Not really. Ask around in the World Events and Politics forum.
Or do a google for the United States/USA Patriot Act.
Severely retarded people
- Thread starter Balder1
- Start date
Not really. Ask around in the World Events and Politics forum.
Or do a google for the United States/USA Patriot Act.
You've said that if people are not as mentally able to stand up to par with others, then why should they even live? Ooh, if they are not going to be in postitions of power and won't make our world run any efficiently then why should we allow them to savor their lives? Or those who are in pain and don't want to live? Thats their choice, no one elses. I think that just because you have a problem mentally or phyically in the embryo or whatnot, the abortion should not take place because of that. That is judging peoples abilties before they can even prove themselves to us. And whats to prove? Nothing more then them trying to be like us. Why? Because we make them in our society.
To clarify I was talking about severely retarded people, who wouldn't survive if someone wasn't caring for them about 24/7.
As for killing those who are not mentally up to par, wouldn't that make the world cleaner? We wouldn't have stupid, helpless, or extremely supersitious people passing their problems down to their offspring and leeching off the world. If we could pinpoint these problems in people with genetic tests before birth, would it be better to kill them before they end up with miserable lives? That's what you're saying is wrong, right? I can't make up my mind whether that would be a tragedy or not. Personally I'd rather have a kid with a good set of genes than one who will have schizophrenia.
Do you believe that these embryos have souls?
As for killing those who are not mentally up to par, wouldn't that make the world cleaner? We wouldn't have stupid, helpless, or extremely supersitious people passing their problems down to their offspring and leeching off the world. If we could pinpoint these problems in people with genetic tests before birth, would it be better to kill them before they end up with miserable lives? That's what you're saying is wrong, right? I can't make up my mind whether that would be a tragedy or not. Personally I'd rather have a kid with a good set of genes than one who will have schizophrenia.
Do you believe that these embryos have souls?
But who decides what is "stupid" or "helpless?" The person who does decide that would use their personal tastes. For example, if a KKK leader got to decide, he would probably exterminate Jews, Christians, people of African descent, and gays. In his mind, those people are helpless.
From my experience, most mothers love their children, regardless of how they turn out.
IDEA: How about we get rid of all the "worthless" people in the world? Lets admit it, many people who are alive aren't required to keep the planet running. Lets just go through the world and kill em off.
"Personally I'd rather have a kid with a good set of genes than one who will have schizophrenia." (balder1)
Just curious, do you have any kids?
There are a lot of references to people that are living "miserable" lives in this thread, the thing is, everyone has a different definition for miserable, and if someone has been living the same life since birth, and only knows life that way, it may seem miserable to us on the outside, but to them, it's all they know, and it's LIFE.
Just curious, do you have any kids?
There are a lot of references to people that are living "miserable" lives in this thread, the thing is, everyone has a different definition for miserable, and if someone has been living the same life since birth, and only knows life that way, it may seem miserable to us on the outside, but to them, it's all they know, and it's LIFE.
"...it may seem miserable to us on the outside, but to them, it's all they know, and it's LIFE."
Well said. Us who are not of mental retardation or physically disabled do not know about life from their point of view. Ask any of them, i'm sure they would rather live then die Balder1. And yes, if you had morals at all, babies, even in the earliest stages have souls.
Well said. Us who are not of mental retardation or physically disabled do not know about life from their point of view. Ask any of them, i'm sure they would rather live then die Balder1. And yes, if you had morals at all, babies, even in the earliest stages have souls.
yes uncontrolable drooling is reason for death, if the drool is on me........
but think about natural selection, we're making it easier for the disabled to live, when natural selection is meant to have the disabled die to purify the genes of a race. Modern medicine only makes humans worse by keeping the disadvantaged alive and allowing them to breed into society.
"Do you believe that these embryos have souls?"
I convinced someone that if souls exist, then rocks must have souls (and everything else for that matter).
On a different note, what really annoys me is when people talk about "whats next?". NOTHING HAS TO BE NEXT. Just because we seek and destroy (weather you think it is evil or not) people would would leach off of society does NOT mean that we will subsequently seek and destroy .. The Jews, for example.
"But who decides what is "stupid" or "helpless?""
That is not quite simple, but it isn't a hard thing to answer hypothetically. "stupid" is oppinionated, but "helpless" is not. If someone cannot fend for themselves in society then they are helpless. If someone needs "24/7 care" then they are helpless. If they cannot and will not ever be able to learn how to speak or write, then they are helpless.
