Auschwitz in America

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's an interesting essay sent to me by a good friend.

It examines some of the causes of the Holocuast, asserting that it is through euthanasia in Germany, was the starting point.

Saturday, October 18, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------
Auschwitz in America
By William J. Federer
------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Even before the rise of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich,
the way for the gruesome Nazi Holocaust of human
extermination and cruel butchery was being prepared in
the 1930 German Weimar Republic through the medical
establishment and philosophical elite's adoption of
the "quality of life" concept in place of the
"sanctity of life."
The Nuremberg trials, exposing the horrible Nazi war
crimes, revealed that Germany's trend toward atrocity
began with their progressive embrace of the Hegelian
doctrine of "rational utility," where an individual's
worth is in relation to their contribution to the
state, rather than determined in light of traditional
moral, ethical and religious values.

This gradual transformation of national public
opinion, promulgated through media and education, was
described in an article written by the British
commentator Malcolm Muggeridge entitled "The Humane
Holocaust" and in an article written by former United
States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, M.D.,
entitled "The Slide to Auschwitz," both published in
The Human Life Review, 1977 and 1980 respectively.

Muggeridge stated: "Near at hand, we have been
accorded, for those that have eyes to see, an object
lesson in what the quest for 'quality of life' without
reference to 'sanctity of life' can involve ...
[namely] the great Nazi Holocaust, whose TV
presentation has lately been harrowing viewers
throughout the Western world. In this televised
version, an essential consideration has been left out
– namely, that the origins of the Holocaust lay, not
in Nazi terrorism and anti-Semitism, but in pre-Nazi
Weimar Germany's acceptance of euthanasia and
mercy-killing as humane and estimable. ...

"It took no more than three decades to transform a war
crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the
victors in the war against Nazism to adopt the very
practices for which the Nazis had been solemnly
condemned at Nuremberg."

The transformation followed thus: The concept that the
elderly and terminally ill should have the right to
die was promoted in books, newspapers, literature and
even entertainment films, the most popular of which
were entitled "Ich klage an (I accuse)" and "Mentally
Ill."

One euthanasia movie, based on a novel by a National
Socialist doctor, actually won a prize at the
world-famous Venice Film Festival! Extreme hardship
cases were cited, which increasingly convinced the
public to morally approve of euthanasia. The medical
profession gradually grew accustomed to administering
death to patients who, for whatever reasons, felt
their low "quality of life" rendered their lives not
worth living, or as it was put, lebensunwerten Leben,
(life unworthy of life).

In an Associated Press release published in the New
York Times Oct. 10, 1933, entitled "Nazi Plan to Kill
Incurables to End Pain; German Religious Groups Oppose
Move," it was stated: "The Ministry of Justice, in a
detailed memorandum explaining the Nazi aims regarding
the German penal code, today announced its intentions
to authorize physicians to end the sufferings of the
incurable patient. The memorandum ... proposed that it
shall be possible for physicians to end the tortures
of incurable patients, upon request, in the interest
of true humanity.

"This proposed legal recognition of euthanasia – the
act of providing a painless and peaceful death –
raised a number of fundamental problems of a
religious, scientific and legal nature. The Catholic
newspaper Germania hastened to observe: 'The Catholic
faith binds the conscience of its followers not to
accept this method.' ... In Lutheran circles, too,
life is regarded as something that God alone can take.
... Euthanasia ... has become a widely discussed word
in the Reich. ... No life still valuable to the State
will be wantonly destroyed."

Nationalized health care and government involvement in
medical care promised to improve the public's "quality
of life." Unfortunately, the cost of maintaining
government medical care was a contributing factor to
the growth of the national debt, which reached
astronomical proportions. Double and triple digit
inflation crippled the economy, resulting in the
public demanding that government cut expenses.

