CHICANA
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,539
- Reaction score
- 211
dotseyes-- I agree with you. I mean, where do we draw the line, when it comes to keeping people alive?? How hideously inhuman does an action have to be before we say,, OK, the line is crossed-- we need to remove them from civilized society, for good?
In any other society she would have been quickly killed (or tortured for 'possession'- which would have been pointless and even more cruel). What is it about our society that insists on keeping those like her alive and 'rehabilitating' them...??? For what.....???? For the good of society, herself, and for god's sake-- the human gene pool-- she needs to be declared crimincally insane and euthanized (not executed). Yes, OK we get it- she is mentally ill-- (and if it's because of drugs then it is partly her own fault!) -but no, she should not live. And no, this doesn't mean we should put to death everyone who has depression and whatnot-- so please don't drag all that stuff out again people.
Who gets to decide who gets euthanized or not ? The government ? Doctors ?
Online bloggers ?
Should they be killed when they're first diagnosed with schizophrenia or do we wait until they "do something" ?
Should we also euthanize the mentally ill who commit crimes after being prescribed medications with side effects like hallucinations or delusional thinking, or should we euthanize the doctor who prescribed it ?
Should we start euthanizing terminal cancer patients ?
After all, they are a drain on society and it's no fun taking care of them. Might as well get it over with so we don't have to be bothered.
Oh wait, that would be INHUMAN.