choice" and now they're pushing thier second facet by seeking to base madical treatments on their "worth" to society wherein the very young and very old are allowed to "die with dignity" because we can't afford the treatment... it's for the greater good.

Hillary might have known what she was advocating when she claimed to be an "early 20th century progressive", but so few people know their history that most people thought that was a good thing.

The biggest difference between a fascist and a communist is where they keep thier scapegoats.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from each other. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

Foolish progressive, fascism and communism are BOTH leftist collectivist ideologies, only their methodlogy and the face they portray to the world of those who make-up of the collective differs. The right end of the spectrum is Anarchy, and the left end is Authoritarianism. Every form of government moves the marker left from Anarchy and fascism and communism are but a scapegoat away from being almost identical.

In Communism the collective controls the means of production by owning it, in Fascism it controls the means of production by partnering with it. What is the difference in practice? The only difference is that in Fascism they allow industrialists to amass wealth which ultimately is controlled and directed by the collective. It is nothing more than a charade which allows them to keep thier scapegoats internal. In Communism the body politic amasses the wealth which it then directs and controls and needs to have external scapegoats for its failures.

Modern progressives use both of them, along with Oligarchal control when neither of them will advance the cause. What do you call it when the body politic uses oligarchal means to transform debt to the public into ownership shares of a corporation? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Fascism. What do you call it when the body politic uses Oligarchal means to subvert and ignore the law and transfer unsecured debt created by promises with no capital investments by the recieving party of workers into worker ownership? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Marxism.

Do you know what the difference is between controlling the means of production by owning it and controlling the means of production by exercizing ownership rights? Nothing.

Do you know what the difference is between one party and no parties? Nothing.

The difference between Fascism and Communism is cosmetic.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but fascism is the far-right position on the conservative side of the spectrum, completely opposite from communism.

 

[BenNatuf]

It's funny how to me, in this instance, conservatives completely doubt the expertise of the doctors and label their prognosis as a conspiracy, but when it comes energy (oil, fracking), military (going to Iraq), or finance, expert opinion is always welcome without scrutiny. How convenient that they get to pick and choose which experts are actually experts, especially in a field which is actually a science, backed by years of hard evidence, and repeatable calculations, math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc... as compared to some arbitrarily assigned expertise, given credibly solely on their ranking in a pecking order (President, General, Economist) who only speculate using broad opinions based more on beliefs, hunchs, and biased views, and their appeal to popular opinion and momentum, rather than actual concrete science. What fucking bullshit this hub-bub is. It's logical blasphemy.

Unless we happen to be experts in a field, we are all forced to decide which experts we believe in debates where expert opinions are necessary.

We see this happening in all sorts of debates where scientific or engineering issues are central to the discussion.

Now I happen to agree with you that most conservatives on THIS board are know-nothings.

Some of them obviously revel in their ignorance. The wallow in it like pigs in a sty. Those types aren't really worth writing to.

But as I said originally, when it comes to issues of science, unless you are yourself an expert, you are depending on experts to craft you POV, just as those who disagree with you probably are.

That is basically why I seldom enter into those debates.

Dueling expert debates are pointless.

My scientist can beat up your scientist debating leads exactly nowhere as can be so clearly seen in, as two examples, the Global Warming debates and the 911 debates.

ALSO we see that to a lesser extend in many ECON debates.

However in social science issues (econ included) I feel more qualified to take a stance so I tend to gravitate to those issues

In the case of medicine, doctors take a hypocratic oath, and their decisions are never, in any way, supposed to be political or religious. I think this separates this field of expertise from many others such as economists, military personnel, and others commonly found within the realm of politics.

Once again you guys can't seem to make any argument without some falacious debating technique, appeals to authority are false premise arguments. Just because a doctor takes an oathe does not mean he'll uphold it, his ethical behaviour is dependent on him, not his oath.

All this talk of, 'who are they to decide,' 'only god can say that,' 'they should have operated in utero,' is kind of ridiculous to me.

yeah it is... and no-one made those arguments. Do you always use strawmen to make an argument?

If they thought they help the baby they would have.

Logical falacy, you have no way of knowing that.

We know nothing of the nature of the baby's condition, and to sit here and judge the doctors is so arrogant to me, because it assumes that they don't know what they are talking about, and that they possibility had mal-intent or simply didn't care enough to really try and help the baby

And yet no-one made these arguments... once again you set up a strawman.

the mother was put through the psychological torture of knowing this to be the case while still being obligated to hold the pregnancy for the remainder of the term, and the physical pain of the whole process.