This precipitated the 1939 order to cut federal
expenses. The national socialist government decided to
remove "useless" expenses from the budget, which
included the support and medical costs required to
maintain the lives of the retarded, insane, senile,
epileptic, psychiatric patients, handicapped, deaf,
blind, the non-rehabilitatable ill and those who had
been diseased or chronically ill for five years or
more. It was labeled an "act of mercy" to "liberate
them through death," as they were viewed as having an
extremely low "quality of life," as well as being a
tax burden on the public.

The public psyche was conditioned for this, as even
school math problems compared distorted medical costs
incurred by the taxpayer of caring for and
rehabilitating the chronically sick with the cost of
loans to newly married couples for new housing units.

The next whose lives were terminated by the state were
the institutionalized elderly who had no relatives and
no financial resources. These lonely, forsaken
individuals were needed by no one and would be missed
by no one. Their "quality of life" was considered low
by everyone's standards, and they were a tremendous
tax burden on the economically distressed state.

The next to be eliminated were the parasites on the
state: the street people, bums, beggars, hopelessly
poor, gypsies, prisoners, inmates and convicts. These
were socially disturbing individuals incapable of
providing for themselves whose "quality of life" was
considered by the public as irreversibly below
standard, in addition to the fact that they were a
nuisance to society and a seed-bed for crime.

The liquidation grew to include those who had been
unable to work, the socially unproductive and those
living on welfare or government pensions. They drew
financial support from the state, but contributed
nothing financially back. They were looked upon as
"useless eaters," leeches, stealing from those who
worked hard to pay the taxes to support them. Their
unproductive lives were a burden on the "quality of
life" of those who had to pay the taxes.

The next to be eradicated were the ideologically
unwanted, the political enemies of the state,
religious extremists and those "disloyal" individuals
considered to be holding the government back from
producing a society which functions well and provides
everyone a better "quality of life." The moving
biography of the imprisoned Dietrich Bonhoffer
chronicled the injustices. These individuals also were
a source of "human experimental material," allowing
military medical research to be carried on with human
tissue, thus providing valuable information that
promised to improve the nation's health.

Finally, justifying their actions on the purported
theory of evolution, the Nazis considered the German,
or "Aryan," race as "ubermenschen," supermen, being
more advanced in the supposed progress of human
evolution. This resulted in the twisted conclusion
that all other races, and in particular the Jewish
race, were less evolved and needed to be eliminated
from the so-called "human gene pool," ensuring that
future generations of humans would have a higher
"quality of life."

Dr. Koop stated: "The first step is followed by the
second step. You can say that if the first step is
moral then whatever follows must be moral. The
important thing, however, is this: Whether you
diagnose the first step as being one worth taking or
being one that is precarious rests entirely on what
the second step is likely to be. ... I am concerned
about this because when the first 273,000 German aged,
infirm and retarded were killed in gas chambers there
was no outcry from that medical profession either, and
it was not far from there to Auschwitz."

Can this holocaust happen in America? Indeed, it has
already begun. The idea of killing a person and
calling it "death with dignity" is an oxymoron. The
"mercy-killing" movement puts us on the same path as
pre-Nazi Germany. The "quality of life" concept, which
eventually results in the Hegelian utilitarian
attitude of a person's worth being based on their
contribution toward perpetuating big government, is in
stark contrast to America's founding principles.

This philosophy which lowers the value of human life,
shocked attendees at the Governor's Commission on
Disability, in Concord, N.H., Oct. 5, 2001, as they
heard the absurd comments of Princeton University
professor Peter Singer.

The Associated Press reported Singer's comments: "I do
think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human
infant," he said, adding that he does not believe a
newborn has a right to life until it reaches some
minimum level of consciousness. "For me, the relevant
question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take
a life?" Singer asked. "Those of you who are not
vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every
time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in
making these judgments."

