A Modest Proposal

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm

Using the logic of those who murder babies, should we abort some seniors so they don't "inconvenience" the rest of us? After all, they've become parasitic ...[text shortened]... be hypocritical for any of the above mentioned to decline "their duty to the rest of us?"

That's not "the logic of those who murder babies." Everything that follows in your post is a red herring.

Originally posted by bjohnson407
I'm not sure where your getting your numers. But, according to our friends at the "Heritage Foundation," for the last fifty years federal defense spending has fluctuated between roughly 3% and 10% percent of the GDP. Given that the GDP is currently about five times the size of the federal budget, I don't see how your numbers could possibly be accurate. ...[text shortened]... ables.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s4.cfm

You are correct -- I made an error stating that military spending is between 4 - 8 percent of the federal budget -- I should have stated that as a measure of GDP.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm

Using the logic of those who murder babies, should we abort some seniors so they don't "inconvenience" the rest of us? After all, they've become parasitic ...[text shortened]... be hypocritical for any of the above mentioned to decline "their duty to the rest of us?"

They are outside of a woman's womb, therefore no. They have nothing in common with an embryo.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm

Using the logic of those who murder babies, should we abort some seniors so they don't "inconvenience" the rest of us? After all, they've become parasitic ...[text shortened]... be hypocritical for any of the above mentioned to decline "their duty to the rest of us?"

I bet you'd support abortion if you knew the people being aborted would become gay.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Why are you so obsessed with me? You're like those nutty women who read the supermarket tabloids and live vicariously through celebrity gossip columns instead of fixing up their trailers.

It's hard to get stupid people out of the limelight, isn't it? That's why I don't read tabloids.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
But don't you think it would be ironic if we applied the same fate to the members of the "most selfish generation" as they applied to all their unborn children that they murdered? More importantly, from a fiscal standpoint, shouldn't these same seniors be "helped along" since they are such an enormous financial burden on the rest of us -- equal to $10,673 for every non-senior household?

If they want to die, assisted suicide would be fine.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
It's a time of war, so I think it falls under supplemental spending.

So then, 'even in times of war' should be edited out of your earlier comment?

Originally posted by whodey
So at what point is the unborn a non-intelligent cell mass and when is the transition to an intelligent cell mass? Is it at the magical hour of birth when the doctor says "Abbra-cadabrra"?

When the brain and spinal cord have developed enough for the possibility of sentient thought.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
I bet you'd support abortion if you knew the people being aborted would become gay.

Don't you?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Don't you?

No, no, and definitely not.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm

"Medical costs are the biggest reason."

Why can't you develop new technology to solve your problem.
That's your usual answer isn't it?
Market forces and competition should be driving those prices down

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Don't you?

I'm all for people being gay.
The less children we pollute the planet with, the better!

Originally posted by whodey
So at what point is the unborn a non-intelligent cell mass and when is the transition to an intelligent cell mass? Is it at the magical hour of birth when the doctor says "Abbra-cadabrra"?

Well, almost nothing in biology jumps straight form 0 to 1.

Suffice to say, before the development of the central nervous system (or CNS), the embryo cannot be intelligent, and its removal should have the same ethical consequences of removing, say, the thyroid (except the fact the embryo is easily replaceable, that is).

(This alone should put at ease all those who fuss about embryonic stem cell research - the entire point of these stem cells is that they come from embryos at the very early stages of development - before the cells differentiate into committed stem cells, and therefore, way before the development of neurons.)

Even with the development of the CNS, the embryo is not immediately intelligent. I'm not into embryology, so I cannot tell at which stage has the neural activity is sufficient for us to call it intelligent.

Again, you cold just play it safe and remove the embryo before that.

Originally posted by aging blitzer
"Medical costs are the biggest reason."

Why can't you develop new technology to solve your problem.
That's your usual answer isn't it?
Market forces and competition should be driving those prices down

This is part of the problem with the rising cost of health care -- all these new drugs, procedures and medical devices cost a lot of money when they are first introduced, but gradually, the prices come down. Unlike government-run health care systems, the U.S. system doesn't ration treatments or care, and since most people are covered under a third party system (PPO, HPO, Medicare, Medicaid), where someone else pays, then there is no reason for them to be frugal in their spending.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I'm all for people being gay.
The less children we pollute the planet with, the better!

This sounds like the premise for a really bad sci-fi film. If I ever write the screenplay for it (doubtful), then I'll tell the director to cast you and deucer in the two lead roles and we can call it: Brokeback Socialists.