She was only obligated based on an extremely questionable legal opinion by the hospital... which of course would be a false obligation as in the REALITY of what the law realy says, she had no such obligation. This thread is about a law which supposedly kept the woman from having labor induced, when the law did no such thing, an erronious opinion on the law did.

 

[AllieBaba]

why do you insist on being intellectually dishonest? changing the name of euthenasia will not make it not euthenasia. That its distateful is not a rerason to rename it, its a reason not to do it.

You think using accurate descriptions of the event instead of using your loaded word is intellectually dishonest? Not only is my point accurate, involving the reduction or removal of suffering in the face of impending death, but you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word dishonest. Have a read:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/135767-why-are-you-so-dishonest.html

The only thing you're proving is that you're to damned stupid to know what intellectual dishonesty is. You don't get to rename euthenasia because you don't like it's being done being called what it is. Puposefully killing the sick is unacceptable.

Why would I give a shit about what you consider to be a more humane form of euthenasia? People who are suffering in intollerable pain and given massive doses of pain killers to control the pain are not purposefully euthenized, that the doses eventually kill them is a side effect of making their pain tollerable, not the goal. Once again showing you're an intellectually dishonest moron.

Life is its own reward the quality of it is in living.

Whats your ballpark number for killing off people? Is 49 low enough? You cannot make subjective judgements about other peoples quality of life, you're not qualified. No-one is. On a scale of 1-100, 100 is living and 1 is not, and those are the only two numbers on the scale.

all you have is strawmen and you're just too damned stupid to know it.

What the fuck do i care about some other persons subjective judgements about quality of life are? Your appeals to authority are rejected.

induced labor was available to her and was denied only because the hospital put its questionable legal opinion ahead of the medical opinion of the doctors.

Aha, a solid point instead of unsubstantiated name calling. Progress. You are partially right in that the hospital put its legal issues above the medical opinion. You are incorrect in stating that induced labor was available to her. If that were the case, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HER.

But you bring up a good issue regarding the prevention of ethically sound services by legal uncertainty. Would you like to enter ethical discussion now?

Why would I enter an ethical discussion with an idiot supporting euthenasia? There is nothing ethical about it and there never will be. And once again you miss the entire point, by law the procedure WAS AVAILABLE and there need be no changes in the law to make it so. What there needs to be is smarter lawyers working for the hospital.

Lol..you so nailed it. He runs around saying "why won't you engage?" but provides ZILCH to engage over.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from eachother. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

WTF are you talking about?

What a bunch of garbage.

I don't know how I could have been any clearer. There is such thing as a political spectrum hence why we talk of the right, middle, and the left. The far left being communism, as you go towards the center you pass through liberalism, then you have the center, and moving to the right you have conservatism, and finally, all the way to the right you have fascism, hence, communism and fascism are literally at two opposite ends of the spectrum.

Am I mistaken? Can someone back me up on this? I thought this was basic political science.

You are so far wrong its rediculous. different types of authoritarianism does not exist on both ends of the spectrum, they exist on the same end of the spectrum.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from each other. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

Foolish progressive, fascism and communism are BOTH leftist collectivist ideologies, only their methodlogy and the face they portray to the world of those who make-up of the collective differs. The right end of the spectrum is Anarchy, and the left end is Authoritarianism. Every form of government moves the marker left from Anarchy and fascism and communism are but a scapegoat away from being almost identical.

In Communism the collective controls the means of production by owning it, in Fascism it controls the means of production by partnering with it. What is the difference in practice? The only difference is that in Fascism they allow industrialists to amass wealth which ultimately is controlled and directed by the collective. It is nothing more than a charade which allows them to keep thier scapegoats internal. In Communism the body politic amasses the wealth which it then directs and controls and needs to have external scapegoats for its failures.

Modern progressives use both of them, along with Oligarchal control when neither of them will advance the cause. What do you call it when the body politic uses oligarchal means to transform debt to the public into ownership shares of a corporation? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Fascism. What do you call it when the body politic uses Oligarchal means to subvert and ignore the law and transfer unsecured debt created by promises with no capital investments by the recieving party of workers into worker ownership? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Marxism.

Do you know what the difference is between controlling the means of production by owning it and controlling the means of production by exercizing ownership rights? Nothing.