Singer's views, if left unchecked, could easily lead
to a repeat of the atrocities of Nazi Germany, if not
something worse. Add to that unbridled advances in the
technology of cloning, DNA tests that reveal physical
defects, human embryos killed for the purpose of
gathering stem cells to treat diseases ... and a
haunting future unfolds before us. President Theodore
Roosevelt's warning in 1909 seems appropriate:

"Progress has brought us both unbounded opportunities
and unbridled difficulties. Thus, the measure of our
civilization will not be that we have done much, but
what we have done with that much. I believe that the
next half century will determine if we will advance
the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the
horrors of brutal paganism. The thought of modern
industry in the hands of Christian charity is a dream
worth dreaming. The thought of industry in the hands
of paganism is a nightmare beyond imagining. The
choice between the two is upon us."

In his State of the Union address in 1905, Roosevelt
stated:

"There are those who believe that a new modernity
demands a new morality. What they fail to consider is
the harsh reality that there is no such thing as a new
morality. There is only one morality. All else is
immorality. There is only true Christian ethics over
against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are
to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must
return to the old morality, the sole morality. ... All
these blatant sham reformers, in the name of a new
morality, preach the old vice of self-indulgence which
rotted out first the moral fiber and then even the
external greatness of Greece and Rome."

In biblical comparison, Jesus showed mercy by healing
the sick and giving sanity back to the deranged, but
never did he kill them. This attitude is exemplified
today by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whose version of
"death with dignity" was to gather the dying from off
the street and show compassion to these rejected and
abandoned members of the human race, all the while
knowing that they may only survive for another half
hour. Her "mercy-living" movement went to great
trouble to house, wash and feed even the most hopeless
and derelict, because of inherent respect for the
"sanctity of life" of each individual.

This attitude is summed up in her statement: "I see
Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, this is
hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus.
This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and
tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus."

Will America chose the "sanctity of life" concept as
demonstrated by Mother Teresa, or will America chose
the "quality of life" concept championed by
self-proclaimed doctors of death – such as in the case
of the court-ordered starvation of Terri Schiavo – and
continue its slide toward Auschwitz? What kind of
subtle anesthetic has been allowed to deaden our
national conscience? What horrors await us? The
question is not whether the suffering and dying
person's life should be terminated; the question is
what kind of nation will we become if they are. Their
physical death is preceded only by our moral death.

[lord of the mark]

what this leaves out is that the euthanasia campaign was stopped, by outcries from German relatives of the physically challenged. This did NOT help the Jews, Roma, Poles etc.

I dont much care for Singer, and am no fan of euthanasia, but I dont think this had much to do with anything. And i dont think euthanasia in this country, while it might (immorally) lead to pressure on old people to die, would lead to death camps for racial or religious minorities. Not all slippery slopes are equally slippery.

[Spiffor]

Pure Bullshit if you want my opinion. The concept of "quality of life" that underlies the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia is not related to what an individual can bring to society, but to what he can expect from life himself.

I don't know what the Weimarers were thinking at that time, and maybe your friend has a point in this precise historical context (my ignorance prevents me from making any judgement).

But to confuse today's notion of euthanasia with the nazi inclination of precocious death is completely ignorant

[Wernazuma III]

There seems to be a flaw right at the beginning. Back then a "life unworthy of life" was meant to be "unworthy" in a social context, while today it's meant that euthanasia should be available to those who consider their lives themselves "unworthy". It's supposed to be a personal decision, not one made by others, as it was back then (also before the Nazis themselves). I share the worries about ways how people (greedy relatives) will try to abuse that, but it's not something meant to be controlled by the society. A step toward indiviualsim, not collectivism. Modern thought of euthanasia is more connected to ancient philosophies like the Epicureans who are everything but the root of Hegelianism.
I rather share the fears that modern concepts of eugenetics are pointing in the same direction, when specialists even try to persuade future parents that they should abort, because the child will be disabled/retarded etc.

[Tripledoc]

Actually, the whole slide downwards, was actually caused by the fact that Nazi Germany was a Radical Democracy. Iin fact the first cases of Euthanasia, it has been shown, actually resulted from frustrated parents wanting to get rid of their retarded children in a 'humane fashion'. Soon the whole bureaucratic machinery got in motion, and as the story goes' give the Devil a littlefinger and...'

