Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Abortion 100% legal in Oregon, and 100% FREE for everyone!!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="~Anastasia~" data-source="post: 71780828" data-attributes="member: 343500"><p>I see the argument being put forth here in a few cases that cost is a valid factor in determining the best medical course to pursue in the question of what to do with a human life?</p><p></p><p>If that were the case, every person who is diagnosed with cancer is probably too expensive to treat and should be euthanized. (God forbid!) After all, the cost there would be less than $100 while cancer treatment often runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars.</p><p></p><p>And everyone who reaches an age where the body declines to the point of needing ongoing medical care is financially a bad risk. Cheaper to euthanize them too.</p><p></p><p>Any child who is born with or develops a medical condition requiring a lifetime of medical support of any degree ... the cost effective thing to do would be to simply kill them as soon as they are diagnosed.</p><p></p><p>Really, terminating life is so much more cost effective that only people who are completely healthy are "worth" keeping alive, from a monetary aspect - wouldn't that be the best financial decision? There would be no need to "waste" funds on nursing homes, catastrophic illness, programs for the disabled, anyone who needs ongoing medical treatment for any condition, or even palliative care.</p><p></p><p>But why stop there! We can evaluate the value of each individual relative to society, vs. the cost of maintaining their lives, and make decisions based on who is worth allowing to live in that scenario too. Obviously the homeless and the long-term unemployed should come first. Maybe retirees have actually outlived their usefulness. We could start evaluating children for their potential contribution, and making distinctions early in life concerning which ones are the most potentially cost-effective! Surely we don't "need" all of those children in this over-populated world, and some will not ever amount to anything worthy to justify their continued place in society? We could avoid most of the expenses incurred in a couple of decades of maturing and educating them.</p><p></p><p>Yes, I can see where it would be wise to use cost as the basis to evaluate the value of human life, and make decisions accordingly. That's a "wonderful" precedent to establish ...</p><p></p><p>/sarcasm off</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="~Anastasia~, post: 71780828, member: 343500"] I see the argument being put forth here in a few cases that cost is a valid factor in determining the best medical course to pursue in the question of what to do with a human life? If that were the case, every person who is diagnosed with cancer is probably too expensive to treat and should be euthanized. (God forbid!) After all, the cost there would be less than $100 while cancer treatment often runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars. And everyone who reaches an age where the body declines to the point of needing ongoing medical care is financially a bad risk. Cheaper to euthanize them too. Any child who is born with or develops a medical condition requiring a lifetime of medical support of any degree ... the cost effective thing to do would be to simply kill them as soon as they are diagnosed. Really, terminating life is so much more cost effective that only people who are completely healthy are "worth" keeping alive, from a monetary aspect - wouldn't that be the best financial decision? There would be no need to "waste" funds on nursing homes, catastrophic illness, programs for the disabled, anyone who needs ongoing medical treatment for any condition, or even palliative care. But why stop there! We can evaluate the value of each individual relative to society, vs. the cost of maintaining their lives, and make decisions based on who is worth allowing to live in that scenario too. Obviously the homeless and the long-term unemployed should come first. Maybe retirees have actually outlived their usefulness. We could start evaluating children for their potential contribution, and making distinctions early in life concerning which ones are the most potentially cost-effective! Surely we don't "need" all of those children in this over-populated world, and some will not ever amount to anything worthy to justify their continued place in society? We could avoid most of the expenses incurred in a couple of decades of maturing and educating them. Yes, I can see where it would be wise to use cost as the basis to evaluate the value of human life, and make decisions accordingly. That's a "wonderful" precedent to establish ... /sarcasm off [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Abortion 100% legal in Oregon, and 100% FREE for everyone!!!!
Top
Bottom