If we can kill fetuses, can we kill retards?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Roman, Jul 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Someone who's really drooling and freaky and retarded. Has to be taken care of all the time sort of thing, an IQ of really low, gets in the way, total waste of time.

    Can we put the damn thing down? Humanely, of course. With some sort of vacuum that sucks his insides out, or perhaps a sharp, scrapey instrument.


    Discuss.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Depends; if I have an IQ of 200, and yours is lower, can I consider you a retard?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    Indeed, I really cant see the fascination with self euthanasia?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    But I can function and aren't leaching resources off anyone. A brain scan will also reveal that I'm not a retard.

    Your slippery slope argument is pretty silly.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Only because you fall on the other side of the equation.

    Morality is a slippery slope. Its easy to get desensitized to violence.

    And once you start rationalising morality, why there are so many choices available.

    e.g. Every day, more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds.

    If you think about it, what do we need all those children for?
    They are never going to amount to aything and they are consuming the resources which will be wasted when they die.

    What about the Third World countries?
    They are undernourished and most of them are killing each other anyway.

    Ok lets see.
    According to atheists, religion is a major cause of violence and 80% of people are theists.
    In fact most of the people who are atheists think they are more "rational" and hence smarter.
    Maybe if they can figure out a way to get rid of the theists, they can live in a rational secular society free from gods.

    I'm giving extreme examples, but hey Hitler was real, right?
     
  9. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    You have an odd, irrational, emotion-based fascination with abortion, Roman. :bugeye:

    Retards, as you like to call them, are self-conscious, viable beings. They are biologically self-sufficient, meaning they're physically developed to the point where their basic physiological functions don't need to be supported via a woman's uterus. Very few of them may need to be supported as if they were still infants, but that's not the same thing.

    Up to a certain stage in the human gestation period, a fetus is not a self-conscious organism, and it cannot live outside the uterus.

    You can't compare a fetus to a "retard" like this.
     
  10. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    If we can kill fetuses, can we kill retards?

    Only if we start with those at sciforums.
     
  11. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    Seeing as you want these 'retards' disposed of, doesn't that make you someone getting in their way? Wouldn't it now be in their best interests for you to be disposed of?
     
  12. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    673
    I don't get how you could compare someone who is mentally disable to a fetus. I could understand maybe if someone had an abortion before the child was born but once the child is born it's a human for better or for worse.
     
  13. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Where would you draw the line for someone being retarded? Mentally or developementally? If we got rid of all the mentally retarded people, surely this would be the survival of the fittest. But since they most likely won't have children anyway, it's kind of pointless. Fetuses can be used for a positive goal. That's because of their precious stem cells, which can take the form of the cells around them. Maybe if we killed all the retards, we could use then to feed all those starving children, or use their organs in hospitals, or for research. They would probably contribute to the world more dead than they would alive anyway. Why don't we just take all the people who die everyday, cook them, and feed the starving people around the world? Surely they would be happier with being cannibals than they are starving. I'm not a big fan of killing people for no reason, but if it's to feed starving hildren(who could one day contribute to the world), why not.
     
  14. whitewolf asleep under the juniper bush Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    I know some dumb fucks who function pretty well in life and mess up everything they can. Nourishing this kind of retards is far more ironic and should stop. Roman, don't you agree?

    Roman, do us all a favor: grab your throat and squeeze tightly.
     
  15. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Why is everyone so opposed to his thought, as a science forum, shouldn't we be open minded?
     
  16. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    How do we decide who's retarded and who merely stupid, or a bit slow?
     
  17. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Why Roman….we would never do something like that to you.
     
  18. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    I see no foundation for the exclusion of retards from being killed, if we are somehow justified in killing them in the womb if we found out they would be retarded, as many people claim as a justification for abortion. Moreover, there is little weight in the sanctity of human life if, again, we can choose to end it outside of perhaps - and even then, perhaps not - punishment for misdeed or in self-defense.
     
  19. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    Appears to me to be a classic 'utilitarianism' type concept - can read more about this philisophical theory here

    I recall a philosophy prof. of mine asking this very question duirng our first class, giving birth to an entire year of intellectual thought, lecture and papers on this very concept of utilitarinism.

    At the outset this utilitarian question begs further moral consideration: is it moral to kill without justification? If it is not, what are the cirteria that would justify killing as a moral decision? And does the criteria align with the intended outcome of 'for the greater good' (nee utilitarianism)?

    I think we live in a society that would not accept any act by its government to uthinise anyone without justification.

    So if our government (nee the poeple) consider the posibility of instituting a program aimed at uthinising its mentally challenged population because of the pressure on the social purse, is that justification enough?

    I think not. There are too many other programs implemented by government that would prove to be a far greater strain on the public purse which do not adhere to the 'greater good' principle eg. billions of dollars spent of national defense (no proof that money is spent and delivers the greater good principle).

    In short: No, I don't think uthinising a mentally challenged person is justified solely on the monetary strain argument.
     
  20. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    I'm not saying this about your idea (some of it actually seems good), but there's a difference between having a closed mind to something, and recognizing a bad idea when it comes up.
     
  21. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Pertinent point, succinctly phrased.
     
  22. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Some retards are on the same funtional level as fetuses.

    Why can we kill the fetus, which has far more potential, for it being an inconvenience, but not the retard, which is an inconvenience with zero potential?

    I'm sorry none of you have a good enough argument to tell me why we can kill fetuses but not retards ("they passed through a birth canal durrrrr") and have to insult me.

    Odd, irrational and emotion-based? I can see where you get that from. Personally, I think abortions should be legalized all the way up 'till first grade. Then it's too much of a person.

    Maybe there should be some sort of person test for everyone. A gom jabbar perhaps.
     
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Since my take on abortion is that once you've actually made it to the world, you're in, I must say, no, we shouldn't kill the developmentally delayed, divergent, or inadequate.

    To the other, part of me reflects the "start at Sciforums" bit, but I would start with Republicans. This should be considered a suggestion that the topic proposition is a bad idea. One of the reasons I oppose such standards, I admit, is that my application would be very broad. After all, I consider the most part of American Christianity retarded. (And, no, it isn't because they're Christians, but because they're such poor ... well, retarded Christians.)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page