• WashedOver@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    At times I wonder if medically assisted suicides are frowned upon due to not being able to further drain the money out of patients and their extended credit lines.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re also frowned upon because it’s pretty cruel to tell someone “well, you could just die” because they can’t afford medical treatments or a place to live.

      • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        How is that any different than it is now? You can choose to die with dignity, or, in the current system, drain your funds, your families funds, put everyone in debt, THEN die.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rush Limbaugh taught conservatives to hate universal health insurance because doctors would tell you to just die.

        • WaxiestSteam69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not on topic but I recently listened to the Rush Limbaugh episodes of “Behind the Bastards”. I didn’t think I could dislike Rush more than I already did but I found out he was worse than I thought.

    • thantik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You don’t have to wonder any longer. You’ve figured it out. Take the morality out of many political decisions and you have the right answer. Abortions? – nobody gives a shit about those children. It’s a convenient cover so they don’t have to say “Mothers are killing the thing that we will enslave and drain later on in the economy!” Everyone says that they care about the child until it’s born – they don’t even care before that point. And the lack of care/suffering/poverty of the child afterwards is the point of exploitation. So the system is working as intended. They need more workers, they need to siphon every ounce of production out of those workers.

      • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Abortions? – nobody gives a shit about those children. It’s a convenient cover so they don’t have to say “Mothers are killing the thing that we will enslave and drain later on in the economy!"

        What sort of purpose does it serve to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when the fetus has a Fatal fetal abnormality?

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          What sort of purpose does it serve to force a woman to carry a pregnancy

          One sterile woman is a good exchange for 10 babies born in poverty who will join the Army.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The policy creates orphans more than it creates a population boom. And eventually people do find ways to prevent/stop pregnancies they’re just more dangerous and you see small bump in births then they go down as women die. With more women dying on their 3rd or 4th child then you get more kids who are ophaned.

            The strategic problem is nobody wants orphans so what happens? They get abused or fend for themselves and become unstable. Ain’t many of them going to join the army.