Do you know what the difference is between one party and no parties? Nothing.

The difference between Fascism and Communism is cosmetic.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but fascism is the far-right position on the conservative side of the spectrum, completely opposite from communism.

Er..no. Hate to tell you this, but just not true.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
— fas·cist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·tic \fa-&#712;shis-tik also -&#712;sis-\ adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(&#601;-)l&#275;\ adverb often capitalized


Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So how does it apply here ?

 

[AllieBaba]

fas·cism

&#8194; &#8194;http://app.dictionary.com/signup/po...lbackAction=addToFav&domaindest=reference.com/&#712;fæ&#643;

&#618;z

&#601;m/ Show Spelled[fash-iz-uh

m] Show IPA
&#8211;noun 1. ( sometimes initial capital letter

) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter

) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

3. ( initial capital letter

) a fascist movement, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922&#8211;43.




Use fascism in a Sentence


See images of fascism


Search fascism on the Web

Origin:
1915&#8211;20; < Italian fascismo, equivalent to fasc ( io ) bundle, political group ( see fasces) + -ismo -ism

&#8212;Related forms an·ti·fas·cism, noun
pro·fas·cism, noun


Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

I don't see where it says fascism comes from the right.

 

[AllieBaba]

lol..funny...

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the idea of a spectrum, but it is linear, goes from left to right, and is sequential, so you can't get from one point to another, without going through all the points in-between. What you are suggesting is a wormhole, that somehow the furthest possibility on the left, communism, is the same as the further possibility to the right, fascism. It is simply not possible, given that they are the furthest possible extremes from each other. How then, is it possible, as you say, that fascism and communism simply unite, tying the two ends together to make a circle? I mean granted, I am taking the physical model of a spectrum and applying it directly to what you are saying, but I still don't see, ideologically, how what you are saying is cogent.

Foolish progressive, fascism and communism are BOTH leftist collectivist ideologies, only their methodlogy and the face they portray to the world of those who make-up of the collective differs. The right end of the spectrum is Anarchy, and the left end is Authoritarianism. Every form of government moves the marker left from Anarchy and fascism and communism are but a scapegoat away from being almost identical.

In Communism the collective controls the means of production by owning it, in Fascism it controls the means of production by partnering with it. What is the difference in practice? The only difference is that in Fascism they allow industrialists to amass wealth which ultimately is controlled and directed by the collective. It is nothing more than a charade which allows them to keep thier scapegoats internal. In Communism the body politic amasses the wealth which it then directs and controls and needs to have external scapegoats for its failures.

Modern progressives use both of them, along with Oligarchal control when neither of them will advance the cause. What do you call it when the body politic uses oligarchal means to transform debt to the public into ownership shares of a corporation? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Fascism. What do you call it when the body politic uses Oligarchal means to subvert and ignore the law and transfer unsecured debt created by promises with no capital investments by the recieving party of workers into worker ownership? I'll help you out... it's called advancing toward (progressive for dummies) Marxism.

Do you know what the difference is between controlling the means of production by owning it and controlling the means of production by exercizing ownership rights? Nothing.

Do you know what the difference is between one party and no parties? Nothing.

The difference between Fascism and Communism is cosmetic.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but fascism is the far-right position on the conservative side of the spectrum, completely opposite from communism.

i know your progressive masters instructed you to regurgitate this garbage, but itsd false. the far right end of the politicdal spectrum is perfect Anarchy, the far left end is perfect totalitarianism in all its forms. Fascism and Communism are both extreme collectivist leftist ideologies. Your inane contention would put two forms of collectivist authoritarianism on both ends of the scale and anarchy in the middle. Where would Monarchy, Theocracy, despotism and every other form of authoritarian tyranny fit on that?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You don't get to rename euthenasia because you don't like it's being done being called what it is. Puposefully killing the sick is unacceptable.

Where did I ever rename euthenasia? Can you point to where I ever used a false or inaccurate wording of this topic? Go on, quote me on something instead of making vague complaints. Put some integrity behind your words. Point out what was inaccurate, false, or misleading.

As for "purposefully killing the sick," you clearly do not understand ethical debate if you make sweeping generalizations like that. As I've mentioned, multiple states allow for it in specific non-vague contexts, and EVERY state sees the double effect as ethically sound. Addressing these well established ethical ideas with "it's sick" is unsupported opinion that doesn't even attempt to enter into ethical debate. It's your choice: discuss the actual ethics, or don't. Half-assed unsupported opinions are useless.

