NationStates Jolt Archive

I was riding the metro this morning, must have been around 11:00, and when it stopped at my destination I stumbled upon this lady with an 8 year old on a wheel chair.

You may think that there's nothing out of the ordinary, we see children and adults on wheel chairs every day. But with this child, there was something out of the ordinary to me. In fact, it was so out of the ordinary that it produced a series of feelings in me that have left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Since I had time to reach the office, I stopped to chat with the mother and she told me that her son was born with a sever case of cerebral palsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy). He (Ricardo was his name), couldn't talk, hear, nor see. He had to be strapped to a respirator, something I noticed from the plastic tube attached to his trachea and the oxygen tanks behind the wheel chair, and had to be fed. It so happened that the mother had also developed a severe case of ostheoporosis and the beginning of, from what she describe to me, fibromialgia.

She looked down trodden, because her doctor had told her a few days before that hers was a progressive condition and it could be crippling. If the condition worsened enough for her to be crippled in any way, her son was done for. She was on her own, there was no one to take care of the child other than her and she didn't know what to do.

Of course, I was speechless, and although I felt sad for her, I was also enraged. Why is that? She knew this child had no chance at life by himself, the doctors ahd been very clear on the matter and (I'm not questioning her devotion and love for him) still knowing this, she had him.

If I try to describe all the things I felt, this post, I fear, might sound bloggy to you all. So, drawing this to a close, don't you think Mother Nature is wise?

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?

Comments?

I have to admit, I know how you feel, and I've been thinking along those lines more than once myself.

My problem is : where would you draw the line? Ultimately, any form of procreation is sheer selfishness, no matter if your offspring is healthy or not. So should only the healthy be allowed to live? Who would decide? Would that mean forced abortions of unhealthy embryos and foeti? I can't say I agree with that concept...

Yes, it would be best if everybody had enough common sense (and medical understanding) to be able to judge wisely if they want to carry a sick foetus to term and live with the illness. But they aren't. And humans aren't rational at the best of times. They're emotional (and the want for a child can be a very strong emotion indeed), they belief in irrational concepts (sin, hell, that kind of thing), and they're sometimes downright stupid. But they're still human beings and as such they have rights.

I have to admit, I know how you feel, and I've been thinking along those lines more than once myself.

My problem is : where would you draw the line? Ultimately, any form of procreation is sheer selfishness, no matter if your offspring is healthy or not. So should only the healthy be allowed to live? Who would decide? Would that mean forced abortions of unhealthy embryos and foeti? I can't say I agree with that concept...

Yes, it would be best if everybody had enough common sense (and medical understanding) to be able to judge wisely if they want to carry a sick foetus to term and live with the illness. But they aren't. And humans aren't rational at the best of times. They're emotional (and the want for a child can be a very strong emotion indeed), they belief in irrational concepts (sin, hell, that kind of thing), and they're sometimes downright stupid. But they're still human beings and as such they have rights.

Yes, I admit that this is a conflicting topic. As humans we have rights, and the first and foremost of those rights is the one to live. But as you mentioned, where do we draw the line?

I think that, perhaps, there's no right way to approach this topic nor aptly coming to conclusions. Even the OP was wrapped in emotions.

cerebral palsy almost always prevents breeding. SO the concern about passing on genes from the son is unlikely. The woman is also unlikely to breed again.
Also we are social animals and those tend to care for the sick and old to the extent the group is able to. Humans as a group are far more able to care for the sick then other groups.

That being said however we need to take steps to minimize breeding by those who carry severe genetic illness. At puberty a genetic screening should be conducted and those carrying severe genetic illness should have the surgery to remove their ability to breed. Also all females should be put on birth control unless there is a medical reason they should not be on it. Likewise as soon as they develop a male birth control pill they should also be placed on that unless health concerns prevent them from taking it.

At a time when a couple wishes to have a child they should in the process of seeking permission to come off birth control be tested to see if they are carriers of less severe genetic illness that if they were to breed could result in genetic complications for the child.

Also an intelligence test should be issued and amount of children allowed for a couple should be determined by those results.

this is the way to ensure good genetic stock with out having to resort Draconian measures of leaving the sick to die.

Also would keep the stupid people from having so many kids. Solve teenage pregnancy issues and help increase the demand for adoption and decrease the demand for abortion.

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride.
First off, let me point out (once again) that, as animals, we are all part of the 'Animal Kingdom'.

Secondly, is the above really true? I'd question whether nonhuman animals 'know' when their offspring is sick, and whether they 'let them die'. Some nonhuman animals may disregard the runt of their litter, but I don't believe all do.

Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?
I think that if a child will have no quality of life whatsoever, that they suffer from horrible afflictions that ensure they are in constant, excruciating and incurable pain, and/or that their minds are so badly damaged or underdeveloped that they have no prospect of sentient life, then the kindest thing is to let them die.

As Peter Singer notes, 'euthanasia' literally means 'good death' or 'gentle death'.

EDIT: As to the status of preventing those with inheritable genetic diseases from having children, I think this is a tricky(er) subject, and one that should be covered on a case-by-case basis. I certainly don't think, however, we should be going down the route greed and death suggests above, that we should have some sort of intelligence test for 'breeding rights'. Sounds too Bene Gesserit for my liking.

All this has little to do with 'survival of the fittest', mind.

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?

Comments?It's been done before. We called the people that did it Nazis and put them on trial for crimes against humanity.

This is a difficult question, If we did practice it where would it end. Would the law have to be changed so the strong have the right to dominate the weak. Hitler did this, he had thousands killed because he saw them to be a burden on the state and had no wish for them to weaken the gene pool.As an extreme I wear corrective lenses, as a predator I'd make a crap hunter, I'd be a burden to the collective. Should I be disposed of?

This is a difficult question, If we did practice it where would it end. Would the law have to be changed so the strong have the right to dominate the weak. Hitler did this, he had thousands killed because he saw them to be a burden on the state and had no wish for them to weaken the gene pool.As an extreme I wear corrective lenses, as a predator I'd make a crap hunter, I'd be a burden to the collective. Should I be disposed off?

not killed maybe just not allowed to breed.

Survival of the fittest: Should humans practice it too?For some measure of fitness they do. If you survive and reproduce you're fit. Evolution doesn't care about anything else.
Change the environment if you don't like the current measure of fitness. (Take up politics, or a gun, it's all the same to evolution.)

It's been done before. We called the people that did it Nazis and put them on trial for crimes against humanity.
There's a massive difference between eugenics and euthanasia.

First off, let me point out (once again) that, as animals, we are all part of the 'Animal Kingdom'.

Secondly, is the above really true? I'd question whether nonhuman animals 'know' when their offspring is sick, and whether they 'let them die'. Some nonhuman animals may disregard the runt of their litter, but I don't believe all do.


I think that if a child will have no quality of life whatsoever, that they suffer from horrible afflictions that ensure they are in constant, excruciating and incurable pain, and/or that their minds are so badly damaged or underdeveloped that they have no prospect of sentient life, then the kindest thing is to let them die.

As Peter Singer notes, 'euthanasia' literally means 'good death' or 'gentle death'.

EDIT: As to the status of preventing those with inheritable genetic diseases from having children, I think this is a tricky(er) subject, and one that should be covered on a case-by-case basis. I certainly don't think, however, we should be going down the route greed and death suggests above, that we should have some sort of intelligence test for 'breeding rights'. Sounds too Bene Gesserit for my liking.

All this has little to do with 'survival of the fittest', mind.

Remit to my answer to Cabra's post.

no killed maybe just not allowed to breed.

Luckily I have bred, I have a fine 21 year old son, perfectly healthy, has my brains and his mothers looks. Which is lucky for him :)

He does my hunting for me ;)

Who defines who's fit and who's not? Are we just talking about the physical weak or are we also talking about the moral or social weak? Who defines that then?

Practically it is impossible to implement, and human endeavours to implement them have produced things like genocide and infanticide.

There's a massive difference between eugenics and euthanasia.Which is entirely irrelevant, since the OP is talking about euthanasia and not eugenics.

Which is entirely irrelevant, since the OP is talking about euthanasia and not eugenics.Isn't it talking about abortion? It says "knowing this, she had him"; I'm assuming the 'having' means carrying to full term and giving birth.

Who defines who's fit and who's not? Are we just talking about the physical weak or are we also talking about the moral or social weak? Who defines that then?

Practically it is impossible to implement, and human endeavours to implement them have produced things like genocide.

Do allow me to clarify a point. I'm not talking about implementing a method for parents who may carry genetic weaknesses do not have children, we all know it was implemented by Nazi Germany and it failed. I'm talking about the mother or father's responsibility to be aware that, in bringing a child with a condition as severe as cerebral palsy, they're bringing a human to suffer to this earth.

In what I was discussing on the OP, this child is blind, mute and deaf, he can't walk and has to be strapped to a respirator. Is that fair to that child in particular? The mother suffers from a crippling condition too and might not be able to take care of this kid for long? Was she wise in bringing this individual to life?

This has nothing to do with society as a whole, but with parents individually. Also, as I replied to Cabra West (and she also pointed it out), there's no right way to approach a subject like this one. I just wanted to know if I'm the only one who felt something for a case like this. I wanted to know if, by thinking the way I did and still do, I'm a monster or just human.

its a very difficult subject, but i've often thought should i have a child with a severe disabling condition i would let it go. it would be a truly horrible decision, and its one reached on two reasons: firstly, selfishly, i don't know if i have the will to take care of someone as described in the OP; and secondly i would like my child to have a happy, healthy life (or, at least, not suffer), and being born severely disabled is of course a pretty big dent on that.

but of course, as others are saying, where do you draw the line? severe brain damage? just being in a wheelchair (i think not, btw)? and do i have the right to decide whether for my child whether they will be happy like that? not really. would i be terribly selfish? yes. would i actually take that decision should it come to it? i don't really know... is it more selfish to keep a child you believe will suffer? yes, it probably is.

too many difficult things! :mad:

Which is entirely irrelevant, since the OP is talking about euthanasia and not eugenics.
Quite. Then why bring up a reductio ad Hitlerum argument?

What Nanatsu is discussing, euthanasia for those unfortunates who have no quality of life whatsoever, is far, far, away from the disgusting practice of eugenics and euthanasia of peoples for arbitrary reasons, as practice by the Nazis.

We'll have no playing of the Nazi card here, thank you very much.

Do allow me to clarify a point. I'm not talking about implementing a method for parents who may carry genetic weaknesses do not have children, we all know it was implemented by Nazi Germany and it failed. I'm talking about the mother or father's responsibility to be aware that, in bringing a child with a condition as severe as cerebral palsy, they're bringing a human to suffer to this earth.

In what I was discussing on the OP, this child is blind, mute and deaf, he can't walk and has to be strapped to a respirator. Is that fair to that child in particular? The mother suffers from a crippling condition too and might not be able to take care of this kid for long? Was she wise in bringing this individual to life?

This has nothing to do with society as a whole, but with parents individually. Also, as I replied to Cabra West (and she also pointed it out), there's no right way to approach a subject like this one. I just wanted to know if I'm the only one who felt something for a case like this. I wanted to know if, by thinking the way I did and still do, I'm a monster or just human.From the OP, I took that you were talking about euthanizing said child. This has also been done by the Nazis.

Do allow me to clarify a point. I'm not talking about implementing a method for parents who may carry genetic weaknesses do not have children, we all know it was implemented by Nazi Germany and it failed. I'm talking about the mother or father's responsibility to be aware that, in bringing a child with a condition as severe as cerebral palsy, they're bringing a human to suffer to this earth.

In what I was discussing on the OP, this child is blind, mute and deaf, he can't walk and has to be strapped to a respirator. Is that fair to that child in particular? The mother suffers from a crippling condition too and might not be able to take care of this kid for long? Was she wise in bringing this individual to life?