And one more thing regarding Nazi policies which sought to promote 'quality of life'. It is well known that the first concerted anti-tobacco campaigns were actually started through request by nazi doctors who saw the cancer as a corrupting the national body.

Also the whole Joy through Strength campaign of giving all Germans the opportunity of going on cruise trips around the Baltic. Makes you think about the current cruise-ship craze going on. I mean I live in a habour city in Europe and the number of Americans who come in by cruise-ship is simply amazing.

This points to what a Jewish philosopher like Zygmunt Baumann has pointed out. The whole Nazi horror is not exclusively a German lesson - it is a lesson in modernity itself.

[Giant_Squid]

I see two subtle but dangerous propaganda methods this article exploits.

One, it tries to use synonymously the doctrines that "quality of life is more important than 'sanctity' of life" and the that "the value of life is in its value to the state", two doctrines which it seems obvious to me at least couldn't have less to do with each other.

Two, it uses the popular but ridiculous "The Nazis do it so it must be bad" argument. I've seen "The Nazis used gun control so it must be bad", "the Nazis repressed homosexuality so homosexuality must be okay", (either of these statements may be true, but this argument has certainly not established them) and a brilliant satire piece "proving" that vegetarianism was evil because Hitler was a vegetarian. Saying that the concentration camps used euthanasia and therefore euthanasia is bad is as silly as saying the concentration camps used tattoos and therefore tattoos should be banned - in one case it was done to the unwilling for evil reasons, and in the other, a person does it to themselves for reasons they consider to be good ones.

In my humble opinion, the state prohibiting euthanasia is a much more dangerous slide into the state taking on the godlike role of deciding whether people can live or die than the state simply allowing people to do what they want.

[Lincoln]

Thanks for posting the article, Ben. Food for thought without a doubt. The idea that Peter Singer is given an esteemed position at Princeton should cause people to shudder. The fact that so many applaud and justify him speaks volumns about how far we have slipped. And at the same time the pro-life people are ridiculed as "extremists."

[St Leo]

/me invokes Godwin's Law

/me also disagrees with the idea that the two extremes are the only tenable positions on the spectrum

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by St Leo
* St Leo also disagrees with the idea that the two extremes are the only tenable positions on the spectrum

I don't think it is an extreme position to condemn the fallacy underlying the point of this article. To this article yesterday's (collectivist) perception of euthanasia and today's (individualistic) perception of euthanasia are the same.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't think it is an extreme position to condemn the fallacy underlying the point of this article. To this article yesterday's (collectivist) perception of euthanasia and today's (individualistic) perception of euthanasia are the same.

And equally the whole notion of dividing societies into collectivist and individualistic is a dangerous one, which blinds us from the facts at hand.

When has conservatism ever been individualistic, and did it ever occur to you that economic individualism is not the same as social individualism?

In fact the more people are forced to make ends meet by their exclusively own devices, the more you will probably see a call for social collectivism. That is a historical fact. Sure the German workers were thrown a few bones from the tables of big bussiness, but who died on the battlefield, while the generals were driving through various countrysides looking for castles in which to enjoy their retirement?

Of course if America was to turn into an economic collectivist state, then it would be a communist dictatorship. Turn it it into a social collectivist state, and you would have a capitalist dictatorship.

[Spiffor]

Tripledoc:
I did not divide societies among the line of individualistic / collectivist. I did however pinpoint the basic difference between yesterday's notion of euthanasia and today's notion.

Since I was comparing notions, I wonder where your comments about societies comes from ?

[MichaeltheGreat]

The title alone reduces any argument in the original post to nothing but an obnoxious troll.

And I really hate agreeing with St Leo.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The idea that Peter Singer is given an esteemed position at Princeton should cause people to shudder. The fact that so many applaud and justify him speaks volumns about how far we have slipped.

Their should be an ideological litmus test? In a private institution, no less?

And how many people really applaud and "justify" Singer? There's 280 million people in the US, and even if you discount those who haven't heard of him and don't give a damn, his position is one of many minority views.

