. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Chuck Norris doesn't read books; he stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them."
- ChuckNorrisFactsdotcom

Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Eeegh. Fortunately, the initial reports on the Groningen Protocol were either wrong or it's been rewritten to now require parental consent. Good but not good enough.

I reiterate: "Whenever you propose a new law, imagine what the results would be if that law was enforced by your worst enemy or the stupidest person you know."

Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

Socialized medicine would require the cost benefit determination of human life. A person has a terminal illness. Medical resources are limited. Medical resources are funded by and owned by the collective. A terminal person has nothing left to contribute to the collective. A disabled person is a drain and a burden on the collective.

Do you begin to see the danger?

I am absolutely 100% in support of an individual's choice to end their own life. Our lives are the most fundamental property we have and we may do with them as we see fit. I am also supportive of the right of people to entrust their proxies with such decision making ability. What cannot and must not ever enter into those equations is any element of coercion.

Who can possibly be trusted to decide if a life is worth living? Ever met a stupid arrogant doctor? Ever met 2? Ever heard of an incompetent prosecutor? Do you categorically trust all government panels? Hell we've discovered how many innocent people on death row?

"Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions—it's walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too." -Aldous Huxley

posted by Rachel 10/04/2005
. . .
Hmmm Harriet Miers huh? I gotta say, I like that she's pro second amendment, but somehow I suspect that Bush may be trying to replicate a Contender type frenzy so that he can withdraw her name and nominate, say Janice Rogers Brown. (I hope I hope I hope.) Don't be surprised to hear the nastiest sort of "Why is she 60 and unmarried?" innuendo coming from the left. I don't think that she'd necessarily be a bad justice but I'm unclear on why he'd nominate someone who's never been a judge. I am reassured that with a degree in math she understands that 2+2 will never equal 5 no matter how much you may want it to. Somehow though, I just can't picture her in the robes. Rope-a-dope.

posted by Rachel 10/04/2005
. . .

. . .


web site traffic statistics