This has nothing to do with society as a whole, but with parents individually. Also, as I replied to Cabra West (and she also pointed it out), there's no right way to approach a subject like this one. I just wanted to know if I'm the only one who felt something for a case like this. I wanted to know if, by thinking the way I did and still do, I'm a monster or just human.

Sorry. I'm not trained to think about the individual. I believe that all decisions made by individuals have social ramifications.

And even if a child was blind, mute, and deaf, he/she can still contribute to society. Helen Keller was deafblind; Beethoven was deaf; Louis Braille was blind. Heck, so was David Blunkett. These people become inspirations for others, and shames able-bodied individuals who contribute nothing to society except to be a parasite.

If you think in terms of society sometimes you can be happier, not moaning about your personal deficiencies but using what you have to benefit society. If somebody wanted, nothing will stop them from contributing, able-bodied or very disabled.

From the OP, I took that you were talking about euthanizing said child. This has also been done by the Nazis.

Well, you were wrong in your assumption. The mother was aware that her child was severly sick before giving birth to him. I was questioning if she was a responsible person in giving birth to the boy even after being aware of his severe condition.

Would I have a child after knowing he/she might come to this world with a terrible disability? I don't think I would. And having considered this makes me feel like a monster...

Quite. Then why bring up a reductio ad Hitlerum argument? Because it's a valid comparison. The Nazis had a euthanasia program to kill disabled children. In fact, the organized killing of the disabled preceded the organized killing of jews and others.
What Nanatsu is discussing, euthanasia for those unfortunates who have no quality of life whatsoever, is far, far, away from the disgusting practice of eugenics and euthanasia of peoples for arbitrary reasons, as practice by the Nazis. I think you're confusing the Nazi euthanasia program with the plans for the Final Solution. They're very different, even if equally barbaric.
We'll have no playing of the Nazi card here, thank you very much.There are a couple reasons not to play it. For one, it gets overused so much that any comparison to Nazis gets considered inappropriate on its own, even if the comparison is valid. We'll have none of that here.

Would I have a child after knowing he/she might come to this world with a terrible disability? I don't think I would. And having considered this makes me feel like a monster...Well, at least you're human then. Most monsters don't feel like they are.
I think it's the right choice; though as it may be. Sometimes being human means feeling like a monster.

double post delete

Sorry. I'm not trained to think about the individual. I believe that all decisions made by individuals have social ramifications.

And even if a child was blind, mute, and deaf, he/she can still contribute to society. Helen Keller was deafblind; Beethoven was deaf; Louis Braille was blind. Heck, so was David Blunkett. These people become inspirations for others, and shames able-bodied individuals who contribute nothing to society except to be a parasite.

If you think in terms of society sometimes you can be happier, not moaning about your personal deficiencies but using what you have to benefit society. If somebody wanted, nothing will stop them from contributing, able-bodied or very disabled.

We are not talking a Deaf blind mute child we are talking a child with Severe cerebral palsy, who is likely to die before the puberty.

however as for my suggestion simply limit breeding of those with severe genetic issues and check to see if they might occur before a couple is allowed to breed.

also maybe remove this bitch from the genetic pool
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yp_JEbL7vvg&feature=bz302

Sorry. I'm not trained to think about the individual. I believe that all decisions made by individuals have social ramifications.

Sorry. I'm not trained to think about society as a whole. I'm individual-oriented.

double post delete

We are not talking a Deaf blind mute child we are talking a child with Severe cerebral palsy, who is likely to die before the puberty.

however as for my suggestion simply limit breeding of those with severe genetic issues and check to see if they might occur before a couple is allowed to breed.

also maybe remove this bitch from the genetic pool
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yp_JEbL7vvg&feature=bz302

Ooh. I see what you mean. I do believe that couples need to plan their pregnancies, including going for genetic check-ups. I don't know whether the government should limit breeding though. It's a tough decision to make. China has this massive population control programme, not to limit deformed babies but population numbers. Nonetheless, the controversy it has been kind of foreshadows what the reaction will be if the government tries to limit breeding.

Sorry. I'm not trained to think about society as a whole. I'm individual-oriented.

Ya. Different viewpoints.

It seems to me you people should be asking the child if he wants to be alive or not, not asking yourselves if you want to avoid seeing him and his type again in the future, and with that in mind you plan a course of action to ensure you don't have to see them anymore by getting rid of them before birth or some such a thing, and try to disguise your plan to do away with them as 'humanely putting them down' etc.

If the child can't communicate then I think we have to assume he would choose life over non-life. Any other course of action would be monstrous, not human.

Well, you were wrong in your assumption.
The mother was aware that her child was severly sick before giving birth to him. I was questioning if she was a responsible person in giving birth to the boy even after being aware of his severe condition.

Would I have a child after knowing he/she might come to this world with a terrible disability? I don't think I would. And having considered this makes me feel like a monster...
If you're talking about aborting disabled fetuses, please avoid questions asking whether we should let disabled children die like sick cubs are let die by lionesses. Your OP leaves little room for speculation:
In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?
You may want to rephrase that if you don't want others to make the same assumption I did.

Because it's a valid comparison.
Nonsense. It's fallacious reasoning.

The Nazis had a euthanasia program to kill disabled children.
But not for the sake of the child, as is discussed here. Hitler and Goering weren't discussing whether it would be kinder to allow children with no quality of life to peacefully die rather than letting them live a life of suffering, they were on some mad mission to strengthen the master race.

Nonsense. It's fallacious reasoning.Prove it.
But not for the sake of the child, as is discussed here. Hitler and Goering weren't discussing whether it would be kinder to allow children with no quality of life to peacefully die rather than letting them live a life of suffering, they were on some mad mission to strengthen the master race.It's funny, because saying "with no quality of life" isn't all that different from saying "a life not worth living," the term the Nazis used to describe those they killed.

All in all, the outcome is the same. You have people sitting down and deciding for others what life is worth living and which ones are not.

It seems to me you people should be asking the child if he wants to be alive or not, not asking yourselves if you want to avoid seeing him and his type again in the future, and with that in mind you plan a course of action to ensure you don't have to see them anymore by getting rid of them before birth or some such a thing, and try to disguise your plan to do away with them as 'humanely putting them down' etc.

If the child can't communicate then I think we have to assume he would choose life over non-life. Any other course of action would be monstrous, not human.

No one here's suggesting euthanazing a child with severe conditions like the one in the OP. He was given birth to already, there's no point in preventing it from living. He's alive now. I'm talking about the responsibilty the mother had by giving birth to him even knowing he was suffering from cerebral palsy. But letting mother nature do it's work it's also a good idea.

A child like that has no chance, in nature animals do it. If the cub's sick, it's left to die. But we're emotional creatures and we're not for doing like other animals.

If the child can't communicate then I think we have to assume he would choose life over non-life. Any other course of action would be monstrous, not human.

If you know that the child is in constant excruciating pain, but cannot communicate its wishes, you would assume it wants to go on suffering?

Wow, very empathic, I have to say.

No one here's suggesting euthanazing a child with severe conditions like the one in the OP. He was given birth to already, there's no point in preventing it from living. He's alive now. I'm talking about the responsibilty the mother had by giving birth to him even knowing he was suffering from cerebral palsy.

That's what I was talking about too. I know what you were talking about and I told you what I thought. Aborting them means you don't have to see them around later...

Prove it.
On top of the fact that what the Nazis did and what we are discussing are two seperate things, the argument:

Some Nazi practices are wrong
This is a Nazi practice
Therefore this practice is wrong

is a fallacious argument, unless you take the insane position that every act any Nazi did is absolutely wrong.

It's funny, because saying "with no quality of life" isn't all that different from saying "a life not worth living," the term the Nazis used to describe those they killed.
Except that the two statements are referencing two entirely different things.

The Nazi concept of 'lebensraum' isn't all that different from my parents 'living room', except one is an expansionist and xenophobic foreign policy, and the other is the room in my parents house where the TV sits.

All in all, the outcome is the same. You have people sitting down and deciding for others what life is worth living and which ones are not.
Except one group of people are delusional authoritarian nutjobs, and the other group are informed doctors, concerned parents, and those campaigning for a decent standard of life for all human beings.

If you know that the child is in constant excruciating pain, but cannot communicate its wishes, you would assume it wants to go on suffering?

Wow, very empathic, I have to say.

Uh uh, yup. You want to kill them before they have a choice and you try to pretend that I'm the uncaring one... :rolleyes:

Uh uh, yup. You want to kill them before they have a choice and you try to pretend that I'm the uncaring one... :rolleyes:

I think in a case like the one described, when you know in advance that the kid have nothing but a few years of terrible pain as a life, the caring thing to do is not to allow it to develop far enough to feel the pain but to end the pregnancy before that.

There was a thread similar to this before.

My response back then, and I still stick to it, is that if a person knows there is a quite significant chance that the thinking, feeling, being they bring on to this planet will only feel pain, and only think (if it could articulate itself) "make it stop", then that person gets prosecuted the same as anybody else who chooses to torture someone.

I mentioned at the time that I would suggest the condition has to be pretty extreme (to avoid the slippery slope issue), and I guess the kid in the OP would not be covered by this.

There's no way I would knowingly bring a significantly disabled person on to this world. I can adopt if I want to, and it's not like the planet is underpopulated. I'm not going to be so selfish as to put my desire for my own biological child, above the child themself. Anyone who does is a selfish prick. That does apply to the case in the OP.

It boils down to individual choice. I don't want others to have control over my reproductive rights so I stay out of theirs. The parent you talked to made a choice.

That being said, my own mother was told by learned physicians to abort me because they had reasons to believe I had genetic disorders. I was born with a growth disorder and was deaf. The disorder was corrected when I was three and I had surgery to correct my deafness. Family choices are difficult and hard to judge outside of the context of a person's situation.

You want to kill them before they have a choice and you try to pretend that I'm the uncaring one...
Many of these children (and remember, we're talking about a tiny, tiny number of unfortunate children) will never be able to make a concious choice, as they are too brain-damaged to be ever considered fully sentient.

We're not talking about euthanising kids with the sniffles here.

That's what I was talking about too. I know what you were talking about and I told you what I thought. Aborting them means you don't have to see them around later...

No Balderdash, you weren't talking about the same thing as me. You assumed that I was talking about "humanley killing" a child who's already alive. I wasn't doing that at all. But fine, you can think we're on the same page if it makes you happy...

cerebral palsy almost always prevents breeding. SO the concern about passing on genes from the son is unlikely. The woman is also unlikely to breed again.
Also we are social animals and those tend to care for the sick and old to the extent the group is able to. Humans as a group are far more able to care for the sick then other groups.

That being said however we need to take steps to minimize breeding by those who carry severe genetic illness. At puberty a genetic screening should be conducted and those carrying severe genetic illness should have the surgery to remove their ability to breed. Also all females should be put on birth control unless there is a medical reason they should not be on it. Likewise as soon as they develop a male birth control pill they should also be placed on that unless health concerns prevent them from taking it.

At a time when a couple wishes to have a child they should in the process of seeking permission to come off birth control be tested to see if they are carriers of less severe genetic illness that if they were to breed could result in genetic complications for the child.

Also an intelligence test should be issued and amount of children allowed for a couple should be determined by those results.

this is the way to ensure good genetic stock with out having to resort Draconian measures of leaving the sick to die.

Also would keep the stupid people from having so many kids. Solve teenage pregnancy issues and help increase the demand for adoption and decrease the demand for abortion.

If you need an example of a Nazi this it. Anyone who believes that the government should determine right to life is treading in those waters.

That being said, if you are sticking to the personal choice whether to abort or have a child then the declaration of Nazism is false.

Uh uh, yup. You want to kill them before they have a choice and you try to pretend that I'm the uncaring one... :rolleyes:
Don't try to paint your blinkered world view as caring. Have you actually thought about this, or does god tell you it's wrong, and that's all that matters?
He's talking about those that will never be able to communicate. Thus, they never have a choice. We put down pets when they are in pain. Do you care more about a dog, then a human being?
See. I can put together comparisons that look right at 1st glance, but doesn't really advance the discussion, or address the point as well.:rolleyes:

Dodgy smily too.