And at the same time the pro-life people are ridiculed as "extremists."

Not all of them. And plenty of labeling is done on every side of this (and all other) issues.


Then again, blowing up clinics or sniping doctors or physically accosting pregnant women one wrongly assumes are attempting to obtain abortions because they're entering a medical building with two dozen doctors offices, one of whom provides abortions, are fairly "extreme" forms of advocacy, wouldn't you say?

[Berzerker]

Can this holocaust happen in America? Indeed, it has
already begun. The idea of killing a person and
calling it "death with dignity" is an oxymoron.

The author is confusing euthenasia with the right to die, with the former, others make the decision, with the latter, the person suffering makes the decision. I suspect the confusion is intentional... Btw, euthenasia wasn't invented by the Nazis or the Weimar Republic, Thomas Jefferson spoke of euthenasia in one of his letters and he endorsed it in certain cases... Euthenasia is as old as humanity, no one wants to see a loved one die a slow and painful death and that sentiment is in competition with our natural selfish desire to keep the loved one around for our own happiness. If it's "humane" to put down a suffering animal, then it may be humane to do the same to a person. I doubt I'd have the courage but I'd be reluctant to condemn those who do have the courage...

The "mercy-killing" movement puts us on the same path as pre-Nazi Germany. The "quality of life" concept, which
eventually results in the Hegelian utilitarian
attitude of a person's worth being based on their
contribution toward perpetuating big government, is in
stark contrast to America's founding principles.

Again, the author has created strawmen, there is no "mercy killing" movement, just the right of self-determination - freedom. And this "right to die" movement is not about utility or worth to the state, but the individual who is suffering. Btw, the right to die movement is also driven in part by the drug war, the state's zealousness in making sure we don't get "addicted" has put pressure on medical professionals who specialise in pain management to show restraint when medicating people in pain and many Americans are coming to realise that if they ever end up in a bad situation, their doctors may not be willing to help ease their pain sufficiently. That was what drove the referendum in Arizona a few years back, a state with a larg percentage of retirees. The voters overwhelmingly told the politicians they didn't want the state interfering with the doctor- patient relationship when it comes to pain management...

The Associated Press reported Singer's comments: "For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life?" Singer asked. "Those of you who are not
vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every
time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in
making these judgments."

Vegetables don't count as life? If species aren't more relevant than race, what about plant species. Ah yes, a vegetarian is a person too insensitive to hear a carrot scream.

President Theodore
Roosevelt's warning in 1909 seems appropriate:

"Progress has brought us both unbounded opportunities
and unbridled difficulties. Thus, the measure of our
civilization will not be that we have done much, but
what we have done with that much. I believe that the
next half century will determine if we will advance
the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the
horrors of brutal paganism. The thought of modern
industry in the hands of Christian charity is a dream
worth dreaming. The thought of industry in the hands
of paganism is a nightmare beyond imagining. The
choice between the two is upon us."

Ah, Teddy "I didn't really ride up San Juan Hill" Roosevelt. How does he explain the brutality of Christian Europe? Sorry Teddy, but I don't see the history of Christianity as an improvement upon the history of paganism. If anything, the more organised a religion becomes, the greater the evil it can perpetrate.

Finally, justifying their actions on the purported
theory of evolution, the Nazis considered the German,
or "Aryan," race as "ubermenschen," supermen, being
more advanced in the supposed progress of human
evolution.

Well, I was waiting for the author to get around to this bugaboo. Racism, the belief that one's race is superior to others, was not invented by Darwin or the Nazis. It too is as old as humanity and actually quite "natural" in that it stems from a fear of the unknown, distrust of the unfamiliar.

In biblical comparison, Jesus showed mercy by healing
the sick and giving sanity back to the deranged, but
never did he kill them.

Only if life were that simple, but hospitals are filled with people we can't heal.

