Originally posted by Ram59
View Post
You're really getting paranoid Ram59.
No one has refused to discuss changes to freedom of movement and no one denies that a minority of migrants are criminals.
If you're talking about me you have, as ever, jumped to conclusions and deliberately tried to mislead. I am actually the person who wrote, a couple of weeks or so ago, that to raise the issue of immigration is not necessarily racist and I have never, at any time, introduced euthanasia into the debate.
What I have said, and you have accepted, is that immigration shares responsibility for the growth in population with other factors such as a temporary 'baby boom' and the increase in life expectancy.
What I have also said is that we, as a society, have to think very, very carefully about our/science's ability to prolong life with no attendant quality of life.
It is, imo, a reasonable question albeit a grown up one which you have, for the sake of your own agenda, translated into me wanting to 'bump off old people' and terminate the lives of 'handicapped children' neither of which I have at any time suggested.
It is unfortunately so typical of you to use such tactics. Bumping off old people some of whom might be war heroes, arguing for the rights of criminals, terminating the lives of handicapped children, all designed to tug on the emotional heartstrings but none of which I have even hinted at. Honestly, if this was a boxing match you'd have been disqualified for repeatedly hitting 'below the belt'.
So what have I actually said? Based on my professional experience I've queried the morality of people having more children than they can afford to keep without relying on the state/taxpayer. That's an argument about personal responsibility nothing more.
As for the elderly argument, let me give you a couple of sad and graphic examples.
My best friend's father died not so long ago. For the last five years or so of his life he didn't recognise anyone at all, he was bed ridden and totally incontinent. He was kept 'alive' by modern technology and I question the wisdom of that when he had absolutely no quality of life.
I'll also cite the example of my own mother who suffered a very severe stroke about ten years ago. She went from being a life embracing eighty three year old to a 'vegetable' and the prognosis was very depressing in terms of quality of life. Fortunately...yes fortunately...she died within a week and I'm 'glad' she did because she wouldn't have wanted the life that lay ahead and all the family wanted to remember her as she was, not as she had become.
No mention there whatsoever about euthenasia, simply an adult response to an issue which is being replicated all over the world where science is able to prolong life but not quality of life.
I am asking the question...is that really what we want and is that really something we (society) can afford? Please stop putting words into my mouth and if you can't address the issues I've actually raised then, putting it more politely than I honestly feel, maybe you should just shut up.

Comment