|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:47 pm
lymelady Quote: The college also raised the question of "whether there should be other factors for babies, such as being wanted by their parents or other carers and having the potential to make some, even if small, contribution to wider society". That is what disturbs me. The very thought that they want to decide who lives and who dies based on things like that makes me ill. It's not that I think it'll happen, it's that there are people out there who want it, and I'm afraid of them gaining a following. It's social engineering, and it's disgusting. "You get to live because WE think you can do some good. But you don't because WE think you won't be worth much. You're not as valuable as the other guy." I'm sorry. Killing people in order to achieve your agenda isn't something that should even be discussed in a sane world. They're not talking about killing people. They're just talking about birth certificates, aren't they? Who needs a piece of paper to prove they're alive?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:24 pm
No, they aren't. They're talking euthenizing them. Quote: A doctors' group today called for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled babies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:44 pm
lymelady No, they aren't. They're talking euthenizing them. Quote: A doctors' group today called for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled babies. Damn, been getting my lines crossed again. Now that I've read the article again (and more carefully) I think it's a piece of crap. I can understand euthanasia if the child is going to die (and in pain), since this would stop the pain, but euthanisation just because they're at risk of being disabled? Bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:16 pm
hitler would love that
wonder how long until parents start killing a fetus because it's eyes aren't the color they would have liked...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:17 pm
True. They're doing it for reasons such as gender already. Why not eye color?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:35 pm
it's not that far of a stretch. being retarded only means your IQ is below 85. Basicly, because a child can't do well on a test, they don't deserve to live
tell me that isn't disturbing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:41 pm
Just be thankful you're old enough to have rights now, and young enough to keep them, and pray that they don't start going after the elderly...OH WAIT too late, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:00 pm
lymelady Just be thankful you're old enough to have rights now, and young enough to keep them, and pray that they don't start going after the elderly...OH WAIT too late, sorry. . . . . what? I suppose I can see where they might have come from for this idea of euthanising disabled babies. I'm not saying I condone it, I'm just saying that I think I understand why they've thought of this. A 'retarded' child will probably never be able to look after itself. It will need constant care. It may never get a proper job, so it will always have to be suported by its family - if/when it has no family, it will have to be supported by the government, to which it may not give/have given much, if anything. Again, I'm not saying I condone this view - I could easily be wrong about their reasons behind this idea, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:35 am
So this is by the same people who claim to be the "protectors" of human rights. People who will fight to make sure terrorists won't be tortured, even if it will save innocent lives. This is beyond sick, this is evil pure and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:53 pm
karllikespies So this is by the same people who claim to be the "protectors" of human rights. People who will fight to make sure terrorists won't be tortured, even if it will save innocent lives. This is beyond sick, this is evil pure and simple. This is by the exact same people? Where does it say that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:08 am
oh stop scribble... You know damn well that one of the platforms the radical choicers stand on is that they are protecting human rights, even though it's a huge steaming pile of contradiction.
So let me get this straight one more time. If someone can't do well on a certian kind of test they should die? No, i can't understand or sympathise with that. As a person who makes his living working with developmentally disabled adults i can tell you no matter how low their IQ is, and no matter how much extra care they need, they are definatly still people with distinct personalities, likes and dislikes, friends and enemies, you name it. Perhaps they can't comunicate as well, or take care of themselves as easily as the rest of us, but when you start practicing selective breeding based on that, it's not just a slippery slope, it's a pitfall.
Consider this: To those on the genius end of the IQ scale, we're all retarded. While they can learn complex equations and grasp difficult concepts in a matter of moments, we struggle with the mere ideas behind them. Would they not, therefore, be able to terminate what we consider to be 'normal' children because they wouldn't function on the same level as their parents? after all, Mental Retardation and Genius are simply different scores on the same test.
no, i have no sympathy or understanding for so repulsive a viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:03 am
MiNdCaNdY oh stop scribble... You know damn well that one of the platforms the radical choicers stand on is that they are protecting human rights, even though it's a huge steaming pile of contradiction. So let me get this straight one more time. If someone can't do well on a certian kind of test they should die? No, i can't understand or sympathise with that. As a person who makes his living working with developmentally disabled adults i can tell you no matter how low their IQ is, and no matter how much extra care they need, they are definatly still people with distinct personalities, likes and dislikes, friends and enemies, you name it. Perhaps they can't comunicate as well, or take care of themselves as easily as the rest of us, but when you start practicing selective breeding based on that, it's not just a slippery slope, it's a pitfall. Consider this: To those on the genius end of the IQ scale, we're all retarded. While they can learn complex equations and grasp difficult concepts in a matter of moments, we struggle with the mere ideas behind them. Would they not, therefore, be able to terminate what we consider to be 'normal' children because they wouldn't function on the same level as their parents? after all, Mental Retardation and Genius are simply different scores on the same test. no, i have no sympathy or understanding for so repulsive a viewpoint. The people calling for a debate on whether babies should be euthanised are radical choicers? There is nothing to connect them to the view. I think you're just trying to tack on something else to 'choicers'. The people who campaign for rights of terrorists seem like the people who would campaign for the rights of disabled babies as well - I take it that they think that no one deserves to have their human rights violated, and they would probably see this as a violation of the baby's human rights; to live. Tacking this view onto 'radical choicers' is unfair because it has no foundation - unless of course you have something you haven't mentioned? It's nothing to do with tests - their point is that these babies will very likely be so severely disabled that they will never be able to support themselves. They will need constant medical care - this could mean they need operations, be on a resperator, dialysis, or whatever. So they will most likely never be able to have a job or a family and will rely solely on their parents for the rest of their lives. If they outlive their parents, someone else in their family will have to take them in. If they have no one else, they'll end up in a home somewhere. They're asking whether this kind of a life is worthwhile. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - everyone disaggrees. This isn't just about the mentally retarded. It's not a case of 'stupid people should die'. It's a case of whether it's a worthwhile life when you can't do anything without help. I don't know how I feel about whether it's a worthwhile life. If it were a case of forcing these chldren to live for a short time in constant pain, going through endless medical procedurs to just keep them going - I don't think I would want to put my child through that. Not if it would only lengthen their pain. If it were to heal them, fine, but just to prolong their suffering? No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:19 am
Scribblemouse karllikespies So this is by the same people who claim to be the "protectors" of human rights. People who will fight to make sure terrorists won't be tortured, even if it will save innocent lives. This is beyond sick, this is evil pure and simple. This is by the exact same people? Where does it say that? No not every person who is willing to kill children fights for terrorist rights. But it is mostly the far left that fights for killing children, abortion on demand, and terrorists' rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:37 am
Scribblemouse Tacking this view onto 'radical choicers' is unfair because it has no foundation Erm, who else would support this? They're kind of "radical choicers" because they support this, not the other way around. Actually, I wouldn't call it radically pro-choice, but radically anti-life. The pro-choice thing is generally about bodily integrity, and if a child is born, it's only affecting its own body, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:38 am
karllikespies Scribblemouse karllikespies So this is by the same people who claim to be the "protectors" of human rights. People who will fight to make sure terrorists won't be tortured, even if it will save innocent lives. This is beyond sick, this is evil pure and simple. This is by the exact same people? Where does it say that? No not every person who is willing to kill children fights for terrorist rights. But it is mostly the far left that fights for killing children, abortion on demand, and terrorists' rights. Do you have anything to support this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