Why would I give a shit about what you consider to be a more humane form of euthenasia? People who are suffering in intollerable pain and given massive doses of pain killers to control the pain are not purposefully euthenized, that the doses eventually kill them is a side effect of making their pain tollerable, not the goal. Once again showing you're an intellectually dishonest moron.

I fail to see how you reiterating my point makes me intellectually dishonest. You keep incorrectly using that term, which only leads me to believe you don't know what it means. Massive doses of pain medications that bring about death when a person is in pain is ethically sound by the standards of this culture and the resources I previously cited, and could have easily been used in this instance. But it wasn't. 15 minutes of asphyxiation was endured instead.

Life is its own reward the quality of it is in living.

Yes you've mentioned that before. When I asked you what kind of quality of life you believed this baby had in its 15 minutes of asphyxiation, your only response is to repeat "life is its own reward?" Really? Again I can't help but ask: what REWARD was gained by this baby's 15 minutes of life? What benefit came about to anyone? This is the question that none of you ignorant reductionists seem to be able to answer. Surely lots of bad yet avoidable things happened, so what GOOD came about this ending?

Whats your ballpark number for killing off people? Is 49 low enough? You cannot make subjective judgements about other peoples quality of life, you're not qualified. No-one is. On a scale of 1-100, 100 is living and 1 is not, and those are the only two numbers on the scale.

And this is precisely why you are completely incapable of discussing ethics. To state there are only two extremist possibilities in the world regarding quality of life is just ridiculous. You think people are only completely happy or utterly miserable with no spectrum in between? What does that mean when a happy man gets depressed, or cancer, or intractable chronic pain?

So not only did you not believe the term "quality of life" existed, let alone as an established ethical term referenced by the top medical journals in this country, but now your ignorance implores you to state there is no such spectrum regarding quality of life?! Absurd.

I did not ask you what number you think people should be killed at. I asked you about the quality of life of this baby. Are you truly incapable of assessing it? OK, let me break it down into your childish viewpoint: was the baby's quality of life 1 or 100?

all you have is strawmen and you're just too damned stupid to know it.

And yet, much like your claim of dishonesty, you are completely incapable of pointing out specifically what I said that distorted or misrepresented anything anyone else in this thread has stated, which is the definition of straw man. But this is your usual: lots of hot words and absolutely no clue how to use them, as seen by your inability to specifically identify their use.

What the fuck do i care about some other persons subjective judgements about quality of life are? Your appeals to authority are rejected.

That was not an appeal to authority. That was proof that the term you claimed I made up as a straw man argument was an established ethical concept. Such is better known as citation of facts. You should try it sometime!

But you're right: it doesn't matter what my subjective quality of this baby's life is to you. I asked for yours, but you avoided the question. Pathetic.

Why would I enter an ethical discussion with an idiot supporting euthenasia? There is nothing ethical about it and there never will be. And once again you miss the entire point, by law the procedure WAS AVAILABLE and there need be no changes in the law to make it so. What there needs to be is smarter lawyers working for the hospital.

And once again YOU miss the point: a law that cannot be used is not available. If induced labor WAS available to her, it would have happened. The fact that it didn't happen despite her desire directly proves it was not available to her. This is fact. Pointing to a law is only one of many necessary components to claim this option was available to her.

But you're also right in that it's clear you have no interest in entering an ethical discussion. You make good excuses as to why, but the end result is still the same: you either lack the intellectual capacity or desire, and produce no ethical reasoning.

Yes Gargoyle, because to call you a cockroach would would be a complement for you, and an insult to them. There is no life form on Earth the video depicts the procedure that would have been performed, and what you advocate . I wont watch it because I have seen the procedure and it is disgusting. Go watch it if it is all well and good with you.

Gargoyle cockroach! Excellent intellectual points. I'm so glad we have people with your genius forming this country's policies. As I said before: if you haven't watched your own source, why should I? Use your words, make a point, or don't bother. Let's start with this: which procedure do you dislike and refer to?

Once again you guys can't seem to make any argument without some falacious debating technique, appeals to authority are false premise arguments. Just because a doctor takes an oathe does not mean he'll uphold it, his ethical behaviour is dependent on him, not his oath.

