Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I know that all modern "civilized" societies advocate theft, extortion, slavery, and aggression by the State to impose a fictional "collective's" interest upon the individual. I know that all modern "civilized" societies are base only upon the fictional right for some to use aggression to impose their will upon others. I know that the only purpose of modern "civilized" societies is to enslave some for the benefit of others. And yes, I know that all modern "civilized" societies believe that the individual has no purpose other than to serve the fictional collective. So you don't have to preach to me, I know what you are saying.
I knew a guy like you once. He was an avid tax evader (not saying you are but your posts make me think of him). He was convinced and I mean CONVINCED that if you could trace your ancestry back to the Mayflower you did not legally owe any taxes whatsoever in this country. Needless to say he paid dearly for that belief on every April 15th of every year I knew him. While he was getting hammered I was getting some pretty nice refunds.
Look, I don't like paying taxes either. In fact it sucks. I also know that part of the taxes I pay go to things I don't necessarily support. We don't have kids so my property taxes go to schools that my family will never use. But you know what? I'm able to see the world outside my window and know that an educated child may not be a benefit to me personally but can be a great asset to our nation as a whole. Same with healthcare. A healthy society is a benefit to our country and is in everyone's best interest.
I knew a guy like you once. He was an avid tax evader (not saying you are but your posts make me think of him). He was convinced and I mean CONVINCED that if you could trace your ancestry back to the Mayflower you did not legally owe any taxes whatsoever in this country. Needless to say he paid dearly for that belief on every April 15th of every year I knew him. While he was getting hammered I was getting some pretty nice refunds.
Look, I don't like paying taxes either. In fact it sucks. I also know that part of the taxes I pay go to things I don't necessarily support. We don't have kids so my property taxes go to schools that my family will never use. But you know what? I'm able to see the world outside my window and know that an educated child may not be a benefit to me personally but can be a great asset to our nation as a whole. Same with healthcare. A healthy society is a benefit to our country and is in everyone's best interest.
Well, that is our permanent disagreement that can never change. Which is fine, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they choose to. (Until "our" government finds a way to take that ability away as well, of course for the good of the fictional collective )
I just don't, and will never, advocate theft, extortion, racketeering, and involuntary slavery. I believe in the non-aggression principle. Our "society" functions only through government initiations of force, aggression, upon the individual. It is in its entirety, a criminal, barbaric, and sadist system where thugs and tyrants take turns abusing their neighbor using government goons to do their evil. The only thing that it ever does is to destroy individual human freedom and to enslave some for the benefit of others.
I do not believe in a fictional collective. Each and every human being has a right to the whole of his natural freedoms which excludes only a fictional right to use aggression upon another. The fictional collective however, exists ONLY by widespread destruction of individual freedom, aggression, violence, coercion, and involuntary slavery.
So we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that I have a Divine right to impose my will upon others with aggression.
We have reached an overall standard above the dark ages. This is not even the Victorian era when children starved in the streets. I understand it happens still in some countries but I hoped we were above that. It seems the recurrent answer is abortion or not my problem. For the latter, just remember that unless you die young we would all become old and we'll need to have our diaper changed
If you can't afford to feed them, don't breed them.
Well, that is our permanent disagreement that can never change. Which is fine, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they choose to. (Until "our" government finds a way to take that ability away as well, of course for the good of the fictional collective )
I just don't, and will never, advocate theft, extortion, racketeering, and involuntary slavery. I believe in the non-aggression principle. Our "society" functions only through government initiations of force, aggression, upon the individual. It is in its entirety, a criminal, barbaric, and sadist system where thugs and tyrants take turns abusing their neighbor using government goons to do their evil. The only thing that it ever does is to destroy individual human freedom and to enslave some for the benefit of others.
I do not believe in a fictional collective. Each and every human being has a right to the whole of his natural freedoms which excludes only a fictional right to use aggression upon another. The fictional collective however, exists ONLY by widespread destruction of individual freedom, aggression, violence, coercion, and involuntary slavery.
So we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that I have a Divine right to impose my will upon others with aggression.
You just don't fit into our society. I completely disagree that it is slavery in any form. Like I said in another thread you use the word "slavery" way too loosely.
You just don't fit into our society. I completely disagree that it is slavery in any form. Like I said in another thread you use the word "slavery" way too loosely.
Not loosely at all.
involuntary slavery: a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.
That is exactly how our economic system operates. The collective must always fund itself with human slavery, it cannot exist otherwise, as the collective itself is fictional.
If you can't afford to feed them, don't breed them.
Do you have children? How much did you have saved for each one? What would you have done had, G-d forbid, one of them was born with a disability or developed a disability due to a traumatic birth? What if the cost of their care was far and away more than your salary?
Would you put the needle in their arm, or would putting them in a sack and tossing them in the river have done the job?
The response on this thread is absolutely amazing from so-called conservatives. I hope the behavior which I would say is more like you'd expect from an evil person is only because you have keyboards in your hands rather than a kid with problems. But if that's how you are then I hope you don't have a family.
I don't know what genetic illness the child in the article has, but there are hundreds of illnesses, some quite rare, that are not routinely tested for. If parents or a doctor suspect that they may be carriers of genetic disorders, they may seek out a genetic counselor but that assumes a) the parents know b) the baby is planned and c) genetic counseling is available through insurance.
