Ct Patriot: Let me ask you something? Is this 1938 in Nazi Germany? It sure seems like it to me. I am sure anyone who escaped the horrors of Hitlers Reich and made it to America that is still alive today would be more than glad to explain to the sheeple of our nation that this is exactly what happened in Germany in the late 30’s. Good ole’ Adolph nationalizted health care as well. And whom were the first people he decided to remove from society? the handicapped and “simple minded” as they liked to say. Just like this Princeton professor is saying, But its not him I am worried about. Its In the Law, Yes there are Death Panels people. So they start with the weakest among us, those who cannot defend themselves. The unborn and born with problems. Then I am sure the Veterans, are true heroes are next. You can already see what Obama has done to the VA hospitals. So after Obamacare removes them from the burden on the socialist utopia he has created. Who is next? My guess Christians and anyone else who doesn’t fit into Obama’s brave new world. Can’t we see where this is all going before it is too late? If it is not already? Are we now a country without a spine? A soul? A conscience? Take a look below and let me know what you think about Obamacare’s Nazi-ish Eugenics Program?
ETHICS PROFESSOR SAYS IT’S “QUITE REASONABLE” TO KILL DISABLED BABIES VIA OBAMACARE
Has anyone else noticed that most professors of ethics aren’t exactly…ummm….ethical?
by DAISY LUTHER
APRIL 21, 2015
A professor at the highly esteemed Princeton University doesn’t want his Obamacare premiums to increase because of caring for severely disabled babies. Dr. Pete Singer, who teaches ethics (but perhaps needs a little refresher on what the word “ethics” means) argued during a radio interview on Sunday that America should be more accepting of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
First, a definition:
Ethics: that branch of philosophy dealingwith values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightnessand wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness ofthe motives and ends of such actions.
In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Singer, a longtime mouthpiece for eugenicists everywhere, has previously drawn fire for his belief that the right to life is directly related to a person’s intelligence and ability to feel pleasure and pain, is back in the spotlight. In 1993, wrote a treatise called “Practical Ethics: Taking Life: Humans.”
Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”
For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.” (source)
I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.
I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicade.”
Eugenics & Obamacare – The Ultimate in Political Manipulation
Eugenics. It’s a word we don’t hear much these days, but its results are all around us. Back on the farm we called it “selective breeding.” Every dairyman or herdsman or Kentucky Derby contender selects the best of his herd as breeding stock. Can the same principle be applied to humans? Of course. Adolph Hitler used the practice to create what he called a “master race.” Loretta Lynn and Conway Twitty recorded, “You Are the Reason Our Kids are Ugly.” Nobody wants ugly kids, so in this enlightened era of single motherhood, sperm banks catalog their inventory according to eye color, hair color, nose shape, etc. Eugenics? Of course. Harmless? Probably. But are more sinister uses possible? Certainly.
Is the concept new? Of course not. The founder of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, felt that the softness of civilization had prevented the kind of natural selection occurring in Darwin’s Origin of Species from happening in humans, thus creating an unnaturally high number of weak and feeble-minded people. So it was up to governments to augment natural selection through the practice of selective breeding — or eugenics. At that time it was felt that desirable citizens tended to be white, athletic, intelligent, and wealthy, and those it considered to be undesirable tended to be black, Jewish, disabled, or poor. So the power of the state was, and still is, encouraged to promote increases in the number of desirable citizens (positive eugenics) and decreases in the number of undesirable citizens (negative eugenics).
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/eugenics-obamacare-ultimate-political-manipulation/#ij5JUfjLycD8p25B.99