There are three issues here: the genetic betterment of human society, the financial efficiency of human society, and the happieness and quality of life of the PERSON.
If a person can be shown to be in a perpetually unhappy state, without hope of a cure (perhaps by neurological elecro-activity scans, or perhaps even by direct address), the I think it would be a crime to perpetuate their suffering.
If the gene pool is thought to be in peril, I see no problem with neutering or tube tying of such people at birth. We all know that someone such as a retard would be quite incapable of raising a child well and that the genetic hazard grows with subsequent generations.
If the financial security of society is in mind, then the only choice is to move it or loose it. That is, if a person cannot support themselves to a certain point (perhaps that point may be that they can support themselves with very minimal government help), then they are fine. But if they cannot support themselves at all, then they ARE a drag on society; noone can rebute that. What you may rebute is what to do about such cases. Some people might say "it is not their fault that they cannot support themselves", while others might say "normal people would not be allowed to drain government money, so why should anyone have the right to breach the edicts of civil equality?".
On a different note, I think every person should have their tubes tied at birth. They would still be able to reproduce through a simple needle-and-insertion artificial fertilization, and that would allow (or perhaps a better word would be 'force') the couple to have special screening processes to week out mutated sperm and other such abnormalities. Surely not even a republican christian orthodox can say that every sperm has a right to life! This way people don't have to worry about unplanned pregnancies (I suppose that doesn't get rid of the problem with STDs...).
yeah... well you can have that from me
I convinced someone that if souls exist, then rocks must have souls (and everything else for that matter).
On a different note, what really annoys me is when people talk about "whats next?". NOTHING HAS TO BE NEXT. Just because we seek and destroy (weather you think it is evil or not) people would would leach off of society does NOT mean that we will subsequently seek and destroy .. The Jews, for example.
"But who decides what is "stupid" or "helpless?""
That is not quite simple, but it isn't a hard thing to answer hypothetically. "stupid" is oppinionated, but "helpless" is not. If someone cannot fend for themselves in society then they are helpless. If someone needs "24/7 care" then they are helpless. If they cannot and will not ever be able to learn how to speak or write, then they are helpless.
There are three issues here: the genetic betterment of human society, the financial efficiency of human society, and the happieness and quality of life of the PERSON.
If a person can be shown to be in a perpetually unhappy state, without hope of a cure (perhaps by neurological elecro-activity scans, or perhaps even by direct address), the I think it would be a crime to perpetuate their suffering.
If the gene pool is thought to be in peril, I see no problem with neutering or tube tying of such people at birth. We all know that someone such as a retard would be quite incapable of raising a child well and that the genetic hazard grows with subsequent generations.
If the financial security of society is in mind, then the only choice is to move it or loose it. That is, if a person cannot support themselves to a certain point (perhaps that point may be that they can support themselves with very minimal government help), then they are fine. But if they cannot support themselves at all, then they ARE a drag on society; noone can rebute that. What you may rebute is what to do about such cases. Some people might say "it is not their fault that they cannot support themselves", while others might say "normal people would not be allowed to drain government money, so why should anyone have the right to breach the edicts of civil equality?".
On a different note, I think every person should have their tubes tied at birth. They would still be able to reproduce through a simple needle-and-insertion artificial fertilization, and that would allow (or perhaps a better word would be 'force') the couple to have special screening processes to week out mutated sperm and other such abnormalities. Surely not even a republican christian orthodox can say that every sperm has a right to life! This way people don't have to worry about unplanned pregnancies (I suppose that doesn't get rid of the problem with STDs...).
yeah... well you can have that from me
Frankly, retards were designed to become lion food. If you feel we should take care of them than thats fine but don't try and argue that they are as worthy of life as anyone else because the fact of the matter is they are the un-fit that darwin is referring to with the "survival of the fittest", in other words they aren't supposed to survive. We keep them alive because we feel sorry for them but thats just our crazy society again, always breaking the rules of the planet. There are retarded animals too you know, and they get eaten up fairly quickly because all they will do if they survive and reproduce is weaken the species.
Warren the mentally stable walrus asks,
"what the hell is that supposed to mean?!"
"what the hell is that supposed to mean?!"
I'll cover that
see the people in question feel as though they should say killing retards is wrong , also they have heard some where the phrase "genocide is wrong".Genocide is wrong, killing retards is wrong...... hmmm, if I put 2 and 2 together....