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too?

humans already are bound by survival of the fittest. it just doesn't exactly mean what you are using it to mean.

Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die?

depends - how are they at pinball?

Uh uh, yup. You want to kill them before they have a choice and you try to pretend that I'm the uncaring one... :rolleyes:

you are aware of the existence of conditions that result only in terrible suffering for the entirety of a person very short life, right?

depends - how are they at pinball?
They sure play it mean.

To allow people to have to live at such a terrible quality of life is inhumane...

And to be honest what is the point in living if you cannot see,hear, speak, breath or even feed yourself (that may sound a bit mean?)

I find it bizarre, and rather unsavoury, that many would accept the euthanasia of a family pet who is in constant and incurable pain, yet would shy away from soothing the pain of a loved child.

Many of you have probably seen this before, but I just thought to pose the question:




Question #1
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?


Question #2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates.

Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.

Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?





Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt
Candidate B is Winston Churchill
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler


And by the way: Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

Just to put things into context after my previous post, I'm a firm believer in the survival of the fittest.

humans already are bound by survival of the fittest. it just doesn't exactly mean what you are using it to mean.

It is obvious that a child with a severe condition like the one described on the OP is not fit to come to this world. Your point is moot.

depends - how are they at pinball?

Define pinball, please. I'm not familiar with the term.

Define pinball, please. I'm not familiar with the term.
Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZCwiNJ4wgo&feature=related).

On top of the fact that what the Nazis did and what we are discussing are two seperate things, the argument:

Some Nazi practices are wrong
This is a Nazi practice
Therefore this practice is wrong

is a fallacious argument, unless you take the insane position that every act any Nazi did is absolutely wrong.I'll wager most Nazi practices that involved killing people are wrong, and this is one of them.
The argument "It's been done before, and by some pretty nasty people," is everything but fallacious.
Except that the two statements are referencing two entirely different things. Not really. But feel free to prove it without an analogy.
The Nazi concept of 'lebensraum' isn't all that different from my parents 'living room', except one is an expansionist and xenophobic foreign policy, and the other is the room in my parents house where the TV sits.Your parents' living room is a "Wohnzimmer."
Except one group of people are delusional authoritarian nutjobs, and the other group are informed doctors, concerned parents, and those campaigning for a decent standard of life for all human beings.I would call anyone that feels they have the authority to decide which disabilities make a life not worth living as delusional.

Linky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZCwiNJ4wgo&feature=related).

I'm sorry, but I can't access Youtube. I'm at work.

I'm sorry, but I can't access Youtube. I'm at work.

They clearly should ban NSG as well. :p

Candidate C is Adolph HitlerWho?

It is obvious that a child with a severe condition like the one described on the OP is not fit to come to this world. Your point is moot.

except that fitness is about passing on genes and having those genes take over a larger share of the population. they aren't in any danger of that. on the other hand, what is fit for us is precisely what makes us tempted to try to keep such people healthy and as happy as possible (and also pushes us towards euthanasia in certain extreme cases)...our cooperative and compassionate social nature.

Define pinball, please. I'm not familiar with the term.

not really important, it was a joke referencing a song by the who. but wiki has some info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinball)

They clearly should ban NSG as well. :p

I seem to be missing the part where your statement is funny.

I seem to be missing the part where your statement is funny.

BUT I'M NOT!! :)

Just wondering what would you do if they did. :p

I'll wager most Nazi practices that involved killing people are wrong, and this is one of them.
Good thing we're not discussing a Nazi practice here then.

The argument "It's been done before, and by some pretty nasty people," is everything but fallacious.
It most certainly is:


Some Nazi practices are wrong
Vegetarianism is a Nazi practice
Therefore vegetarianism is wrong

Some Nazi practices are wrong
Constructing motorways is a Nazi practice
Therefore constructing motorways is wrong

Some Nazi practices are wrong
Exercising vigorously is a Nazi practice
Therefore exercising vigorously is wrong

Some Nazi practices are wrong
Designing affordable family cars is a Nazi practice
Therefore designing affordable family cars is wrong


Need I continue?

except that fitness is about passing on genes and having those genes take over a larger share of the population. they aren't in any danger of that. on the other hand, what is fit for us is precisely what makes us tempted to try to keep such people healthy and as happy as possible (and also pushes us towards euthanasia in certain extreme cases)...our cooperative and compassionate social nature.

It seems that our concept of "fit" is different.

But I disagree that we're being paragong of our cooperative and compassionate social nature, to quote you, by keeping an individual with disabalities as severe as the child in the OP.


not really important, it was a joke referencing a song by the who. but wiki has some info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinball)

Gotcha.

BRAWNDO: IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES (http://youtube.com/watch?v=M9i3UCRAJeA)

BUT I'M NOT!! :)

Just wondering what would you do if they did. :p

Nothing. I would do nothing.;)

Nothing. I would do nothing.;)

HAHAHA! I absolutely see your point. :D

Good thing we're not discussing a Nazi practice here then.Never heard of Action T4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4), have we? Specifically:
He who is bodily and mentally not sound and deserving may not perpetuate this misfortune in the bodies of his children.

The only difference here is how broad the term "unworthy of life" is being stretched.
It most certainly is:

Some Nazi practices are wrong
Vegetarianism is a Nazi practice
Therefore vegetarianism is wrong

Some Nazi practices are wrong
Constructing motorways is a Nazi practice
Therefore constructing motorways is wrong

Some Nazi practices are wrong
Exercising vigorously is a Nazi practice
Therefore exercising vigorously is wrong

Some Nazi practices are wrong
Designing affordable family cars is a Nazi practice
Therefore designing affordable family cars is wrong


Need I continue?Which of these involve killing people?

Who defines who's fit and who's not? Are we just talking about the physical weak or are we also talking about the moral or social weak? Who defines that then?

Practically it is impossible to implement, and human endeavours to implement them have produced things like genocide and infanticide.
If medical treatment can sustain someone's life in a non-vegetative state, then they are surviving. Those that have ills beyond the capability of medicine to treat don't survive. We certainly do practice survival of the fittest, but you have to remember that we get to use all the tools at our disposal.

If medical treatment can sustain someone's life in a non-vegetative state, then they are surviving. Those that have ills beyond the capability of medicine to treat don't survive. We certainly do practice survival of the fittest, but you have to remember that we get to use all the tools at our disposal.No we don't. We practice survival of everyone. You benefit from tools invented by other people being used in the hands of other people. You're not surviving on your own.

Never heard of Action T4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4), have we?

The only difference here is how broad the term "unworthy of life" is being stretched.
And the small matter of not a single person in this thread advocating the execution of those with inheritable diseases.

But hey, rather than calmly discussing whether it is kind to have children if they have a good chance of inheriting a disabling disease, let's just complain that we're trying to execute vulnerable people.

Which of these involve killing people?
Clearly none, but they adequately demonstrate why your statement that:
"It's been done before, and by some pretty nasty people," is everything but fallacious.
is totally wrong.

And by the way: Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

So the 1 Beethoven that comes out is worth the pain and suffering of all the other messed up kids. Glad some nice music is more important than people suffering. :rolleyes:

So the 1 Beethoven that comes out is worth the pain and suffering of all the other messed up kids. Glad some nice music is more important than people suffering. :rolleyes:
Beethoven was a pretty messed up person to begin with.

No we don't. We practice survival of everyone. You benefit from tools invented by other people being used in the hands of other people. You're not surviving on your own.

Agreed.

This child survives because he's strapped to a machine that allows him to breathe. He can't on his own. That he's trapped to a machine, to me, is inhumane.

<snip>

And by the way: Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven.

Do research

Or continue taking every blisteringly idiotic email that arrives in your inbox at face value and try to pass your credulity, naivety and superficial understanding as erudition.

your choice I suppose

No we don't. We practice survival of everyone. You benefit from tools invented by other people being used in the hands of other people. You're not surviving on your own.
Irrelevant. Any means at our disposal is allowed. If not, what's the point of developing better and better means of treatment?

But I disagree that we're being paragong of our cooperative and compassionate social nature, to quote you, by keeping an individual with disabalities as severe as the child in the OP.

the trait in this case is the same one that makes us help our injured friends and care for our aging parents. yes, we sometimes ought engage in euthanasia or preventative abortion, and we do not always do so. but we don't because up on this fitness plateau we sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between when we are being genuinely helpful and when we are just wishing instead. but if we were less inclined to be caring and cooperative in general, we would be less fit. natural selection has said it is better for us to occasionally over-extend our compassion than to be more restricted with it.
(assuming that it actually is entirely a selected trait rather than a spandrel)

Do research

Or continue taking every blisteringly idiotic email that arrives in your inbox at face value and try to pass your credulity, naivety and superficial understanding as erudition.

your choice I suppose

i vote credulity and naivety!

Irrelevant. Any means at our disposal is allowed. If not, what's the point of developing better and better means of treatment?

Quite the opposite. It's totally relevant.

Better means of treatment? Can you cure severe cerebral palsy? Is it fair to keep a human who can't fend for himself strapped to a machine just for our own selfish desire to play God? Because that's what one does when condeming, yes, condemnig a human being that has no chance at life, to such a treatment. We play God, and we absolutely fail at it.

Irrelevant. Any means at our disposal is allowed. If not, what's the point of developing better and better means of treatment?Devoloping treatments has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fittest. The very idea of treating someone for a disease to help them survive is the anti-thesis of survival of the fittest.

You may not be aware of what survival of the fittest means. It means that the fittest survive. The ones that aren't fit don't.

You may not be aware of what survival of the fittest means. It means that the fittest survive. The ones that aren't fit don't.

It doesn't mean the strongest, toughest or most disease resistant (though that might come into it).

Just those best suited to live in their environment. I think that being co-operative can fit their, by the by.

And the small matter of not a single person in this thread advocating the execution of those with inheritable diseases. Yes and no. Nanatsu didn't mean to advocate it, but she did, with her wording. Since then, I've been embroiled in a debate with you on whether or not comparing euthanasia to euthanasia done by Nazis is appropriate.
But hey, rather than calmly discussing whether it is kind to have children if they have a good chance of inheriting a disabling disease, let's just complain that we're trying to execute vulnerable people.The OP quite explicitely asked whether we deal with disabled children the way lions deal with sick cubs. It's in the OP, so I have every right to calmly discuss it.
Clearly none, but they adequately demonstrate why your statement that:

is totally wrong.I'll concede that point.

Do research

Or continue taking every blisteringly idiotic email that arrives in your inbox at face value and try to pass your credulity, naivety and superficial understanding as erudition.

your choice I suppose

If you read the post following it, you would have noticed that I stated I was simply throwing that out there, not heralding it as the proponent of my beliefs. I did, in fact, state I am a firm believer in survival of the fittest, and I believe keeping such humans alive is disrespectful to them, but it also taxes our economy and is a waste of collective resources. I'm just throwing ideas out there for argument.

Devoloping treatments has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fittest. The very idea of treating someone for a disease to help them survive is the anti-thesis of survival of the fittest.
I see no reason why 'survival of the fittest' does not include innovation and technology, especially in relation to technology to help us survive.

A chimp using tools to gather food and thus increase his, and his offspring's, chance of survival isn't going against 'survival of the fittest'.

It doesn't mean the strongest, toughest or most disease resistant (though that might come into it).

Just those best suited to live in their environment.

Since you bring that up, I pose a question to you:

Is the child in the OP suited to live in his environment?

I think not, but tell me what you think.

It doesn't mean the strongest, toughest or most disease resistant (though that might come into it).

Just those best suited to live in their environment.
You're confusing Darwinian Evolution with Survival of the Fittest.

Comments?

You should have told that mother your thoughts on this instead of us. I'm sure her reaction would've been a suitable answer.

