Aso says elderly should be allowed to 'hurry up and die'

  • Thread starter Thread starter roselily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And then I shall say, 'Because the old people worked all their lifes, we have today, old people need more good care and love and respect."

I read,
Leviticus 19:32 You shall rise before the aged, and defer to the old; and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
 
roselily said:
And then I shall say, 'Because the old people worked all their lifes, we have today, old people need more good care and love and respect."

I read,
Leviticus 19:32 You shall rise before the aged, and defer to the old; and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.
Click to expand...
absolutely right
👍
 
exoflare said:
coming soon to a country near you
Click to expand...
This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room when discussing healthcare. We are keeping people alive far longer, and those costs have to be paid somehow. If not…well…we all know the alternative.

John
 
oldcelt said:
This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room when discussing healthcare. We are keeping people alive far longer, and those costs have to be paid somehow. If not…well…we all know the alternative.

John
Click to expand...
This is why euthanasia is marketed as a good thing, an act of mercy. Change the people’s perception before the implementation.
 
oldcelt said:
This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room when discussing healthcare. We are keeping people alive far longer, and those costs have to be paid somehow. If not…well…we all know the alternative.

John
Click to expand...
And why are the costs so prohibitive? Because there aren’t enough children of the older generation to pay for the costs. We who are over 60 aborted and contracepted those who would have paid for our needs as we grew old. It’s why the next generation is pushing euthanasia–because they are overburdened with the number of elderly compared with their numbers. The question then becomes does this justify killing off people and denying them health care merely because of the cost to those who don’t want to pay for it?

It’s now obvious that by killing off our children we were sitting ourselves up to be the victims to those who survived the abortion/contraception holocaust who we infected with the same selfish idea that having children would somehow make our lives less good translated into having to support these old, useless people will ruin our lives. It’s come back to bite us in the butt.

I can tell you that I never had that attitude, but I was unable to have children in my marriage. No matter, someone in my family will probably want to bump me off for my own good. Isn’t that a lovely prospect for us older people to look forward to? :sad_bye:
 
Della said:
And why are the costs so prohibitive? Because there aren’t enough children of the older generation to pay for the costs. We who are over 60 aborted and contracepted those who would have paid for our needs as we grew old. It’s why the next generation is pushing euthanasia–because they are overburdened with the number of elderly compared with their numbers. The question then becomes does this justify killing off people and denying them health care merely because of the cost to those who don’t want to pay for it?

It’s now obvious that by killing off our children we were sitting ourselves up to be the victims to those who survived the abortion/contraception holocaust who we infected with the same selfish idea that having children would somehow make our lives less good translated into having to support these old, useless people will ruin our lives. It’s come back to bite us in the butt.

I can tell you that I never had that attitude, but I was unable to have children in my marriage. No matter, someone in my family will probably want to bump me off for my own good. Isn’t that a lovely prospect for us older people to look forward to? :sad_bye:
Click to expand...
Well babies are aborted because they are seen as an inconvenience. The reasoning will apply to older people as well. The chickens are coming home to roost.
 
Unborn infants get no vote and no say in the abortion debate. But in an aging society, an aging population still votes. They will need to be persuaded of their duty to die.

Everyone gets old.

Or not.
 
Abortion, Euthanasia and Eugenics are derivatives of Malthusian philosophy. The public opinion makers have us fighting for the right to kill each other so the population can drop. The sad part is that very few will accept that this can really be happening.
 
Della said:
And why are the costs so prohibitive? Because there aren’t enough children of the older generation to pay for the costs. We who are over 60 aborted and contracepted those who would have paid for our needs as we grew old.
Click to expand...
What you are really talking about are unfunded liabilities decades away. Suggesting that more people paying into the system could have solved it ignores the fact that, eventually, they too would withdrawal from it. An extra generation could just as easily have contributed to that problem and there’s no point in speculating on what might have been. At best, it pushes the problem down the road and doesn’t solve anything. The problem isn’t that there aren’t enough people paying into the system; the problem is that the people we do have in society are living longer and aren’t paying enough.