Hey, I never said they were genius's...
what if you appeared to be retarded at birth but actually had potential to understand things on a higher level then believed?
if you were aborted would that have been fair?
I do not think that anyone has a right to play God and in posting you are implying that someone does.
If you do not believe in God then the answer is the same minus the last sentance.
if you were aborted would that have been fair?
I do not think that anyone has a right to play God and in posting you are implying that someone does.
If you do not believe in God then the answer is the same minus the last sentance.
Don't you see? we are playing god by keeping them alive, I for one would prefer to see them aborted rather than allowed to starve to death, but keeping them alive is playing god or rather defying god(my god is earth).
Dr Lou makes a good point. If you believe in god then I KNOW you have irrational ideas that cannot be explained. I have tried to understand religious ideas and they simply rely on unthinking "faith". These irrational ideals I simply cannot incorporate in a rational discussion of this nature.
If you think that every life deserves to life then gather your sperm, start a revolution. If you do not belive in god then try wrestling with the idea that we are ALL inanimate objects that serve no purpose. Good or bad is all just brain chemistry.
If science can prove that certain sperm and egg cells produce defective persona 99% of the time, then you can try to prove them wrong. Ethics is an issue, but if you think those ethics through, some of them FaLL through.
Playing god is what we have been doing for the past 5000 years. Why do you think "playing god" is so bad anyway? Is god just too good for us, too vain to let us try to better ourselves and think that he must destroy those who try to live up to his supposedly good example?
If you think that every life deserves to life then gather your sperm, start a revolution. If you do not belive in god then try wrestling with the idea that we are ALL inanimate objects that serve no purpose. Good or bad is all just brain chemistry.
If science can prove that certain sperm and egg cells produce defective persona 99% of the time, then you can try to prove them wrong. Ethics is an issue, but if you think those ethics through, some of them FaLL through.
Playing god is what we have been doing for the past 5000 years. Why do you think "playing god" is so bad anyway? Is god just too good for us, too vain to let us try to better ourselves and think that he must destroy those who try to live up to his supposedly good example?
Last edited:
Of course we should pre-emptively euthanize the mentally handicapped.
As well as a few other... ahem... undesireables.
As well as a few other... ahem... undesireables.
PHP:
But who decides what is "stupid" or "helpless?" The person who does decide that would use their personal tastes. For example, if a KKK leader got to decide, he would probably exterminate Jews, Christians, people of African descent, and gays. In his mind, those people are helpless.Has anyone in this thread actually worked with severly retarded people????
These people are helpless, and unless,,unless you experienced it upfront and personal you wouldn't understand this. Its the sadest, most frustrating and humiliating experience you would ever hope to never have to see in your entire lives. I worked with mild to moderate retarded people back in the early 90's for a state ran institution, but I saw the other ones too.... No one wants to get stuck there,, words don't describe the suffering, the anguish, even the families all ran away,,, its hard... very hard...and disheartening....
So to answer the question everyone here can't seem to comprehend, cause you need to be there to live it, its not a matter of personal taste at all, its not a matter of hypocritical judgement, its not a matter of christian ethics or beliefs, its just a cruel mistake in the human genome, that happened on chance accident, that allowed these poor souls to live in such despair and cause such agony to society as a whole...and God bless their souls/... but as one who saw it up front,,, if there is anything we as a society can to to prevent such suffering before it is to late, I am all for detection early in pregnancy through genetic testings to predict such an infinitesimal future.....
But to put to death a human being after birth is clear cruelty....and there is no guarentee if we allowed it in one instance of severe retardation, why it wouldn't then go to other aspects of mental deterioration,, such as someone who was once normal leading productive lives, even saving lives, and then became mentally deteriorated..and don't think its not possible, I for one know a brilliant cardioligists who won medical honors, and was stuck down by alzhiemers disease in his mis 60's, should we kill him too??? And believe me I really do understand that this person is still normal to a degree, because he was once normal and highly functioning individual in society, so in a way its like comparing apples with oranges, really no comparision .......but can we really go around and gather all the severly retared drollers in the world, put them in a tank, and let loose the gases so they chock to death, or should we just let them loose ...refuse to help them,,, watch them die in front of our eyes, in the street, on the roads we drive down everyday, lying helpless and distraught and clearly demented on the byways of our highways???? Can we??? Could we???? Sure we can and we could..... but .then would that seperate us from the animals... and we are suppose to be the supreme intelligence...at least on this planet anyway!!!!!