There are plenty of issues that can only be discovered after birth, or only develop at or after birth. For instance, my coworker's child who I referenced before developed her severe disability due to a traumatic birth. The pregnancy was healthy, the fetus was healthy, and there were no genetic issues. Nothing could have prepared them for what happened during delivery.
Until we start requiring people save $1million+ per child, before birth in case that child unfortunately develops a life threatening, life changing, or life challenging illness, what do we do?
I was responding to a question directed at me in an earlier post:
What should she have done when the doctor told her the child she was carrying had a genetic disorder which would cost millions to treat?
I have no idea what that family knew about possible health issues of their baby before it was born. Never said I did. I am not sure where the other person got their info from or if they were just making a hypothetical question. It would be interesting to find out. Especially if they happen to be pro life and would have kept the baby regardless.
I was responding to a question directed at me in an earlier post:
What should she have done when the doctor told her the child she was carrying had a genetic disorder which would cost millions to treat?
I have no idea what that family knew about possible health issues of their baby before it was born. Never said I did. I am not sure where the other person got their info from or if they were just making a hypothetical question. It would be interesting to find out. Especially if they happen to be pro life and would have kept the baby regardless.
I missed that - sorry!
For all the decrying of 3rd trimester abortions, they are entirely the result of issues like this where there are severe genetic or congenial abnormalities that are discovered before birth. It's a hard choice for all involved, even if you are pro-choice.
As gruesome as it sounds, there are women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term in order for their terminally ill child's organs to be used for transplant. But what happens if the child continues to live?
Either way, the science isn't there yet to test for all the possible genetic abnormalities before birth, and I know I'm not comfortable making the distinction about who gets to live and who dies as a rule of law. I suspect I know what I would do if I had the information, but until you're there, you really can't know.
There's also a scale, right? So I have a good friend who had a congenial defect that was detected before birth through the ultrasound. Doctors thought they could correct it through surgery, but it has led to a cascade of health issues through her life. Multiple surgeries as an infant leading to years of heavy medication usage which led to both diabetes and kidney failure/dialysis before she was 16 years old. She's now had a kidney transplant and will likely require another one before she's 35. All in all, her medical care has cost millions upon millions of dollars, all paid for by Medicaid. Should she have been aborted just in case? Others in this thread seem to imply that we should have just let her die somewhere along the way.
She's married now and on a group plan with her husband - but he was diagnosed with CML and will need to be on oral chemotherapy indefinitely, at least until medical advances render it obsolete. At any moment, he could need a stem cell transplant and be out of work for a year plus, at the cost of well over a million dollars for the procedure. Do we tell him, "You've had a nice go of it, but you have to die at 30 because you don't have millions of dollars to pay for this awful disease you unluckily developed?" He's a tech guy, has good insurance and a flexible workplace, and a very high salary (needed for the $2000 a month they spend on medicine, copays, and supplies) but his life is in a precarious spot and knowing that Medicaid is there if needed is a huge relief.
Either way, the science isn't there yet to test for all the possible genetic abnormalities before birth, and I know I'm not comfortable making the distinction about who gets to live and who dies as a rule of law. I suspect I know what I would do if I had the information, but until you're there, you really can't know.
There's also a scale, right? So I have a good friend who had a congenial defect that was detected before birth through the ultrasound. Doctors thought they could correct it through surgery, but it has led to a cascade of health issues through her life. Multiple surgeries as an infant leading to years of heavy medication usage which led to both diabetes and kidney failure/dialysis before she was 16 years old. She's now had a kidney transplant and will likely require another one before she's 35. All in all, her medical care has cost millions upon millions of dollars, all paid for by Medicaid. Should she have been aborted just in case? Others in this thread seem to imply that we should have just let her die somewhere along the way.
She's married now and on a group plan with her husband - but he was diagnosed with CML and will need to be on oral chemotherapy indefinitely, at least until medical advances render it obsolete. At any moment, he could need a stem cell transplant and be out of work for a year plus, at the cost of well over a million dollars for the procedure. Do we tell him, "You've had a nice go of it, but you have to die at 30 because you don't have millions of dollars to pay for this awful disease you unluckily developed?" He's a tech guy, has good insurance and a flexible workplace, and a very high salary (needed for the $2000 a month they spend on medicine, copays, and supplies) but his life is in a precarious spot and knowing that Medicaid is there if needed is a huge relief.
The above, I think, is a much needed post as it brings up what, in my opinion, are the crucial questions -- when it comes to catastrophic medical conditions (either before or after birth): who should live and who should die, and who should make that decision?
I made the choice for myself by deciding not to risk giving birth (see my post #31 if interested), but I would never presume to make the choice for anyone else! I also would not want to be kept alive if most of my capability to take care of myself and/or enjoy life was removed. For me, that would mean if I could not longer take care of my personal needs, if I could not walk, OR if I was blind -- but that is how I feel; I do realize that probably MOST people would not agree with that, and that is fine with me. Also, as I have said many times, I strongly believe that no one living should be put to death (murdered) because of health reasons, although I do believe that they should be allowed to die naturallyIF that is THEIR wish -- or in the case of an extremely severe cases in children, such as the the Texas mom's little boy, if that is the wish of the child's parent(s).
Btw, I wonder how many people might be secretly relieved if the choice was made for them when it came to their loved ones and unborn children, so they would not be faced with one of the most agonizing and heartbreaking choices imaginable. I don't think that anyone has the answer to this, but I just wonder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