This attitude is exemplified
today by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whose version of
"death with dignity" was to gather the dying from off
the street and show compassion to these rejected and
abandoned members of the human race, all the while
knowing that they may only survive for another half
hour. Her "mercy-living" movement went to great
trouble to house, wash and feed even the most hopeless
and derelict, because of inherent respect for the
"sanctity of life" of each individual.

And what if I appeared on her doorstep with one wish - to die because my pain was unbearable - would it be compassionate for her to refuse me my wish?

Will America chose the "sanctity of life" concept as
demonstrated by Mother Teresa, or will America chose
the "quality of life" concept championed by
self-proclaimed doctors of death – such as in the case
of the court-ordered starvation of Terri Schiavo – and
continue its slide toward Auschwitz?

Didn't the court conclude the evidence showed she didn't want to exist that way? That starvation is a result of those who oppose euthenasia, ironic, huh? I'd like to see her released to her parents but if she left a living will asking not to be kept alive for the sake of being kept alive, that desire must take priority over my wishes and the wishes of her parents. On the other hand, when people say "I wouldn't want to live like that", are they really serious or just affected by an unsavory image? Well, we all should think about what can happen and make our decision legally binding.

The
question is not whether the suffering and dying
person's life should be terminated; the question is
what kind of nation will we become if they are. Their
physical death is preceded only by our moral death.

Interesting comment!!! The author goes from condemning "utility" to advocating..... UTILITY! The author says it's not about the individual, but about us and our "nation"al
"morality". Sorry, but you cannot convince me it is moral to insist that a person dying from a painful and lethal disease not have a voice in what happens to them. The author condemns euthenasia because it removes from the patient decisions about their life and advocates doing what? Removing the individual from the decision making process... Nice...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then again, blowing up clinics or sniping doctors or physically accosting pregnant women one wrongly assumes are attempting to obtain abortions because they're entering a medical building with two dozen doctors offices, one of whom provides abortions, are fairly "extreme" forms of advocacy, wouldn't you say?

You know it is all for the sanctity of life

[notyoueither]

Nationalized health care and government involvement in
medical care promised to improve the public's "quality
of life." Unfortunately, the cost of maintaining
government medical care was a contributing factor to
the growth of the national debt, which reached
astronomical proportions. Double and triple digit
inflation crippled the economy, resulting in the
public demanding that government cut expenses.

This precipitated the 1939 order to cut federal
expenses...

Triple digit inflation? At the end of a depression? With wage and price controls?

Medical care was a major bugetary factor when the government was conducting a rearmament drive?

This is all news to me and has my horse hockey indicator going off. Perhaps some German speaker can enlighten me since I don't have access to many economic sources on Germany, in English.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Triple digit inflation? At the end of a depression? With wage and price controls?

The big time of German inflation was 191-1924. At that time, the value of money changed that quickly that their were notes of 5 million Marks

I wasn't aware of any crazy inflation under Hitler. The financial **** began to hit the fan only near the end of the war, when the nazi regime had to massively borrow from Swiss Banks, and had to sell massive amounts of Jewish stolen property.

[notyoueither]

That's why I'm asking questions. I can find no reference to high inflation under pre-war Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but I severely doubt it.

[Tripledoc]

About Nazi inflation, which I haven't heard of either. I think what is means is real inflation. I know that here in formerly occupied Denmark the food prices went Kaboom, and the presumably the property market too.
The whole agriculutral sector went ape with excitement as they saw their real wages rising, as compared with the workers who saw their wages going down.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And I really hate agreeing with St Leo.

Great minds think alike (and idiots seldom differ).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Quote:

Nationalized health care and government involvement in medical care promised to improve the public's "quality of life." Unfortunately, the cost of maintaining government medical care was a contributing factor to the growth of the national debt, which reached astronomical proportions. Double and triple digit inflation crippled the economy, resulting in the public demanding that government cut expenses. This precipitated the 1939 order to cut federal expenses...

Triple digit inflation? At the end of a depression? With wage and price controls?

Medical care was a major bugetary factor when the government was conducting a rearmament drive?

