Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If you so desperately want to see poor kids being helped why don't you do something about it, instead of stomping on disabled people !?
Conjoined Twins: Fatal Error?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
If you so desperately want to see poor kids being helped why don't you do something about it, instead of stomping on disabled people !?
So the choice is either being stared at or dieing??
I haven't seen much of this 'uncomfortableness' in my generation. Its not my generation that locked up Downs Syndrome children in state hospitals. Its not my generation that was sterilizing the handicapped. So I can sorta see why you think the way you do. You were raised to think it.
What you are talking about is not racial purity (like hate groups) but species purity. I think there is a fine line between devil's advocate and revolting.
Wasn't there a famous early Nazi Film along the same lines?
Showing how sick children were rescued from a life of needless suffering
by good doctors, who painlessly murdered, sorry, "euthanased", them.
Once the war provided cover, this was extended first to "unproductive" mentally ill people and then social undesirables such as gypsies, homosexuals and jews.
That's not a "thing" it's a very sick little girl.
We'd shoot horses or other animals that were born with such horrid deformities. And we do it for a reason. Why is the reasoning so different? Aren't humans just another animal?
Baron Max
Downs Syndrome? Hmm, that's all true, Orleander, and look what we've created in today's world by allowing DS kids to live and breed. DS is on the rise and DS couples are having more and more DS kids. Is that what you wanted in your generation?
And DS is only one of such horrid "diseases" that we've allowed to thrive and breed, creating more and more of the same. It seems to me that our misguided compassion is fucking us all royally.
Baron Max
I said:
To which you replied:
You've surprised me.
I was expecting you to disagree.
To which you replied:
You've surprised me.
I was expecting you to disagree.
prove it.
Bells
Staff member
Would you have shot her Baron? You're all so tough and macho, yet a baby, born with deformities, scares you so much that you'd rather kill her than have to look at her? Then you have the nerve to hide behind a monetary excuse?
What kind of pitiful individual are you Baron?
You might kill an animal born with deformities, but not everyone does. Now, why does this little girl and others born with mental and physical deformities scare you so much? Why do they make you so uncomfortable that you would prefer to kill them?
My God! I would never have believed it if I had not seen this with my own eyes!! Someone, somewhere, has managed to invent a time machine and they've brought you to our time from the Dark Ages!
"Allowing DS kids to live and breed"? What do you propose Baron? Drowning children born with DS at birth, just in case they start breeding? Do you even know what causes DS Baron? Do you even know what it is? Do you even know that fertility in those with DS is reduced? Do you even know that there are levels of DS, ranging from the very mild to the extreme? Do you know that the cognitive problems suffered by children with DS also affect children who do not have DS? Do you even know that people with DS work, study and live normal lives?
The Nazis would have loved you Baron.
Do you think DS is contagious?:bugeye:
DS tends to occur with normal parents. So unless you wish to restrict everyone from "breeding"...?
I've said it before and I'll say it again Baron. You are a prime example of how humanity has crapped itself.
In the old days, they wouldn't shoot the "thing", they'd take it out into the forest and leave it to die. That approach worked for thousands of years in all kinds of human cultures and societies.
The "thing" is a burden on society. The cost of "reparing" that child is enough to save the lives of thousands of starving kids who are perfectly normal. In spending the money to save that one child, you're effectively taking resources that could be used for the greater good for all ...not just for one "thing".
If they must live, then they should be sterilized to prevent breeding.
Reduced, but not eliminated. I know a family in Florida who had a DS kid ...they struggled to support him into adulthood. The kid fell in love with another DS kid, they married, they had a DS kid. Now the old, retired family is required to support them all because no one else will or can.
They should be sterilized at birth ...if you just must keep them around at all.
DS can be detected in the womb. The kid should be aborted ...plain and simple. The "thing" will be a burden on society at every step of the way, and not least on the parents.
Humans have crapped on themselves? Yeah, that's for sure, Bells, they've polluted everything they've touched, they've killed more of their own kind tha any other animal in existence, they've sucked the resources from the planet, and they're breeding themselves into an overpopulated disaster. ....and you want to keep more of those bastards alive!!
Baron Max
Bells
Staff member
Same approach worked for those who were old and senile. Makes me wonder why you're still around.
I'm guessing you never get sick? Never have to visit the dentist? Don't use glasses? Because if you do get sick, have to see a dentist or do use/need glasses, you should abstain from taking up that doctor's time since that doctor could be out saving the lives of small, "normal" children instead of treating you.
And now you are trying to force others to be sterilised. What if the individual does not want to be sterilised Baron? What if, of their own free will, they do not wish to be sterilised? And who are you to decide for them? Oh wait, wasn't it you who said:
"I see people here doing nothing but condemning the choices of others ...and worse, many are even advocating actively preventing some choices which they see as "not too good"."
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1620111&postcount=49
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1620111&postcount=49
Trying to prevent their free choice Baron? And you, the great supporter of 'free choice'..
I am sure the family do it willingly. It was their choice to do so. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? And who are YOU to demand the forced sterilisation of others? Don't you think the individual with DS should have a say in the matter? Why should individuals with DS be forced into being sterilised because you think it so?
Not always.
Oh this gets better.
It is up to the parents to decide if they wish to keep or abort their child. Unless you are the parent facing that decision, you do not factor into their decision... "plain and simple".
And? Are you scared that some of your tax dollars may go towards an operation to save a child born with a deformity, or to save a child's life?
You mean like you want to murder babies born with any abnormality lest they "breed"?
It is telling how you see we have "crapped" on ourselves because we have killed more of our own than any other animal on the planet, yet here you are in this thread saying we should kill any child born with a deformity. How do you say it again? Ah yes... "hippo-critical"...
Hmmmm lets see..
If I had to choose between you and that little girl? Guess who would win Baron?..
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
:bravo::worship:
In the old days, families cared for the old people ...NOT the society.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
If the family could care for the child for it's entire life, or set up a trust fund or other such means for monetary support, for it's entire life, it might be considered. But probably not.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
And we're running out of fresh, potable water. We're running out of oil and natural gas. We've polluted every part of the planet. We're running out of arable land. We're running out of places to put people. The polar ice caps are melting. Animals all over the world have been driven out of the natural habitats. .... and I could go on and on.
At what point will the ideal of "individuality" cause disaster for everyone? ...when humans are standing shoulder to shoulder all over the planet? Will the individual still be so important?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
Baron Max
agreed. And the many say we take care of these people and help them. The many say we show a bit of humanity and show compassion and empathy.
It's not what the many say that's important. Read it again:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.
There's nothing in there that's anything about what the many have to say about anything.
Baron Max
Nope, you still don't get it. The "needs" are what's important, not wants or desires or any other such bullshit that you might come up with.
Generally, I think most people here would agree that most people on the planet are ignorant, uneducated and generally stupid. Yet almost everyone here is trying to say that all those people should get what they want ...that the individual is, oh, so important.
See? That's like giving children the say in what they should and shouldn't do. Would you do that? If not, why not?
Baron Max
The kind of compassion and empathy America showed when it invaded Iraq?
Resulting in the deaths of more than 25,000 Iraqi civilians - many of them children.
What was the real point of spending over $600,000 on this operation?
I think compassion and empathy had very little to do with it.