I think people are looking at this particular story in the wrong way. The Japanese have very different concepts of life and death. For them, its not a lack of money; wealth in Japan is more prominent among the elderly than any other age bracket (I also read an article at one time stating that they possess half of all privately held savings.) For them, suicide is a matter of pride and honor. Unlike Western values, keeping them alive through futile efforts would be seen as an affront to their dignity. They don’t want to be a burden on their families or the rest of society, whether real or perceived, and Asian culture in general views suicide to be a noble thing. Its why so many of the elderly volunteered to be part of the “suicide corps” that went into the damaged nuclear power plant at Fukushima.
 
A youth buldge in a nation also presents its own unique problems though. A larger younger generation tends to lead to more uprisings, revolts, civil unrest, protests, etc. A society is more stable when the older generation outnumbers the younger. But when the younger generation is larger a nation tends to have more resources.

So there’s good and bad either way.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
What you are really talking about are unfunded liabilities decades away. Suggesting that more people paying into the system could have solved it ignores the fact that, eventually, they too would withdrawal from it. An extra generation could just as easily have contributed to that problem and there’s no point in speculating on what might have been. At best, it pushes the problem down the road and doesn’t solve anything. The problem isn’t that there aren’t enough people paying into the system; the problem is that the people we do have in society are living longer and aren’t paying enough.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. We are paying plenty now–I know my dh and I are, anyway. You can only tax people just so much until you take everything and then there’s not enough left to spend on anything else. No, it’s a population problem not a taxation problem.
I think people are looking at this particular story in the wrong way. The Japanese have very different concepts of life and death. For them, its not a lack of money; wealth in Japan is more prominent among the elderly than any other age bracket (I also read an article at one time stating that they possess half of all privately held savings.) For them, suicide is a matter of pride and honor. Unlike Western values, keeping them alive through futile efforts would be seen as an affront to their dignity. They don’t want to be a burden on their families or the rest of society, whether real or perceived, and Asian culture in general views suicide to be a noble thing. Its why so many of the elderly volunteered to be part of the “suicide corps” that went into the damaged nuclear power plant at Fukushima.
Click to expand...
Self sacrifice is fine when there is a dire need for it, but to ask people to “off” themselves just so another generation doesn’t have to be “saddled” with them is morally reprenhensible.
 
I wonder how old the guy is who said they have a duty to die is?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
What you are really talking about are unfunded liabilities decades away. Suggesting that more people paying into the system could have solved it ignores the fact that, eventually, they too would withdrawal from it. An extra generation could just as easily have contributed to that problem and there’s no point in speculating on what might have been. At best, it pushes the problem down the road and doesn’t solve anything. The problem isn’t that there aren’t enough people paying into the system; the problem is that the people we do have in society are living longer and aren’t paying enough.

I think people are looking at this particular story in the wrong way. The Japanese have very different concepts of life and death. For them, its not a lack of money; wealth in Japan is more prominent among the elderly than any other age bracket (I also read an article at one time stating that they possess half of all privately held savings.) For them, suicide is a matter of pride and honor. Unlike Western values, keeping them alive through futile efforts would be seen as an affront to their dignity. They don’t want to be a burden on their families or the rest of society, whether real or perceived, and Asian culture in general views suicide to be a noble thing. Its why so many of the elderly volunteered to be part of the “suicide corps” that went into the damaged nuclear power plant at Fukushima.
Click to expand...
And then, of course, there were the kamikazes in World War II…and the garrisons of troops who committed suicide rather than admit defeat and “lose face”.

It’s a very different culture, for sure.
 
Della said:
I don’t agree. We are paying plenty now–I know my dh and I are, anyway. You can only tax people just so much until you take everything and then there’s not enough left to spend on anything else. No, it’s a population problem not a taxation problem.
Click to expand...
You’ll have to forgive the crudeness of the argument but the truth of the matter is that Social Security was designed so that you, me, and everyone else would be dead long before we collected everything we contributed over the years. Adding more people doesn’t solve the problem because it was never designed or intended to support a large elderly population as a source of income for 20-30 years. We don’t collect taxes in a way that makes it feasible.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The problem isn’t that there aren’t enough people paying into the system; the problem is that the people we do have in society are living longer and aren’t paying enough.

.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the problem is the government with its hand in the cookie jar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top