Since you bring that up, I pose a question to you:

Is the child in the OP suited to live in his environment?

I think not, but tell me what you think.Well, we can take it further:
Are people who live on welfare suited to the market economy environment we have created? Should we put them out of their misery?

"Is someone suited for this environment" doesn't strike me as a very sound basis for anything.

You should have told that mother your thoughts on this instead of us. I'm sure her reaction would've been a suitable answer.

But I know what the mother would've said to me had I told her what I think. Ricardo is her son. I'm asking NSG what do they think. They may or may not agree on the point. That's what debates are for.

I see no reason why 'survival of the fittest' does not include innovation and technology, especially in relation to technology to help us survive.I'll explain below.
A chimp using tools to gather food and thus increase his, and his offspring's, chance of survival isn't going against 'survival of the fittest'.Indeed. A chimp breaking his leg and then being given a cast by friendly doctors on the other hand does go against survival of the fittest.

You're confusing Darwinian Evolution with Survival of the Fittest.

I'm pointing out that "fittest" is usually defined unreasonable tightly.

But meh.

Is the child in the OP suited to live in his environment?

I think not, but tell me what you think.

It has a carer and can move around. Sure, not best suited. But perfectly capable.

It isn't going to pass its genes on though.

I'm pointing out that "fittest" is usually defined unreasonable tightly.

But meh.Oh, definitely. Survival of the fittest is a piece of crap.

Well, we can take it further:
Are people who live on welfare suited to the market economy environment we have created? Should we put them out of their misery?

"Is someone suited for this environment" doesn't strike me as a very sound basis for anything.

I don't condone welfare. It produces lazy people. You don't need to put them down, take the welfare away. Your comparison of this topic to the one in the OP doesn't compute and it's silly.

Quite opposite. It is what we're discussing here, amongst other things.

But I know what the mother would've said to me had I told her what I think. Ricardo is her son. I'm asking NSG what do they think. They may or may not agree on the point. That's what debates are for.

Sigh. Alright.

It's her son and her decision, and most people value a human life enough that even one that is severely disabled is too precious to be thrown out. I imagine this goes a million times over for someone you love.

No person, government or group has the right to tell a loving, competent parent that their son must be killed simply because he isn't capable of self-reliance. While this woman's situation is particularly tragic given her own condition, I suspect that many people who have a child with cerebral palsy love them and very much enjoy the time they spend together as much as a parent with a completely healthy child would.

Arguing in favor of survival of the fittest is absurd at any rate, since we kind of abandoned our animal roots when we became unable to tolerate most raw food. If you really want humanity to return to a more primitive lifestyle that's at least a comprehensive viewpoint, but picking one factor of animal survival out of dozens and saying we should adhere to it is just pointless. It's like giving a car a propeller just because a boat has one.

Well, we can take it further:
Are people who live on welfare suited to the market economy environment we have created? Should we put them out of their misery?

"Is someone suited for this environment" doesn't strike me as a very sound basis for anything.


In the "SotF" environment, no. People on welfare are a detriment to the society and reduce it's efficiency. Obviously, most will assume that the statement I just made is horrible. But in that type of society, where the weak or noncontributing are killed, that is what would happen. There would be no "welfare." There would be no homeless, no diseased (unless in their disease they somehow provided usefulness), no jails, no old (they stay around long enough for their knowledge to be imparted, then they would go the way of Soylent green.)

In the real world, doing such things would be considered crimes against humanity. And too many people are offended by things like this for anyone to do anything. That's why there was such an uproar about that lady in Florida where her husband took out her feeding tube. If I was in such a condition, I would rather die as well.

Yes and no. Nanatsu didn't mean to advocate it, but she did, with her wording.
I don't see how. She/We're discussing offspring, not the slaughter of those who may pass on genetic diseases or other ills.

The OP quite explicitely asked whether we deal with disabled children the way lions deal with sick cubs. It's in the OP, so I have every right to calmly discuss it.
Once again, how does looking at how some nonhuman animals (may) choose not to help sick or weak offspring survive equatable with a program to destroy those who have the possibility of passing on genetic ilnesses to their offspring?

Also, my apologies. You are indeed discussing this calmly, but I feel your line of reasoning is suspect.

I'll explain below.
Indeed. A chimp breaking his leg and then being given a cast by friendly doctors on the other hand does go against survival of the fittest.
Yeah... I'd broadly agree.

But this is different to a human doctor treating a human patient.

A chimp breaking his leg and then being given a cast by friendly doctors on the other hand does go against survival of the fittest.

nah, that'll fit right in. chimps in contact with humans that have traits such that they are friendly with people and have characteristics that people find appealing might be more likely to survive and reproduce than chimps that constantly attack people. thus the chimp who elicits sympathy from doctors is in fact more fit.

this is actually one of the things we worry about in zoos and captive breeding programs - there is actually rather strong selection taking place for that environment. and, of course, what is fit in one environment is not necessarily fit in another.

It has a carer and can move around. Sure, not best suited. But perfectly capable.

It isn't going to pass its genes on though.

Read the OP before spouting nonesense.

The child can't move on his own. The mother has to puch him everywhere. He's deaf, blind and mute. He can't move, he can't even breathe on his own. Hardly capable, that was an erroneous term to use.

We're not, once again, discussing passing any genes. It's unimportant.

I don't see how. She/We're discussing offspring, not the slaughter of those who may pass on genetic diseases or other ills.Yeah, that's what Action T4 was all about. Ending the suffering of mentally and physically handicapped people, specifically children.
Once again, how does looking at how some nonhuman animals (may) choose not to help sick or weak offspring survive equatable with a program to destroy those who have the possibility of passing on genetic ilnesses to their offspring?Not caring for a cub is one of the few means lionesses have to euthanize their cubs. The program were talking about wasn't limited to sterilizing people, they euthanized them as well, as I stated above, particularly children deemed living lives not worth living.
Also, my apologies. You are indeed discussing this calmly, but I feel your line of reasoning is suspect.One major problem with it is that Nanatsu has said "I don't mean what I wrote" and there's been a shift to discussing aborting disabled fetuses. I'm more in favor of that, despite my misgivings about coming up with a catalogue to determine what is an acceptable existence and what isn't, because the concerned have not been born yet.

I don't condone welfare. It produces lazy people. You don't need to put them down, take the welfare away. Your comparison of this topic to the one in the OP doesn't compute and it's silly.

Quite opposite. It is what we're discussing here, amongst other things.
That's cruel.

I don't condone welfare. It produces lazy people.

even if true, so?

One major problem with it is that Nanatsu has said "I don't mean what I wrote" and there's been a shift to discussing aborting disabled fetuses. I'm more in favor of that, despite my misgivings about coming up with a catalogue to determine what is an acceptable existence and what isn't, because the concerned have not been born yet.

Excuse me. When did I said "I don't mean what I wrote". I absolutely mean what I wrote, but you took it out of context to shift the argument in me advocating mass killing. You oversaw that, from the very beginning, I referred to it all as the choice of the parents. But fine, delude yourself. I know what I wrote.

Yeah, that's what Action T4 was all about. Ending the suffering of mentally and physically handicapped people, specifically children.
Once again, you ignore the larger picture of 'racial cleansing'. It is spurious, and rather insulting, to argue that the Nazis and those of us who argue for euthanasia of children with no quality of life whatsoever (children with serious mental damage to the point of non-sentience, and the tiny amount of unfortunates who are in constant, agonising, disabling, incurable pain) are one and the same.

You are being rather naive if you want to argue that the Nazis killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 'Action T4' program simply because they wanted to ease those people's suffering.

That's cruel.

Be that as it may, you asked me what I thought and I gave you my answer.

The child can't move on his own. The mother has to puch him everywhere. He's deaf, blind and mute. He can't move, he can't even breathe on his own. Hardly capable, that was an erroneous term to use.

I did read the OP thank you very much

Never said that he could move on his own. Just said he had a carer and he could live in the modern world (for a certain value of 'live').

It is not a way I'd like to live. And I'm not convinced it is moral to keep someone like that alive.

But, I interpreted (perhaps wrongly, more haste et al) your question to mean what I indicated.

And survival means passing on genes*



*EDIT: At least in my interpretation

Excuse me. When did I said "I don't mean what I wrote". I absolutely mean what I wrote, but you took it out of context to shift the argument in me advocating mass killing. You oversaw that, from the very beginning, I referred to it all as the choice of the parents. But fine, delude yourself. I know what I wrote.The underlying principle is the same: Someone gets to decide what is a life worth living and what is not. I disapprove of this after someone has been born.

In the "SotF" environment, no. People on welfare are a detriment to the society and reduce it's efficiency. Obviously, most will assume that the statement I just made is horrible. But in that type of society, where the weak or noncontributing are killed, that is what would happen. There would be no "welfare." There would be no homeless, no diseased (unless in their disease they somehow provided usefulness), no jails, no old (they stay around long enough for their knowledge to be imparted, then they would go the way of Soylent green.)


Sounds like someone has watched Logan's Run too many times.

That aside.

People weren't made for society. Society was made for people. If you forget that, then I hope you don't run for office.

Once again, you ignore the larger picture of 'racial cleansing'. It is spurious, and rather insulting, to argue that the Nazis and those of us who argue for euthanasia of children with no quality of life whatsoever (children with serious mental damage to the point of non-sentience, and the tiny amount of unfortunates who are in constant, agonising, disabling, incurable pain) are one and the same.They're not, but the similarities can't just be ignored.
You are being rather naive if you want to argue that the Nazis killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 'Action T4' program simply because they wanted to ease those people's suffering.It's the excuse that was used. By setting down criteria for what a life worth living means, you're heading in the same direction. I'd prefer if you didn't take that first step.

The underlying principle is the same: Someone gets to decide what is a life worth living and what is not. I disapprove of this after someone has been born.
No, the underlying principle of Nazi euthanasia, that the master race should be cleansed of any impurities, and the underlying principle humanitarian euthanasia, that we should not prolong the incurable suffering of any human being, are obviously quite different.

They're not, but the similarities can't just be ignored.
Yes, both involve the word 'euthanasia.

Now at we've passed over the similarities, perhaps we can leave this massive Godwin behind?

It's the excuse that was used. By setting down criteria for what a life worth living means, you're heading in the same direction.
What utter nonsense!

I'm arguing that no-one should suffer a life of constant, excruciating, incurable pain. How one jumps from that to cleansing the master race of impurities is beyond me.

We do, all the time. Directly and indirectly.

No, the underlying principle of Nazi euthanasia, that the master race should be cleansed of any impurities, and the underlying principle humanitarian euthanasia, that we should not prolong the incurable suffering of any human being, are obviously quite different.And yet, both systems decide for others whether their lives are worth living. The Nazi criteria are a bit more heinous than that of humanitarian euthanists, but in the end, you're still the one deciding what is worth living and what is not.

And yet, both systems decide for others whether their lives are worth living.
Could you outline how a collection of medical doctors, the parents of the child, councillors and other informed parties deciding a choice for a human unable to make conscious decisions for themselves is necessarily a bad thing?

Should parents of individuals with massive brain damage inflicted during a car crash be prevented from deciding if their loved one's life-support machine should be turned off?

My baby brother was a only a few months old when he had his first seizure.

He and I were playing on the kitchen floor, and suddenly his eyes went vacant and his arm shot out and started shivering. It lasted only about 20 seconds, and then he was back like nothing had ever happened.

He had more seizures as time went on. Tests were run, but no origin or cause was identified. He was put on medication to stop the seizures, and eventually they subsided.

Without modern medicine, there's a good chance my brother would have been pretty seriously disabled by the continued seizures. As it is, he has some lasting cognitive deficits, and a recent fMRI revealed that a chunk of his brain is malformed or underdeveloped.

Neurologically speaking, my baby brother was defective.

You might expect me to make an emotional appeal at this point, and talk about how I'd have flipped my shit at anybody who suggested that he should be removed from the gene pool. I won't bother because I'm guessing y'all can guess pretty much how that would go.

