..surely there must be a financial limit set
for an individual`s life ....
if left to nature..the weak ones would be naturally
eaten up!

wow akk youve actually started an interesting thread

luckily i think in our society financial limits arent set on life when considering whether to "turn off the machine" its based on more humanistic values.

As for your second sentance i really hope no-one advocates survival of the fittest. i'd like to remind everyone that social darwinism was the basis of mein kampf and hitler's general philosophy.

No Pesu I have to disagre, Darwinism depends on genetic diversity and although he may have claimed it was based on this Hitlers "Super Race" would have failed for lack of diversity. The most common form of this is dogs, a mongerel will generally be healthier and live longer than a Pedigree

quote:

As for your second sentance i really hope no-one advocates survival of the fittest. i'd like to remind everyone that social darwinism was the basis of mein kampf and hitler's general philosophy.

I am quite right wing...
....so I agree
with some aspects of Hitler`s ideals...
but he was a bit too loony!

I would let people `go` HUMANELY
if they felt that life would never
improve ....

and that the PAIN was incurable !

I know people bounce back and
do become rich and famous...but
let`s get real for a moment though...

most people on the planet do not
have what we in the rich west have!

We have rules to comply and help disabilities
and money to let disabled peeps to have
outings,hols...`treat them as normal...`

it is bordering on the perverse but
we can`t go on subsidising the
lives of `useless` beings.....beings
they are and useless too...and
costly to us!

I would be the first
in line to... not be a
costly burden on anyone!

LIFE IS NOT FAIR.



rich

quote:

a mongerel will generally be healthier and live longer than a Pedigree

wow! does Crufts endorse this?

In many societies
we have cousins marrying and have genetic
disorders....same happens in some
Island communities...due to lack of
fresh blood...

so, a mongrel WOULD be a `healthy` breed.

I think £15.17 is a fair price. Any more than that and I would have my doubts.

And uglies and the elderly should just be 'do not resuscitate' automatically.

quote:

Originally posted by Celia Fate:
And uglies and the elderly should just be 'do not resuscitate' automatically.

You leave akk alone! - that's terrible!!

Celia.... totally agree...but Tartan
are ye takkin the wee puss?

Do you really want £15.17 of your tax money being spent on keeping him alive Sheik?

i dont think im talking to you anymore akk

quote:

Originally posted by Celia Fate:
Do you really want £15.17 of your tax money being spent on keeping him alive Sheik?

Wise Celia, you are correct, we must spend nothing to save him as he has no heart.

quote:

You leave akk alone! - that's terrible!!

at least WHEN ia m old
i won`t be sheikh rattle and rollin`

quote:

Originally posted by akkcrawley:

quote:

You leave akk alone! - that's terrible!!

at least WHEN ia m old
i won`t be sheikh rattle and rollin`

You ARE old, old old, and mean, mean, mean.

...and as for ugly....I don`t have to wear
a face covering like your ....good idea that:
that way the camels are not frightened

quote:

Originally posted by akkcrawley:
...and as for ugly....I don`t have to wear
a face covering like your ....good idea that:
that way the camels are not frightened

The coverings on the faces of my wives means their beauty is for my eyes alone. As for my own face, it remains uncovered so all might admire and enjoy.

wives????

you must have difficulty
when posting a letter!

75p

It`s all well and good saying rationally what we should or should not pay to keep someone alive.

But you`re only saying that because by the grace of god YOU have never had anyone that sick where YOU have to make the decision to kill them by turning off the life support.

What about those that are very sick and/or comatose and with no chance of recivery, but who are NOT on life support, but are surviving without the aid of machinery. Are you seriously advocating murdering them?

economics,Vamp...........YES!!!!


I would eradicate ...like nature...

survival of the fittest!

this does not mean that a
person cannot survive if he/she is disabled...
cos some can fend for themselves but the
ones who are in pain or not much appears
on the horizon for them...let`s be practical!

sometimes a severely disabled person
uses up two or three plus healthy lives
to look after he/she!

quote:

pseu
Four Gold Stars

Posted 23-02-07 12:14 Hide Post
i dont think im talking to you anymore akk

Posts

please come and explain where the hurt started...
I am delicious not malicious>>>

friends again?

quote:

Originally posted by akkcrawley:
economics,Vamp...........YES!!!!


I would eradicate ...like nature...

survival of the fittest!

this does not mean that a
person cannot survive if he/she is disabled...
cos some can fend for themselves but the
ones who are in pain or not much appears
on the horizon for them...let`s be practical!

So a severely disabled person who is physically capable of staying alive without the aid of medical equipment, but is hugely dependent on other people looking after them, are you advocating killing them?? It wouldn`t be a case of turning off the life support and hold their hand while they died "naturally".

It would be a case of not feeding them, so allowing them to starve to death. Slowly.

Or making a concious decision to give them a lethal overdose of drugs. Which is murder.

Man invented the machinery to keep people alive in the first place.

They wanted to play God.

They can`t stop playing God now just because it`s turned out to be too expensive.