That's true. However his medical license and ability to legally practice medicine IS dependent on ethical behavior. His point was not an appeal to authority. It was a statement of fact. Just because authority is involved does not inherently invoke a fallacy.

We know nothing of the nature of the baby's condition, and to sit here and judge the doctors is so arrogant to me, because it assumes that they don't know what they are talking about, and that they possibility had mal-intent or simply didn't care enough to really try and help the baby

And yet no-one made these arguments... once again you set up a strawman.

Actually several people throughout the thread made those exact arguments, although I give you credit for finally using straw man in its proper meaning, even though you were incorrect.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-child-die-15-minutes-later.html#post3403332
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-child-die-15-minutes-later.html#post3403420
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...child-die-15-minutes-later-5.html#post3404989
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-10.html#post3405805
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-11.html#post3406403
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-11.html#post3406503
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-12.html#post3406648

See how I can support or refute a straw man claim with direct evidence? You should try that sometime instead of vague references to nothing in particular.

the mother was put through the psychological torture of knowing this to be the case while still being obligated to hold the pregnancy for the remainder of the term, and the physical pain of the whole process.

She was only obligated based on an extremely questionable legal opinion by the hospital... which of course would be a false obligation as in the REALITY of what the law realy says, she had no such obligation. This thread is about a law which supposedly kept the woman from having labor induced, when the law did no such thing, an erronious opinion on the law did.

And that erroneous opinion of a hazy law still prevented that service from being available to her.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Actually several people throughout the thread made those exact arguments"

Logical fallacy, proves nada.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

"Actually several people throughout the thread made those exact arguments"

Logical fallacy, proves nada.

have a seat dear. the grownups are talking now.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not if you're involved, they're not.

 

[BenNatuf]

You don't get to rename euthenasia because you don't like it's being done being called what it is. Puposefully killing the sick is unacceptable.

Where did I ever rename euthenasia? Can you point to where I ever used a false or inaccurate wording of this topic? Go on, quote me on something instead of making vague complaints. Put some integrity behind your words. Point out what was inaccurate, false, or misleading.

here asshole is where you claimed euthenasia was a loaded word that was inacurate... and it wasn't the first time

You think using accurate descriptions of the event instead of using your loaded word is intellectually dishonest? Not only is my point accurate, involving the reduction or removal of suffering in the face of impending death, but you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word dishonest

You're just a lying sack of shit.

moving along

As for "purposefully killing the sick," you clearly do not understand ethical debate if you make sweeping generalizations like that. As I've mentioned, multiple states allow for it in specific non-vague contexts, and EVERY state sees the double effect as ethically sound. Addressing these well established ethical ideas with "it's sick" is unsupported opinion that doesn't even attempt to enter into ethical debate. It's your choice: discuss the actual ethics, or don't. Half-assed unsupported opinions are useless.

your such an ignorant ass. As I said moron, when people are given massive doses of painkiller to control their pain the objective isn't to kill them... thats an eventual side effect of the treatment. What you waqnt here is treatment specifically designed to kill... they are not the same. Your double stupid analogy is a strawman.

Why would I give a shit about what you consider to be a more humane form of euthenasia? People who are suffering in intollerable pain and given massive doses of pain killers to control the pain are not purposefully euthenized, that the doses eventually kill them is a side effect of making their pain tollerable, not the goal. Once again showing you're an intellectually dishonest moron.

I fail to see how you reiterating my point makes me intellectually dishonest. You keep incorrectly using that term, which only leads me to believe you don't know what it means. Massive doses of pain medications that bring about death when a person is in pain is ethically sound by the standards of this culture and the resources I previously cited, and could have easily been used in this instance. But it wasn't. 15 minutes of asphyxiation was endured instead.

No, you're just a complete moron, claiming the side effect of treatment and the objective of treatment is the same thing in order too justify purposeful euthenasia is intellectually dishonest. It's what you're good at.

Yes you've mentioned that before. When I asked you what kind of quality of life you believed this baby had in its 15 minutes of asphyxiation, your only response is to repeat "life is its own reward?" Really? Again I can't help but ask: what REWARD was gained by this baby's 15 minutes of life? What benefit came about to anyone? This is the question that none of you ignorant reductionists seem to be able to answer. Surely lots of bad yet avoidable things happened, so what GOOD came about this ending?

life its its own value dumbass. Your stupid assed quality of life BS is what's reductionist, reducing life to the degree of enjoyment in it. When we start making subjective judgements about who's quality of life is worth living and who's should be snuffed out we pretend to be gods. We are not.