Instead, let me just tell you that my brother is pretty much the nicest kid on the planet. Seriously, he's a 16 year old boy who ask for permission to do yard work for free, and who offers to carry bags for total strangers without prompting of any kind. He begs to be allowed to spend more hours at work, even though most of his earnings go directly into savings instead of into his pockets. He is endlessly tender and sweet toward younger children and babies, though he's shy and awkward around older kids. He is so willing to share that my parents have had to specifically forbid him to give away his toys, because he'd give away everything he owned if somebody asked.

I believe that the world is a better place because my brother is a part of it. I believe he gives back far more than he takes. I think he's a perfect example of how we can all benefit from NOT abiding by 'survival of the fittest.'

I think he's a perfect example of how we can all benefit from NOT abiding by 'survival of the fittest.'

Exactly. Gravity doesn't care if we fall to our deaths.


Also, in various discussions I have had on this, it becomes less "those unsuited to live in our environment..." and more "person X isn't human enough" for me.

I believe that the world is a better place because my brother is a part of it. I believe he gives back far more than he takes. I think he's a perfect example of how we can all benefit from NOT abiding by 'survival of the fittest.'
Indeed, and I'd hope that folks don't think those of us advocating the euthanasia of certain unfortunates are advocating the euthanasia of people like Bottle's brother.

Far from it.

Indeed, and I'd hope that folks don't think those of us advocating the euthanasia of certain unfortunates are advocating the euthanasia of people like Bottle's brother.

Far from it.

You haven't been the one argueing that "survival of the fittest" makes sound social policy. ;)

Indeed, and I'd hope that folks don't think those of us advocating the euthanasia of certain unfortunates are advocating the euthanasia of people like Bottle's brother.

Far from it.
To be sure, I support euthanasia. I, personally, want the right to end my life if (heavens forfend) I were to end up with a painful terminal condition or something. Both my parents have living wills in which they are quite clear about how they don't want to be kept alive in certain situations, and I fully intend to honor their wishes if (heavens forfend) it ever comes to that.

I believe that an individual's right to die with dignity is completely different from killing or abandoning "defective" people out of some warped concept of survival-of-the-fittest.

The underlying principle is the same: Someone gets to decide what is a life worth living and what is not. I disapprove of this after someone has been born.

No. It's not the same and you know it. The mother was aware that the child was disadvantage greatly and she still had him. She put her desire to be a mother first than the well being of her offspring. That's selfish and, now that she's sick, irresposible. Who will take care of this child? After all, he has no one else but his mom. If you think society will take care of him, you are an idealist. Society works exactly the same way as the animals in the jungle.

And I never, for the last time, advocate the killing of a human being unless he/she's in pain and there's nothing to be done to soothe it. But if the mother was aware of the problem, she shouldn't have carried her pregancy to term. That, my friend, is also irresponsible and, perhaps, reprehensible.

I did read the OP thank you very much

Never said that he could move on his own. Just said he had a carer and he could live in the modern world (for a certain value of 'live').

It is not a way I'd like to live. And I'm not convinced it is moral to keep someone like that alive.

But, I interpreted (perhaps wrongly, more haste et al) your question to mean what I indicated.

And survival means passing on genes*



*EDIT: At least in my interpretation

Yes, you interpreted wrongly.

Yes, you interpreted wrongly.

Yeah. I kinda gathered after the fact you meant "ought" rather then "is" :)

Sounds like someone has watched Logan's Run too many times.

That aside.

People weren't made for society. Society was made for people. If you forget that, then I hope you don't run for office.

I don't even know what Logan's Run is.

That aside.


If twelve people are trapped somewhere, and they know for a fact they will be rescued in six months, but they only have enough food for three months, is it justified that 6 of them might die to save the other six? Or would you simply doom all 12 to death because it is inhumane to kill another human being?

And as far as me running for office, and actually pertaining to everyone here in the forums debating, isn't that why NationStates even exists? To give you the opportunity to run your own country the way you see fit?

I believe the American political system should be run just like jury duty. A person randomly gets selected to do a certain job, then at the end of their term, they go back to whatever they were doing before hand. And if they do a horrible job at running the country, we kill them. Talk about incentive to do it right.

Humans have compassion and we care for the sick and weak. This behavior has also been found in monkeys. The younger monkeys bring food to the older ones who cannot hunt.

I don't even know what Logan's Run is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run)

If twelve people are trapped somewhere, and they know for a fact they will be rescued in six months, but they only have enough food for three months, is it justified that 6 of them might die to save the other six? Or would you simply doom all 12 to death because it is inhumane to kill another human being?

I'm not sure what bearing this has on society and the treatment of the weak. Or welfare, or old age. Or anything really...

could you help me understand?

And as far as me running for office, and actually pertaining to everyone here in the forums debating, isn't that why NationStates even exists? To give you the opportunity to run your own country the way you see fit?

Erm, that's not what I meant. Bt nvrmnd

Yeah. I kinda gathered after the fact you meant "ought" rather then "is" :)

;)
To err is human. To accept it, is commendable.

If you need an example of a Nazi this it. Anyone who believes that the government should determine right to life is treading in those waters.

That being said, if you are sticking to the personal choice whether to abort or have a child then the declaration of Nazism is false.

No abortion in my plan. In fact part of the plan would be to discourage abortion and encourage adoption so that those families who cant have children due to being a carrier of a genetic diseases would adopt and those having children before they are ready would be encouraged to see the child full term and place it for adoption.

Nazis also were screening for blue eyes and blond hair, I would seek to screen out genetic illness and instead of suing abortions use the birth control pill and surgical infertilization.

Nazis also were screening for blue eyes and blond hair, I would seek to screen out genetic illness and instead of suing abortions use the birth control pill and surgical infertilization.

No, the Nazis weren't particularly screening for blue eyes and blond hair. There were no mass forced sterilizations of brunettes. There were, however, forced sterilizations of people considered "defective" due to mental or physical illness. You are describing very much the same eugenics plan the Third Reich used, so please don't delude yourself that your version is somehow much nicer.

No, the Nazis weren't particularly screening for blue eyes and blond hair. There were no mass forced sterilizations of brunettes. There were, however, forced sterilizations of people considered "defective" due to mental or physical illness. You are describing very much the same eugenics plan the Third Reich used, so please don't delude yourself that your version is somehow much nicer.

The Nazi's also lacked an understanding of genetics. And I am not talking about about serious Genetic illness, Not hey your prone to depression lets cut off your balls.

The Nazi's also lacked an understanding of genetics. And I am not talking about about serious Genetic illness, Not hey your prone to depression lets cut off your balls.

So the only problem with eugenics according to you is that the movement started to soon?

So the only problem with eugenics according to you is that the movement started to soon?

that and it tries to target things that are mostly nurture such as intelligence or mostly with exertion such as fitness. Also the blatant racism makes it horrendous.

Only thing selective breeding should be used for is eliminating serious genetic disorders from the populace at large.

Humans have compassion and we care for the sick and weak. This behavior has also been found in monkeys. The younger monkeys bring food to the older ones who cannot hunt.

I just realized what I wrote http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/thumbnail2/1975_dancing_banana.gif :sniper:

First off, let me point out (once again) that, as animals, we are all part of the 'Animal Kingdom'.

KINGDOM!?!??!
REVOLUTION!!! DOWN WITH THE BOURGEOIS MONARCHIST PIGS!!!!

Sorry, but this thread is really a downer...

KINGDOM!?!??!
REVOLUTION!!! DOWN WITH THE BOURGEOIS MONARCHIST PIGS!!!!

Sorry, but this thread is really a downer...

I expected an outburst like this one from Comrade Andaras, not from you, NM.:p

Comments?

You don't choose whether to obey "survival of the fittest", it's just a fact of nature. What's changed is not whether the rule applies any more, but rather the environmental conditions (which includes other humans), widening the range of humans that are fit enough to survive.

Quite the opposite. It's totally relevant.

Better means of treatment? Can you cure severe cerebral palsy? Is it fair to keep a human who can't fend for himself strapped to a machine just for our own selfish desire to play God? Because that's what one does when condeming, yes, condemnig a human being that has no chance at life, to such a treatment. We play God, and we absolutely fail at it.

Devoloping treatments has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fittest. The very idea of treating someone for a disease to help them survive is the anti-thesis of survival of the fittest.

You may not be aware of what survival of the fittest means. It means that the fittest survive. The ones that aren't fit don't.
The main reason that we're at the top of the food chain is because we can invent, adapt, develop, and think. If we don't include these characteristics as a means of survival, what's the point of doing anything at all? We aren't unresourceful animals so using all available means of survival is what makes us more fit to survive. We'd still be dying from any number of curable diseases, if we were satisfied that a "natural" solution was the best.

Define the terms the way you want, but you should take the fact that we are human into account. Being human means we have options available that don't exist for other species. We're different and better.

I'll just wheel myself off to find a cave to die in, I suppose.:mad:

I was riding the metro this morning, must have been around 11:00, and when it stopped at my destination I stumbled upon this lady with an 8 year old on a wheel chair.

You may think that there's nothing out of the ordinary, we see children and adults on wheel chairs every day. But with this child, there was something out of the ordinary to me. In fact, it was so out of the ordinary that it produced a series of feelings in me that have left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Since I had time to reach the office, I stopped to chat with the mother and she told me that her son was born with a sever case of cerebral palsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy). He (Ricardo was his name), couldn't talk, hear, nor see. He had to be strapped to a respirator, something I noticed from the plastic tube attached to his trachea and the oxygen tanks behind the wheel chair, and had to be fed. It so happened that the mother had also developed a severe case of ostheoporosis and the beginning of, from what she describe to me, fibromialgia.

She looked down trodden, because her doctor had told her a few days before that hers was a progressive condition and it could be crippling. If the condition worsened enough for her to be crippled in any way, her son was done for. She was on her own, there was no one to take care of the child other than her and she didn't know what to do.

Of course, I was speechless, and although I felt sad for her, I was also enraged. Why is that? She knew this child had no chance at life by himself, the doctors ahd been very clear on the matter and (I'm not questioning her devotion and love for him) still knowing this, she had him.

If I try to describe all the things I felt, this post, I fear, might sound bloggy to you all. So, drawing this to a close, don't you think Mother Nature is wise?

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?

Comments?

Lions also does not understand about advanced physics. Survival of the fittest?

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/hawkinghimes.jpg

My baby brother was a only a few months old when he had his first seizure.

He and I were playing on the kitchen floor, and suddenly his eyes went vacant and his arm shot out and started shivering. It lasted only about 20 seconds, and then he was back like nothing had ever happened.

He had more seizures as time went on. Tests were run, but no origin or cause was identified. He was put on medication to stop the seizures, and eventually they subsided.

Without modern medicine, there's a good chance my brother would have been pretty seriously disabled by the continued seizures. As it is, he has some lasting cognitive deficits, and a recent fMRI revealed that a chunk of his brain is malformed or underdeveloped.

Neurologically speaking, my baby brother was defective.

You might expect me to make an emotional appeal at this point, and talk about how I'd have flipped my shit at anybody who suggested that he should be removed from the gene pool. I won't bother because I'm guessing y'all can guess pretty much how that would go.

Instead, let me just tell you that my brother is pretty much the nicest kid on the planet. Seriously, he's a 16 year old boy who ask for permission to do yard work for free, and who offers to carry bags for total strangers without prompting of any kind. He begs to be allowed to spend more hours at work, even though most of his earnings go directly into savings instead of into his pockets. He is endlessly tender and sweet toward younger children and babies, though he's shy and awkward around older kids. He is so willing to share that my parents have had to specifically forbid him to give away his toys, because he'd give away everything he owned if somebody asked.

I believe that the world is a better place because my brother is a part of it. I believe he gives back far more than he takes. I think he's a perfect example of how we can all benefit from NOT abiding by 'survival of the fittest.'