This is all news to me and has my horse hockey indicator going off. Perhaps some German speaker can enlighten me since I don't have access to many economic sources on Germany, in English.

It's conveniently mixed and matched different economic issues from the post WWI to pre-WWII time frame, to "assemble" a "factual" basis for this assertion.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Euthenasia is as old as humanity, no one wants to see a loved one die a slow and painful death and that sentiment is in competition with our natural selfish desire to keep the loved one around for our own happiness. If it's "humane" to put down a suffering animal, then it may be humane to do the same to a person. I doubt I'd have the courage but I'd be reluctant to condemn those who do have the courage...

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the murderer to judge whether his victim is worthy of life or not - that is actually what you are suggesting. I won't bother correcting your paganism, hedonism, sophistry, and excuses for racism, as I am sure no-one takes your crap seriously.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo
* St Leo invokes Godwin's Law

* St Leo also disagrees with the idea that the two extremes are the only tenable positions on the spectrum

Can i threadjack this to a discussion of Godwins law? While i disagree with Ben's logic, (though not necessarily his position) it does not seem to me completely inappropriate to discuss Nazism in the context of the large scale taking of life and issues of slippery slopes. I think one could come up with arguments in the opposite direction from that period as well, but Godwins law in this case seems to prevent debate, rather than protect it.

I guess Ive been frustrated in the past by the invoking of Godwins law in places where mentioning the Nazis was appropriate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
I see two subtle but dangerous propaganda methods this article exploits.

One, it tries to use synonymously the doctrines that "quality of life is more important than 'sanctity' of life" and the that "the value of life is in its value to the state", two doctrines which it seems obvious to me at least couldn't have less to do with each other.

In fairness to Ben, the article specifically takes on Singer, who is a very vocal "neo-utilitarian" As far as I can tell Singer DOES assert that its proper to make decisions like this based on the total costs and benefits to society, not just to the individual in question. In particular he thinks that not just the pain, indignity etc of the ill person should be considered, but that the cost of medical care for the dying mustalso be considered - not merely CAN be considered, but MUST be. His position in that regard thus goes rather farther than the classic "human dignity" argument for Euthanasia.

Do you wish to support euthanasia and oppose Singer? fine, but it does seem that Singer's position is an argument FOR the notion of a slippery slope. If we can get from the classic euthanasia for dignity argument to Singer's position, where can we go beyond Singer's position?

[Spiffor]

I agree with LOTM on this one. Since euthanasia means taking life in great numbers, it is interesting to compare it with other enterprises of mass life-taking.

Now, I don't think it is always appropriate to use the Holocaust in such comparisons. There were a great many mass life-taking, and to compare with the one that scares us the most is often meant to get a rhetorical advantage through this scare.

In this thread, we are comparing today's euthanasia with the one performed in Weimar and nazi Germany. I find nothing wrong with the fact that both are compared. I find it bullshit that the results of this comparison are that today's and yesterday's euthanasias are the same

[Tripledoc]

How do people know that this professor Godwin is not in fact a closet nazi, and the reason that he came up with it was that his usenet friends continued to call him a nazi?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In fairness to Ben, the article specifically takes on Singer, who is a very vocal "neo-utilitarian" As far as I can tell Singer DOES assert that its proper to make decisions like this based on the total costs and benefits to society, not just to the individual in question. In particular he thinks that not just the pain, indignity etc of the ill person should be considered, but that the cost of medical care for the dying mustalso be considered - not merely CAN be considered, but MUST be. His position in that regard thus goes rather farther than the classic "human dignity" argument for Euthanasia.

Do you wish to support euthanasia and oppose Singer? fine, but it does seem that Singer's position is an argument FOR the notion of a slippery slope. If we can get from the classic euthanasia for dignity argument to Singer's position, where can we go beyond Singer's position?

If you take on Singer as the visible proponent of euthanasia, you may as well assign Fred Phelps the position of being the spokesman for Christian morality. Just because someone is loud and has a vocal set of groupies doesn't mean they're representative of mainstream thought in their chosen field of ranting.

