Who Decides
Who Burdens Society?
The report from the Daily Telegraph tells us that three out of four British people don’t think you should be prosecuted for killing your loved ones. The euphemism they use is ‘Assisted Suicide”…and they make fun of Americans for calling “the toilet” the ‘bathroom’???
Anyhow, why should we be surprised that secularists, either in Britain or the USA, (for we have proponents of euthanasia here too) should be in favor of mercy killing? It’s not too difficult to figure out: if you don’t believe in God or life after death; if you believe that when you die there is nothing at all, no heaven, no hell, just zilch, nada, zip, then mercy killing makes perfect sense. Put the sick person out of their misery. Oh, and by the way, you’ll save a pile of dough too because it’s expensive to treat all those sick people.
For that matter, if you don’t believe in God, heaven, hell and all that stuff, and mercy killing is okay, then what’s wrong with screening fetuses in order to abort the unfit? (whoops, I forgot we already do that) If there is only the zero after death, then why not eliminate the mentally unfit, the disabled and the elderly?
While we’re at it, isn’t our society loaded with other people who are also a terrible burden? They may not be physically disabled or mentally ill, but what about all the underclass who refuse to get a job, soak up welfare payments which they spend on booze and ciggies and drugs. They do nothing but breed more dimwit freeloaders. The eugenicists and social engineers would herd them off to a nice quiet place in the country and put them to sleep too.
Let’s not forget all those people who are deviant in their thoughts. What about those who engage in hate crimes and thought crimes? Aren’t they even more dangerous than the indigent and mentally unfit? They are a kind of terrorist. Shouldn’t they be eliminated too for the health and safety of us all?
Start with mercy killing and you’ll end with Auschwitz.