And this is precisely why you are completely incapable of discussing ethics. To state there are only two extremist possibilities in the world regarding quality of life is just ridiculous. You think people are only completely happy or utterly miserable with no spectrum in between? What does that mean when a happy man gets depressed, or cancer, or intractable chronic pain?

there are only two possibilities here dumbass. alive and dead. What you're trying to do is justify killing... thats not ethics dumbass, it's evil.

So not only did you not believe the term "quality of life" existed, let alone as an established ethical term referenced by the top medical journals in this country, but now your ignorance implores you to state there is no such spectrum regarding quality of life?! Absurd.

whats absurd is your assinine assertion that I don't know what quality of life is, what's further absurd is you don't seem to get the fact that I reject the argument, it is not "ethical" to subjetively determine who's life is worth living. It is decidedly UNETHICAL in every instance. Once again it's not ethics you're trying to discuss, it's justification... and you're just to damned stupid to know it.

I did not ask you what number you think people should be killed at. I asked you about the quality of life of this baby. Are you truly incapable of assessing it? OK, let me break it down into your childish viewpoint: was the baby's quality of life 1 or 100?

Alive until it wasn't. Thats the only quality that matters.

And yet, much like your claim of dishonesty, you are completely incapable of pointing out specifically what I said that distorted or misrepresented anything anyone else in this thread has stated, which is the definition of straw man. But this is your usual: lots of hot words and absolutely no clue how to use them, as seen by your inability to specifically identify their use.

I've pointed it out over and over again, and your inane denials do not negate it.

That was not an appeal to authority. That was proof that the term you claimed I made up as a straw man argument was an established ethical concept. Such is better known as citation of facts. You should try it sometime!

You don't even understand the ethical concept you moron. Is it ethical to give a person massive doses of painkillers to lessen their suffering that will as a side effect eventually kill them? Yeah, if thats what they want.

Is it ethical to PURPOSEFULY kill a person as the primary objective to lessen their suffering? hell fucking no.

They are NOT the same thing. And you're too damned stupid to figure it out.

But you're right: it doesn't matter what my subjective quality of this baby's life is to you. I asked for yours, but you avoided the question. Pathetic.

I didn't avoid the question dumbass, I rejected the premise.

And once again YOU miss the point: a law that cannot be used is not available. If induced labor WAS available to her, it would have happened. The fact that it didn't happen despite her desire directly proves it was not available to her. This is fact. Pointing to a law is only one of many necessary components to claim this option was available to her.

Once again you're a copmpletye idiot, the procedure was available to her under the law, what prevented her getting it was an erroneous opinion by a dumbass lawyer. The fault is not in the law, its in the idiot lawyer.

But you're also right in that it's clear you have no interest in entering an ethical discussion. You make good excuses as to why, but the end result is still the same: you either lack the intellectual capacity or desire, and produce no ethical reasoning.

what I have no interest in getting into is a dumbass argument to justify killing, there is no ethical question involved.

Actually several people throughout the thread made those exact arguments, although I give you credit for finally using straw man in its proper meaning, even though you were incorrect.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-child-die-15-minutes-later.html#post3403332
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-child-die-15-minutes-later.html#post3403420
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...child-die-15-minutes-later-5.html#post3404989
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-10.html#post3405805
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-11.html#post3406403
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-11.html#post3406503
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hild-die-15-minutes-later-12.html#post3406648

See how I can support or refute a straw man claim with direct evidence? You should try that sometime instead of vague references to nothing in particular.

see how intellectually dishonest you are. You've taken QUESTIONS and comments about OTHER SITUATIONS which posed QUESTIONS and attempted to claim they were STATEMENTS about THIS situation. Are you even capable of forming an argument thats not intellectually dishonest? Your claims about what others have stated is a strawman, because no-one stated them. You do know the difference between a statement and a question don't you?

the mother was put through the psychological torture of knowing this to be the case while still being obligated to hold the pregnancy for the remainder of the term, and the physical pain of the whole process.

She was only obligated based on an extremely questionable legal opinion by the hospital... which of course would be a false obligation as in the REALITY of what the law realy says, she had no such obligation. This thread is about a law which supposedly kept the woman from having labor induced, when the law did no such thing, an erronious opinion on the law did.