I am going to read this post every time we discuss religion. No doubt you are an awesome sister and I need to remember that. Computer does...weird things to you and it's essential to remember there's a person on the other end of the keyboard. Kudos to you. :)

My baby brother was a only a few months old when he had his first seizure.

He and I were playing on the kitchen floor, and suddenly his eyes went vacant and his arm shot out and started shivering. It lasted only about 20 seconds, and then he was back like nothing had ever happened.

He had more seizures as time went on. Tests were run, but no origin or cause was identified. He was put on medication to stop the seizures, and eventually they subsided.

Without modern medicine, there's a good chance my brother would have been pretty seriously disabled by the continued seizures. As it is, he has some lasting cognitive deficits, and a recent fMRI revealed that a chunk of his brain is malformed or underdeveloped.

Neurologically speaking, my baby brother was defective.

You might expect me to make an emotional appeal at this point, and talk about how I'd have flipped my shit at anybody who suggested that he should be removed from the gene pool. I won't bother because I'm guessing y'all can guess pretty much how that would go.

Instead, let me just tell you that my brother is pretty much the nicest kid on the planet. Seriously, he's a 16 year old boy who ask for permission to do yard work for free, and who offers to carry bags for total strangers without prompting of any kind. He begs to be allowed to spend more hours at work, even though most of his earnings go directly into savings instead of into his pockets. He is endlessly tender and sweet toward younger children and babies, though he's shy and awkward around older kids. He is so willing to share that my parents have had to specifically forbid him to give away his toys, because he'd give away everything he owned if somebody asked.

I believe that the world is a better place because my brother is a part of it. I believe he gives back far more than he takes. I think he's a perfect example of how we can all benefit from NOT abiding by 'survival of the fittest.'

Lions also does not understand about advanced physics. Survival of the fittest?

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/hawkinghimes.jpg

Thank you both for this. I was too upset to respond intelligently.

The main reason that we're at the top of the food chain is because we can invent, adapt, develop, and think. If we don't include these characteristics as a means of survival, what's the point of doing anything at all? We aren't unresourceful animals so using all available means of survival is what makes us more fit to survive. We'd still be dying from any number of curable diseases, if we were satisfied that a "natural" solution was the best.

Define the terms the way you want, but you should take the fact that we are human into account. Being human means we have options available that don't exist for other species. We're different and better.

You did not read the OP, and that makes me laugh at your answer. Want to know why? Because I never stated that we should let a natural solution take care of us and decide who´s best. The natural selection does need to come into consideration when a parent´s well aware that he´s allowing a human, as infirm as the child in the OP, to come to life.

This child will never, for the remainder of his days, be able to fend for himself. His mother, the only one he has to take care of him, is soon becoming incapacitated and, after her, there´s no one else. The mother knew the child was coming with these severe conditions and still opted for giving birth to him. That is irresponsible and selfish and no amount of modern science and physics will change that fact nor cure Ricardo´s condition. You put too much stock on science and the human power to adapt and that´s disappointing.

Call me a Nazi if you will, all of you, but if I were the mother and I knew my kid was coming with horrible disadvantages, I will not have him/her. Damn me and my motherly instincts if I dare condemn a child to a life of absoulte pain.

As for Bottle´s posts, her brother was born normal and started suffering seizures later on. He was perfectly fine before. Why do I use this as an example, because someone was daring enough to suggest that I wanted to euthanized children because they were infirm and that´s furthest from the truth. I never suggested that, and if my reference to lions in the wild was taken out of context, what a shame.

(Bolded for emphasis)

No one here's suggesting euthanazing a child with severe conditions like the one in the OP. He was given birth to already, there's no point in preventing it from living. He's alive now. I'm talking about the responsibilty the mother had by giving birth to him even knowing he was suffering from cerebral palsy. But letting mother nature do it's work it's also a good idea.

It? It? I want to give you benefit of the doubt here Nanatsu, so please tell me that was a typo or a gender neutral pronoun you were using and not some kind of Freudian slip. The last thing we need are accusations of people thinking the disabled aren't human. It's actually probably the only thing we don't have, for that matter.

Yes, you interpreted wrongly.

And you worded it poorly. Your analogy was confusing and made people think you were arguing for something far more reprehensible than you actually were--though I still don't find myself totally at ease with your position--why doesn't everyone just move on?

Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?

Comments?

It's very tricky. For me, the question revolves around what action is taken to keep a very damaged child alive.

I do not believe in withdrawing food, putting a pillow over the newborns head, or euthanasing them with drugs. That to me is killing -- not doing what a parent (or doctor) would do for any newborn.

I'm uncomfortable with denying newborns surgery, taking them off the respirator etc, but decided case by case, with the informed consent of the parent or parents, and with two doctor's opinions concurring, I can accept it.

It's a question of (a) killing, or (b) not intervening to save the life. That's where I draw the line, and in the second case only with a broad consensus of the adults involved.

(Bolded for emphasis)



It? It? I want to give you benefit of the doubt here Nanatsu, so please tell me that was a typo or a gender neutral pronoun you were using and not some kind of Freudian slip. The last thing we need are accusations of people thinking the disabled aren't human. It's actually probably the only thing we don't have, for that matter.



And you worded it poorly. Your analogy was confusing and made people think you were arguing for something far more reprehensible than you actually were--though I still don't find myself totally at ease with your position--why doesn't everyone just move on?

The It was a typo that I meant to correct. For that I apologize.

But it is my position, Gen. I´m not comfortable with the positions some people here adopt, and yet I accept them, even if it´s a weird and uncomprehensible for me. I´m not asking anyone here to accept my position as the ultimate truth. But to start accusing me of being a Nazi and that natural selection is akin to holocaust, come the f*ck on. If my analogies confused, I´m sorry. I was writing in the heat of the moment, right after seeing the lady with the child on the metro and (I state it on the OP), I had mixed feelings on the matter and felt like a monster for feeling the way I did.

I moved on.

I'm not sure what bearing this has on society and the treatment of the weak. Or welfare, or old age. Or anything really...
could you help me understand?


First off, thanks. I think I'm going to go rent that movie now, haha.

Second, it's been . . . probably three hours since I wrote that. And looking at it now, I don't think it makes any sense either. So whatever I was trying to say when I wrote that, it's lost on me now.

My apologies. Again, you're right. It doesn't really make any sense.

The It was a typo that I meant to correct. For that I apologize.

That's what I figured, but I just wanted to make sure. Like I said, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt but I also wanted to know for sure.

Guess I won't get to use my warpath tools today...

But it is my position, Gen.

A nickname! I'm so happy!

I´m not comfortable with the positions some people here adopt, and yet I accept them, even if it´s a weird and uncomprehensible for me. I´m not asking anyone here to accept my position as the ultimate truth.

Of course not. Nor was I trying to attack your opinion. It was actually a complete aside just meant to show that I, personally, am extremely uncomfortable with killing anyone for any reason other than self-defense. Just makes me feel queasy in teh stomak.

But to start accusing me of being a Nazi and that natural selection is akin to holocaust, come the f*ck on.

That was probably the illegitimate lovechild of confusion and misinterpretation.

If my analogies confused, I´m sorry. I was writing in the heat of the moment, right after seeing the lady with the child on the metro and (I state it on the OP), I had mixed feelings on the matter and felt like a monster for feeling the way I did.

Perfectly understandable. We are all human, after all. The main issue with your analogy is that while it was taken out of context, it was not terribly difficult for that to happen intentional or otherwise. From my P.O.V. at least, the Lion analogy brings Euthanasia to mind far quicker than abortion.

I moved on.

I don't differentiate. I rebuke everyone who's talking. :p

It seems that our concept of "fit" is different.


Considering that his is the one that is used in the term "survival of the fittest", I'd say his takes precedence here.

That's what I figured, but I just wanted to make sure. Like I said, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt but I also wanted to know for sure.

Guess I won't get to use my warpath tools today...



A nickname! I'm so happy!



Of course not. Nor was I trying to attack your opinion. It was actually a complete aside just meant to show that I, personally, am extremely uncomfortable with killing anyone for any reason other than self-defense. Just makes me feel queasy in teh stomak.



That was probably the illegitimate lovechild of confusion and misinterpretation.



Perfectly understandable. We are all human, after all. The main issue with your analogy is that while it was taken out of context, it was not terribly difficult for that to happen intentional or otherwise. From my P.O.V. at least, the Lion analogy brings Euthanasia to mind far quicker than abortion.



I don't differentiate. I rebuke everyone who's talking. :p

You´re a pleasure to debate or talk with. I´m off.;)

With all due respect, Nanatsu, what is the threshold of "fit" and who decides? My disability is quite severe, and there are some things I will never be able to do for myself. My medical bills as a child bankrupted my family. Should I be considered "unfit"?

With all due respect, Nanatsu, what is the threshold of "fit" and who decides?

This boils down, to me, to personal decision to answer your question. Fit to me is someone who can fend for him/herself and doesn´t suffer from a crippling condition. The child on the OP isn´t fit.

Let me give you an example:
If I become pregnant and in the middle of my pregnancy I´m told by my OBGYN that the child presents serious problems. If my OBGYN then proceeds to tell me that my child will be born with a severe condition that prevents him/her from having a normal life. And I´ll state before anything else, that this condition has to be akin to the one the child on the OP had for me to consider a radical method.

If my doctor, knowing that this is the case, advices me to abort the child, you can bet that I will consider it. Ultimately, I know I´ll abort the child. My child, much to my sadness, isn´t fit to live because as soon as I´m gone, he/she won´t be able to fend for him/herself.

Did I make it clear?

You´re a pleasure to debate or talk with. I´m off.;)

Aw, shucks. T'wasn't nothin'.

http://img52.exs.cx/img52/271/l9iblush.gif

This boils down, to me, to personal decision to answer your question. Fit to me is someone who can fend for him/herself and doesn´t suffer from a crippling condition. The child on the OP isn´t fit.

Let me give you an example:
If I become pregnant and in the middle of my pregnancy I´m told by my OBGYN that the child presents serious problems. If my OBGYN then proceeds to tell me that my child will be born with a severe condition that prevents him/her from having a normal life. And I´ll state before anything else, that this condition has to be akin to the one the child on the OP had for me to consider a radical method.

If my doctor, knowing that this is the case, advices me to abort the child, you can bet that I will consider it. Ultimately, I know I´ll abort the child. My child, much to my sadness, isn´t fit to live because as soon as I´m gone, he/she won´t be able to fend for him/herself.

Did I make it clear?


I suffer from a crippling condition. By your definition, I'm unfit.

I suffer from a crippling condition. By your definition, I'm unfit.

You read what I wrote, right?

Of course, if I offended you with my stand, by all means, I apologize. I was unaware of your condition.

You read what I wrote, right?

Of course, if I offended you with my stand, by all means, I apologize. I was unaware of your condition.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive, but I've had more than one person in my life suggest just that very thing. If that was not your intention, then I apologize.

In the long history of life on earth, nobody has ever survived.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive, but I've had more than one person in my life suggest just that very thing. If that was not your intention, then I apologize.

I can assure you, it wasn´t my intention. And once again, if I stoke a nerve, it was unwillingly and I apologize.

This boils down, to me, to personal decision to answer your question. Fit to me is someone who can fend for him/herself and doesn´t suffer from a crippling condition. The child on the OP isn´t fit.

"Crippling" is not a good word to use loosely when talking about disability. It has a specific meaning: unable to walk.

I hope we all agree that people can lead worthwhile lives and contribute to society, without needing to walk, play tennis, or whatever your standard of "normal" life is. You saw the picture of Steven Hawking, right? Even in his present condition, he's contributing more to society than either you or I -- he's doing something we just aren't smart enough to do.

There is no good word, though a suitable phrase could relate the child's condition to their expected Quality of Life.

In the long history of life on earth, nobody has ever survived.

They have. They have survived to reproduce ... the proper meaning of "survival of the fittest."