First, social cost IS considered in medical care even without formal euthanasia. Doesn't matter if you're using private health insurance, or under a welfare state, or relying on public medicine in someplace like the US. Do you think street people with terminal liver damage due to drug and alcohol abuse are on waiting lists for liver transplants to be provided at state cost?

How much effort is really directed towards the maximum possible extension of lifespan in geriatric illnesses, regardless of cost or "quality of life" considerations? For that matter, you can go to Africa and find millions of people living under conditions where the median life expectancy at birth is less than 50 years. If "social cost" and utilitarian arguments are rejected, and "sanctity of life" is the true standard, then why are those lives worth less? Ah, they're not white, or they're not in our country, or they have other problems or it's not our concern or "we're doing something, we contribute a pittance so we can feel good about ourselves" or "our people come first" or any other "utilitarian" excuse you want to make.

The simple facts are that convenience and social cost and value assessments are made even when there is no formal euthanasia. Neither Singer's nor anyone else's arguments lead to a slippery slope, unless those arguments suggest a more extensive and more stringent application of "social cost" and utility arguments than you see in practice here and now.

[Jack_www]

I think this essay makes an interesting point. But I do think some of the agruments and facts used are not correct. A lot of Germany's debt problems came from the fact that they had to pay huge reperation payments to the nations in Europe that won WWI.

But still I believe that we should hold up human life to the highest regard and not be so willing to take it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If you take on Singer as the visible proponent of euthanasia, you may as well assign Fred Phelps the position of being the spokesman for Christian morality. Just because someone is loud and has a vocal set of groupies doesn't mean they're representative of mainstream thought in their chosen field of ranting.

First, social cost IS considered in medical care even without formal euthanasia. Doesn't matter if you're using private health insurance, or under a welfare state, or relying on public medicine in someplace like the US. Do you think street people with terminal liver damage due to drug and alcohol abuse are on waiting lists for liver transplants to be provided at state cost?

How much effort is really directed towards the maximum possible extension of lifespan in geriatric illnesses, regardless of cost or "quality of life" considerations? For that matter, you can go to Africa and find millions of people living under conditions where the median life expectancy at birth is less than 50 years. If "social cost" and utilitarian arguments are rejected, and "sanctity of life" is the true standard, then why are those lives worth less? Ah, they're not white, or they're not in our country, or they have other problems or it's not our concern or "we're doing something, we contribute a pittance so we can feel good about ourselves" or "our people come first" or any other "utilitarian" excuse you want to make.

The simple facts are that convenience and social cost and value assessments are made even when there is no formal euthanasia. Neither Singer's nor anyone else's arguments lead to a slippery slope, unless those arguments suggest a more extensive and more stringent application of "social cost" and utility arguments than you see in practice here and now.

I dont deny that cost and benefit considerations play a role now in medical decisions, including ones with life and death implications. However in the case of euthanasia, he is applying them so make mandatory (in many cases) an action the culture has long considered forbidden, and which most mainstream defenders (I think you agree) argue for ONLY on the basis of benefits to the patient. To put it bluntly, its a leap from refusing to fund someones care on social utility grounds, to killing them on such grounds. Im not saying the former is necessarily right, or the latter necessarily wrong, but I do see a leap.

As for Singer being fringe - I guess Im not up to date enough on the Euthanasia movement to say. Certainly he is significant within the academic philosophy world.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm back and can more properly keep this thread on track.

The title alone reduces any argument in the original post to nothing but an obnoxious troll.

MtG:

So only innocently headed threads contain valid arguments?

Then again, blowing up clinics or sniping doctors or physically accosting pregnant women one wrongly assumes are attempting to obtain abortions because they're entering a medical building with two dozen doctors offices, one of whom provides abortions, are fairly "extreme" forms of advocacy, wouldn't you say?

Well I suppose one good troll deserves another. Prolifers cannot justify killing other people in the name of life or in bombing a clinic.

It must be a difficult argument if it stumps MtG.