Re: Ethics, death, and cost.

[Andrew Crystall]

On 19 Jul 2001, at 16:01, Ronn Blankenship wrote:

> >What do you propose? That the g*vernment should decide, and
> >take the money away from Subject A so that Subject B survives?
> >
> >IMHO, this is the worse solution for the long run, because
> >a society that permits those kinds of decision is
> >giving the g*vernment the power to decide on Life and Death.
> >
> >Worse: you let the g*vernment declare that some lives [for
> >example, an old man's final 2 years of life] have a lesser
> >value than other lives.
> >
> >The next step might be letting the g*vernment mass-sterilize
> >individuals that carry bad genes, or place an upper limit
> >to the age of the citizens, etc
> 
> 
> Or place an upper limit to the number of children a woman may have.

Uhh, when you want to have kids, lemmie ask you this..

Why should you have kids? What have you done for society?
I do *NOT* believe in a universal right to have children.

Andy
Dawn Falcon