"Crippling" is not a good word to use loosely when talking about disability. It has a specific meaning: unable to walk.

I hope we all agree that people can lead worthwhile lives and contribute to society, without needing to walk, play tennis, or whatever your standard of "normal" life is. You saw the picture of Steven Hawking, right? Even in his present condition, he's contributing more to society than either you or I -- he's doing something we just aren't smart enough to do.

There is no good word, though a suitable phrase could relate the child's condition to their expected Quality of Life.

The mother was preoccupied because there´s no one to take care of her child after her health condition worsens. She has fibromialgia, and from what she said the doctors told her, it will eventually send her to a bed. When this happens, the quality of life of the child will be affected a 100%.

The mother was preoccupied because there´s no one to take care of her child after her health condition worsens. She has fibromialgia, and from what she said the doctors told her, it will eventually send her to a bed. When this happens, the quality of life of the child will be affected a 100%.

So Spain leaves the defenceless to starve on the street ? Nice.

So Spain leaves the defenceless to starve on the street ? Nice.

Dumb, so dumb this statement is. I´m talking about personal choice, what´s so difficult to understand here? No, Spain doesn´t leave the defenseless out in the streets to starve.

ZOMG!!! Nanatsu is teh Nazi!!!

Also, Nanatsu starts with the letters NA. The word Nazi also starts with the letters NA.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!

I'm on to you...


EDIT:
Huh, I already did a joke post in this thread...oh well, when your in the business long enough you're bound to repeat yourself sometimes.

Is the technology good enough now to screen accurately for these defects? The doctors told my parents I would likely be severely mentally and or physically handicapped, yet I wasn't, and there were fears of certain defects with my sister because of my mother's age. I'm sure technology has improved but at what percent of probability can you deem it "a good idea" for the child to be aborted? 50%? 5%? 99.9%?*

*The above is for the sake of debating the OP, I personally think that it is pretty much always a bad idea to have others judge the "quality of life," because it is often so intangible, even to the most educated or caring, what can make a life meaningful or good, excepting very serious and painful circumstances, where I would have to think seriously about it.

ZOMG!!! Nanatsu is teh Nazi!!!

Also, Nanatsu starts with the letters NA. The word Nazi also starts with the letters NA.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!

I'm on to you...

:rolleyes:

Dumb, so dumb this statement is. I´m talking about personal choice, what´s so difficult to understand here? No, Spain doesn´t leave the defenseless out in the streets to starve.

Spain does not leave the defenseless to suffer. Good.

Therefore, the child's Quality of Life might be affected negatively (or perhaps positively, though I suspect the mother has cared for her child better than a state agency ... will have to.) But not in extremis, not going from having sufficient Quality of life to be worthwhile, to having none at all.

You said "affected 100%".

Now, to the question of personal choice. Are you claiming that the mother should have known (AT THE TIME OF PREGNANCY) that she would become so sick herself that she would not be able to look after the child?

Dumb, so dumb this statement is. I´m talking about personal choice, what´s so difficult to understand here? No, Spain doesn´t leave the defenseless out in the streets to starve.

You should grind them up for food, feed the homeless to the hungry.

*nods*

In the long history of life on earth, nobody has ever survived.

prokaryotes reproduce by dividing in two. seems to me this implies that the original living entity must still be alive.

Now, to the question of personal choice. Are you claiming that the mother should have known (AT THE TIME OF PREGNANCY) that she would become so sick herself that she would not be able to look after the child?

She told me that she was aware of her child´s condition. Her doctor had warned her of the cerebral palsy.

As for her condition, no, she had no idea she was going to develop it.

prokaryotes reproduce by dividing in two. seems to me this implies that the original living entity must still be alive.

Depends on how you define the "entity" I guess. Does it make any sense to describe all those independent prokaryotes (not connected to each other, one capable of living unaffected by the death of another) as ONE entity?

She told me that she was aware of her child´s condition. Her doctor had warned her of the cerebral palsy.

As for her condition, no, she had no idea she was going to develop it.

So what does her own medical condition have to do with "personal choice"?

You are aware that cerebral palsy can range from extreme (like that boy) to un-noticeable, right? That it's very hard to tell, while the fetus is still in the womb, what level of disability the child is going to later have ?

Perhaps you think mothers should err on the side of protecting the child from suffering, and abort if there is ANY risk of disability.

So what does her own medical condition have to do with "personal choice"?

You are aware that cerebral palsy can range from extreme (like that boy) to un-noticeable, right? That it's very hard to tell, while the fetus is still in the womb, what level of disability the child is going to later have ?

The personal choice doesn´t come into her getting sick years after having her son. In her case, the doctors had already warned about the severe condition of her child. She was well aware her child was going to be born with an extreme disability.

They have. They have survived to reproduce ... the proper meaning of "survival of the fittest."

I know, I just wanted to be grim.

prokaryotes reproduce by dividing in two. seems to me this implies that the original living entity must still be alive.

Prokaryotic division is not a division among equals. The genetic material in one of the resulting two individual cells suffers damage from the process of cell division and will eventually cease to be viable, and die. The other one of the two resulting cells is approximately the "newborn". It possesses youthful, new and undamaged genetic material, which had been manufactured by the old cell from entirely new components, much like how certain lizards can give birth to a clone of themselves without sexual reproduction. Therefore the prokaryotic process is somewhat analogous to parthenogenesis, because in prokaryotic cell division there clearly results in an oldster and a youngster, and the youngster will always eventually become old and die.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive, but I've had more than one person in my life suggest just that very thing. If that was not your intention, then I apologize.

What would you have prefered your mother to do?

The personal choice doesn´t come into her getting sick years after having her son. In her case, the doctors had already warned about the severe condition of her child. She was well aware her child was going to be born with an extreme disability.

She said that? I mean, I didn't talk to the woman, you did. Did she say "I knew he would be unable to see or hear, but I carried him to term anyway ..."

If what she said is "the doctors told me he was going to have cerebral palsy and recommended I abort" then that is NOT the same thing.

Depends on how you define the "entity" I guess. Does it make any sense to describe all those independent prokaryotes (not connected to each other, one capable of living unaffected by the death of another) as ONE entity?

i think the relationship is more that each of them are the same entity as the original entity, but are not the same entity as each other. so its not a relationship of identity, exactly, but rather something more like one being branching off into many - each of which is still also the original.

did you ever see that episode of star trek the next generation where they found out that riker had an exact double created in a transporter accident who had been trapped on some planet for years? both guys had an equally valid claim on their single history, and thus on being william riker, but they are clearly not the same person anymore. its sorta like that.

What would you have prefered your mother to do?

I would have preferred my mother not have held my disability against me as if it were some sort of personal insult to her.

Prokaryotic division is not a division among equals. The genetic material in one of the resulting two individual cells suffers damage from the process of cell division and will eventually cease to be viable, and die. The other one of the two resulting cells is approximately the "newborn". It possesses youthful, new and undamaged genetic material, which had been manufactured by the old cell from entirely new components, much like how certain lizards can give birth to a clone of themselves without sexual reproduction. Therefore the prokaryotic process is somewhat analogous to parthenogenesis, because in prokaryotic cell division there clearly results in an oldster and a youngster, and the youngster will always eventually become old and die.

my understanding may be off, but this isn't what i learned. and if true, it does make me wonder how population growth is even possible.

She said that? I mean, I didn't talk to the woman, you did. Did she say "I knew he would be unable to see or hear, but I carried him to term anyway ..."

If what she said is "the doctors told me he was going to have cerebral palsy and recommended I abort" then that is NOT the same thing.

The latter. They did warn her he might not be able to see.

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too?


Lions also kill buffalo with their claws and teeth. When a new male takes over a lion pride, the first thing he does is kill all the cubs in order to put the females into heat. My point is, lions are not appropriate models for human behavior.
Your question seems to be whether it is right for a woman to give birth to a child when she has been assured by a doctor that it will have a terrible life. My problem with this is that doctors are often wrong; sometimes multiple doctors are extremely wrong. A good example of this would be lobotomy surgery, once hailed as a miracle cure for everything from violent schizophrenia to post-partum depression and sometimes even for rebelliousness in adolescents. And let us not forget the thalidomide debacle. A more modern example of physician negligence would, in my opinion, be the very widespread prescribing of mood-altering drugs such as Ritalin to children. Not all doctors are competent, not all doctors care, and even a good doctor can make a terrible mistake. In the absence of some infallible medical oracle, an expectant mother would have good reason to hope, despite the assurances of doctors.

The latter. They did warn her he might not be able to see.

Abortion is a hard Decision even in cases like those.

which is why it is best to test to see if your a carrier of these diseases before having children.

The latter. They did warn her he might not be able to see.

Well, that's the problem. Should the woman have made that decision based on the worst possible outcome, on the best possible outcome, or merely on the most likely outcome?

I would say the most likely: the best guess of the doctors.

I can see lots of problems with trying to implement a survival of the fittest policy on any scale.

Though I am sympathetic to the idea.

Well, that's the problem. Should the woman have made that decision based on the worst possible outcome, on the best possible outcome, or merely on the most likely outcome?

I would say the most likely: the best guess of the doctors.

Worst possible, Nobel. She knew the child was very sick. She had him, she takes care of him, she seems a good mother.

I still wouldn´t have given birth to him, not because I would be ashamed of having a child with disabilities, but because I don´t want to bring an individual to this world who won´t be able to have the same opportunities as others. But that´s just me.

Worst possible, Nobel.

That's dangerous, that is. Either you're saying that should be applied across the board, which has very serious implications or you think it's case specific in which you should elaborate so you don't appear to have a double-standard.

Forgive me If I am stepping on anyone's toe, but I have not read every post...yet.


That being said however we need to take steps to minimize breeding by those who carry severe genetic illness. At puberty a genetic screening should be conducted and those carrying severe genetic illness should have the surgery to remove their ability to breed. Also all females should be put on birth control unless there is a medical reason they should not be on it. Likewise as soon as they develop a male birth control pill they should also be placed on that unless health concerns prevent them from taking it.

At a time when a couple wishes to have a child they should in the process of seeking permission to come off birth control be tested to see if they are carriers of less severe genetic illness that if they were to breed could result in genetic complications for the child......this is the way to ensure good genetic stock with out having to resort Draconian measures of leaving the sick to die.


Dude! Those measures are Draconian. You seem to be forgetting your Punit Squares; you know the 1 in 4 chance thing, also remember the rules about dominate and recessive genes. Further more; you and other posters need to look up the definition and history of Eugenics. In other words, not every one with bad genes will produce bad offsprind. Not every retardation is a curse; a good number of our savants often have impared mental capsities. These genetic problems are at best a mixed blessing; with every severe case we learn more about how and why. We learn more about the human body and mind, and their construction on the genetic level.

That said severe genetic problems may be phased out over the next hundred years thanks to genetic resreach. It will be slow and lines will be blury for a while, but the further we push the more we can learn. This dose not mean we have to lose our morals, but it dose force us to examine and form new codes of ethics.

In sumation I agree with Tsuki; in that this woman was/is being selfish to bring a child into this "cruel"world with no chance of surviving alone.

That's dangerous, that is. Either you're saying that should be applied across the board, which has very serious implications or you think it's case specific in which you should elaborate so you don't appear to have a double-standard.

Ok, by what the woman told me of her clinical case before giving birth to her son was pretty grim. The doctors told her that her child was suffering from cerebral palsy and that, there was a high percentage (she didn´t give me any numbers) of the boy being born deaf. Her pregnancy, and I should have stated that on the OP too, was high risk, she had the boy when she was 38. Knowing the medical implications since her second trimester or so, I assumed it was very irresponsible of her having the child. And it made it even more so when I saw him strapped to a respirator, not only deaf, but also blind and mute. She´s alone with the kid, I didn´t ask about the father, I didn´t want to pry as it wasn´t my place. When she told me that the situation´s worse because she herself now suffers from a condition that, eventually, will prevent her from taking care of her son formed and cemented my ideas on the subject.