And that erroneous opinion of a hazy law still prevented that service from being available to her.

Wrong dumbass, a lawyers idiocy coupled with a hospitals CYA decission did. The service was withheld because PEOPLE were wrong, not because the LAW was wrong.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Gargoyle cockroach! Excellent intellectual points. I'm so glad we have people with your genius forming this country's policies. As I said before: if you haven't watched your own source, why should I? Use your words, make a point, or don't bother. Let's start with this: which procedure do you dislike and refer to?


Well, I never calmed to be an intellectual, and I dont make policy for anyone as I am not an elected official. The video depicts the way you think the babies life would have been mercifully ended. I have seen it in print and there is no way I could watch it as a video. You see, most of those who support your position would would and have watched a partial birth abortion and they would have said that as bad as it is it is necessary and would have defended it. You wont watch it because you cant defend , especially if everyone else were to watch it. And all this talk about being intellectual this and that from you is bullshit. Now as to why you are a gargoyle-

Noun

* S: (n) gargoyle (a spout that terminates in a grotesquely carved figure of a person or animal)


Watch the video yet ?

 

[AllieBaba]

You don't get to rename euthenasia because you don't like it's being done being called what it is. Puposefully killing the sick is unacceptable.

Where did I ever rename euthenasia? Can you point to where I ever used a false or inaccurate wording of this topic? Go on, quote me on something instead of making vague complaints. Put some integrity behind your words. Point out what was inaccurate, false, or misleading.

here asshole is where you claimed euthenasia was a loaded word that was inacurate... and it wasn't the first time

You're just a lying sack of shit.

moving along

your such an ignorant ass. As I said moron, when people are given massive doses of painkiller to control their pain the objective isn't to kill them... thats an eventual side effect of the treatment. What you waqnt here is treatment specifically designed to kill... they are not the same. Your double stupid analogy is a strawman.

No, you're just a complete moron, claiming the side effect of treatment and the objective of treatment is the same thing in order too justify purposeful euthenasia is intellectually dishonest. It's what you're good at.


life its its own value dumbass. Your stupid assed quality of life BS is what's reductionist, reducing life to the degree of enjoyment in it. When we start making subjective judgements about who's quality of life is worth living and who's should be snuffed out we pretend to be gods. We are not.


there are only two possibilities here dumbass. alive and dead. What you're trying to do is justify killing... thats not ethics dumbass, it's evil.

whats absurd is your assinine assertion that I don't know what quality of life is, what's further absurd is you don't seem to get the fact that I reject the argument, it is not "ethical" to subjetively determine who's life is worth living. It is decidedly UNETHICAL in every instance. Once again it's not ethics you're trying to discuss, it's justification... and you're just to damned stupid to know it.

Alive until it wasn't. Thats the only quality that matters.


I've pointed it out over and over again, and your inane denials do not negate it.


You don't even understand the ethical concept you moron. Is it ethical to give a person massive doses of painkillers to lessen their suffering that will as a side effect eventually kill them? Yeah, if thats what they want.

Is it ethical to PURPOSEFULY kill a person as the primary objective to lessen their suffering? hell fucking no.

They are NOT the same thing. And you're too damned stupid to figure it out.

I didn't avoid the question dumbass, I rejected the premise.


Once again you're a copmpletye idiot, the procedure was available to her under the law, what prevented her getting it was an erroneous opinion by a dumbass lawyer. The fault is not in the law, its in the idiot lawyer.

what I have no interest in getting into is a dumbass argument to justify killing, there is no ethical question involved.


see how intellectually dishonest you are. You've taken QUESTIONS and comments about OTHER SITUATIONS which posed QUESTIONS and attempted to claim they were STATEMENTS about THIS situation. Are you even capable of forming an argument thats not intellectually dishonest? Your claims about what others have stated is a strawman, because no-one stated them. You do know the difference between a statement and a question don't you?

She was only obligated based on an extremely questionable legal opinion by the hospital... which of course would be a false obligation as in the REALITY of what the law realy says, she had no such obligation. This thread is about a law which supposedly kept the woman from having labor induced, when the law did no such thing, an erronious opinion on the law did.

And that erroneous opinion of a hazy law still prevented that service from being available to her.

Wrong dumbass, a lawyers idiocy coupled with a hospitals CYA decission did. The service was withheld because PEOPLE were wrong, not because the LAW was wrong.

You spend a lot more time on him than I have the heart for.