Worst possible, Nobel.

OK. We're never going to agree on that one.

My experience of people with lifelong disabilities is that they can have sufficient quality of life not to want to die, even though the first impression of people just meeting them is that they must surely be a write-off, better never to have lived, etc.

I also know people with no significant disability who are utterly miserable, sometimes even kill themselves. Being impaired in any particular way isn't actually that crucial to quality of life. Perhaps most surprising is how happy people of low intelligence can be.

I'd need a really strong conviction that a lack of certain abilities (use of a sense, mobility, a arbitrary level of sufficient intelligence) must lead to a life not worth living, to go far towards the "allow for the worst possible outcome."

Ok, by what the woman told me of her clinical case before giving birth to her son was pretty grim. The doctors told her that her child was suffering from cerebral palsy and that, there was a high percentage (she didn´t give me any numbers) of the boy being born deaf. Her pregnancy, and I should have stated that on the OP too, was high risk, she had the boy when she was 38. Knowing the medical implications since her second trimester or so, I assumed it was very irresponsible of her having the child. And it made it even more so when I saw him strapped to a respirator, not only deaf, but also blind and mute. She´s alone with the kid, I didn´t ask about the father, I didn´t want to pry as it wasn´t my place. When she told me that the situation´s worse because she herself now suffers from a condition that, eventually, will prevent her from taking care of her son formed and cemented my ideas on the subject.

Earlier you said she knew beforehand about the cerebral palsy and the blindness. Here you say it's the palsy and the deafness. Which was it? Was it both?

As stated earlier, Cerebral Palsy can run the gambit from minor to extreme. Deafness and blindness, while terrible things, are handicaps with which it is possible to live a relatively normal life. The respirator thing is another story, but thus far I see no reason for her to have predicted that.

OK. We're never going to agree on that one.

My experience of people with lifelong disabilities is that they can have sufficient quality of life not to want to die, even though the first impression of people just meeting them is that they must surely be a write-off, better never to have lived, etc.

I also know people with no significant disability who are utterly miserable, sometimes even kill themselves. Being impaired in any particular way isn't actually that crucial to quality of life. Perhaps most surprising is how happy people of low intelligence can be.

I'd need a really strong conviction that a lack of certain abilities (use of a sense, mobility, a arbitrary level of sufficient intelligence) must lead to a life not worth living, to go far towards the "allow for the worst possible outcome."

Yes, we won´t agree. I must say though, that seeing the child´s condition produced a storm of feelings in me.

In this case, we´ll never know what the child´s sentiment is. Ricardo can´t speak nor listen nor hear. He can´t move and he breathes because a machine aids him in the process. In his case, this was the worst possible outcome.

Earlier you said she knew beforehand about the cerebral palsy and the blindness. Here you say it's the palsy and the deafness. Which was it? Was it both?

As stated earlier, Cerebral Palsy can run the gambit from minor to extreme. Deafness and blindness, while terrible things, are handicaps with which it is possible to live a relatively normal life. The respirator thing is another story, but thus far I see no reason for her to have predicted that.

Sorry, the blindness. (I should got to bed) She was aware of the possible blindness of the child and the palsy. The doctors did tell her it was severe. I guess not even they knew how severe it was going to be.

gambit

A gambit is a sacrifice offered up in the hope of greater gain (eg in chess)
"Running the gauntlet" is enduring something uncomfortable or humiliating

I think you mean "gamut." A range or envelope. :)

A gambit is a sacrifice offered up in the hope of greater gain (eg in chess)
"Running the gauntlet" is enduring something uncomfortable or humiliating

I think you mean "gamut." A range or envelope. :)

Isn´t Gambit one of the X-Men?

:p

A gambit is a sacrifice offered up in the hope of greater gain (eg in chess)
"Running the gauntlet" is enduring something uncomfortable or humiliating

I think you mean "gamut." A range or envelope. :)

Perhaps. Perhaps I did indeed.

You have failed me for the last time, FreeRice.

Forgive me If I am stepping on anyone's toe, but I have not read every post...yet.



Dude! Those measures are Draconian. You seem to be forgetting your Punit Squares; you know the 1 in 4 chance thing, also remember the rules about dominate and recessive genes. Further more; you and other posters need to look up the definition and history of
one in four have the disease, two in four will be carriers.
so 75% of said off spring will have the disease or be a Carrier of the disease.

Eugenics. In other words, not every one with bad genes will produce bad offsprind. Not every retardation is a curse; a good number of our savants often have impared mental capsities. These genetic problems are at best a mixed blessing; with every severe case we learn more about how and why. We learn more about the human body and mind, and their construction on the genetic level.

Eugenics was concerned primarily about Improving intelligence, Removing Severe genetic disorders is a entirely different matter. Most retardation is not tied to Genetics, some retardation is but these are largely the more mild forms of retardation.


That said severe genetic problems may be phased out over the next hundred years thanks to genetic resreach. It will be slow and lines will be blury for a while, but the further we push the more we can learn. This dose not mean we have to lose our morals, but it dose force us to examine and form new codes of ethics.

one Ounce of Prevention is worth one pound of Cure.
We have the means now to prevent severe illness, it is immoral not to.


In sumation I agree with Tsuki; in that this woman was/is being selfish to bring a child into this "cruel"world with no chance of surviving alone.

So it is okay to encourage a woman to abort her child, but not okay to encourage a man and woman working together to prevent the need for aborting that child altogether??

I'll just wheel myself off to find a cave to die in, I suppose.:mad:

Don't be mad...


I'd help :p

A nickname! I'm so happy!

But you already had one...


The Wrong-handed One
;)

Isn´t Gambit one of the X-Men?

"Gambito" ... used by a rather famous Spaniard, Ruy Lopez, in 1561.

...not that I knew that when I made the post before ...

Human beings possess a altruism that is rare in the animal kingdom. We care for our injured and sick because there is a hope that they can still contribute to our society. It is a risk because the injured/sick person may consume more resources than they contribute, but that is the price we pay for our altruism. Some hunter/gatherer cultures, especially those that live in harsh environments, tend to be more pragmatic and less altruistic. This is because that the risk out ways the reward. Resources are scarce so the needs of the tribe must come before the needs of the individual.

In our technologically advanced society however, the risk is small. Most of our societies can easily absorb the extra cost of taking care of the infirmed. In fact, the longer a person lives, the more chance that there will be found a cure for whatever ails them.

Looking at the past posts I see that people have brought up Stephen Hawkings. He is a perfect example. In a less technological society, he would probably be more of a liability than an asset, but in our society, his disability is really nothing compared with his contributions. When he lost his power of speech, technology was able to let him contribute again.

Every day you hear more and more about new medical breakthroughs being discovered. It is a slippery slope we tread when we try to second guess the future of an individual. I personally believe that it is arrogant to assume that we have enough knowledge and wisdom to make these type of life and death decisions.

"Gambito" ... used by a rather famous Spaniard, Ruy Lopez, in 1561.

...not that I knew that when I made the post before ...

Gotcha.

...At puberty a genetic screening should be conducted and those carrying severe genetic illness should have the surgery to remove their ability to breed...


I just don't agree with your plan to sterilize youths especially since prescreening for healthy gametes and genetic modification provides an easier route than having and raising a forced eunuch.

Oh and go back beyond the 1940's for a history on eugenics. (http://www.reference.com/search?q=eugenic)

my understanding may be off, but this isn't what i learned. and if true, it does make me wonder how population growth is even possible.

A prokaryotic cell can divide a gigantic number of times before it becomes senescent.

I just don't agree with your plan to sterilize youths especially since prescreening for healthy gametes and genetic modification provides an easier route than having and raising a forced eunuch.

Oh and go back beyond the 1940's for a history on eugenics. (http://www.reference.com/search?q=eugenic)

the Idea was founded by Sir Francis Galton in 1860's and dealt primarily with intelligence, and that the belief that the stupid were out breeding the smart.
to try and make society perfect is a bad idea and is doomed to failure, however weeding out genetic disease and its carriers.
They would just be sterile to be a Eunuch they sex organs would have to be removed.

genetic modification is very difficult and expensive at the present, birth control is not.

I just don't agree with your plan to sterilize youths especially since prescreening for healthy gametes and genetic modification provides an easier route than having and raising a forced eunuch.

Yes, I think Greed and Death went too far there too. There could be valuable parts of that person's genome which are just thrown away to try to extinguish the "bad" gene. Screening and eventually genetic modification (though I think we should be cautious that we know what we're doing with that) suffices.

There appears to be a positive correlation between myopia and intelligence. So should we select for perfect eyesight, or for intelligence ?

Perhaps relevant to your last point: I know a woman who was sterilized without her consent (for schizophrenia, at the decision of her father when she was still legally a minor). She went even further off the rails when she found out. They didn't even tell her at the time; I think she was quite right to be angry.

Oh and go back beyond the 1940's for a history on eugenics. (http://www.reference.com/search?q=eugenic)

---EDIT OUT---

EDIT IN: Oh, I see what you mean. BEFORE the Nazis. Sorry.

I don't think my proposal goes to far at all.
the goverment has a duty to protect the rights of the child and to ensure that the child will be given non diseased genetic material. Those who are carriers of genetic diseases can still raise children by adoption.

I highly doubt that only those who carry the genetic illness will have the beneficial genomes, to which you speak.

Intelligence is largely nurture and very little nature. It is foolish to attempt to breed for that.

I don't think my proposal goes too far at all.
the goverment has a duty to protect the rights of the child and to ensure that the child will be given non diseased genetic material. Those who are carriers of genetic diseases can still raise children by adoption.

It goes too far if you don't define some level of severity which requires such drastic measures. If it applies to ANY level of disability (eg myopia, susceptibility to allergies, how about plain bad looks) then you're putting yourself awfully close to them ol' Nazis in defining what is "perfect."

You did mention that genetic modification is expensive (and I agree, also that we don't understand well enough how genes affect each other to be messing with it yet for humans.)

But you ignored Xoco's mention of screening of embryos, which is practical and not prohibitively expensive. The only sticking-point is the required destruction of 'faulty' embryos, which isn't going to be an issue in any society which is rational about such things (ie not in Vatican City and maybe not the States.)

Adoption huh? That's what's wrong with your argument. It's unbridled utilitarianism. Just trample any claimed "right to parenthood" because of something the would-be parent has NO control over.

You wouldn't allow the parents even to make a rational decision on part of their children (eg using screening) ... simply to protect the children of what is surely a tiny minority who "love their unborn child" so irrationally as to bear it with severe disabilities.

I highly doubt that only those who carry the genetic illness will have the beneficial genomes, to which you speak.

Unfortunately, "highly doubting" is about as scientific as that gets yet. We really don't know. Most of the genome is still not understood (it's mapped, but research in what gene does what has largely been guided by identifying genes for diseases, not for strengths.)

Intelligence is largely nurture and very little nature. It is foolish to attempt to breed for that.

So I should just marry a dumb girl, and sue for custody of the kid as soon as it pops out.

Uh-uh. I don't believe it well enough to do that.

But you already had one...


The Wrong-handed One
;)

Nononono, that's a title. A nickname is for when I'm not purging the Earth of your filthy right-handedness.

Intelligence is largely nurture and very little nature. It is foolish to attempt to breed for that.The potential is nature, the realization is nurture.
Scientist have been swing to and fro between nature and nurture for decades, but it's pretty clear these days it's an interaction.
Besides which, we can 'breed' for nurture as well as nature, because 'family values' are to a good extent hereditary.

The potential is nature, the realization is nurture.
Scientist have been swing to and fro between nature and nurture for decades, but it's pretty clear these days it's an interaction.
Besides which, we can 'breed' for nurture as well as nature, because 'family values' are to a good extent hereditary.

well part two of the plan is you must pass test to be allowed to be a parents so you have the right amount of nurture.

it isn't a choice really. what hoomans who are all gaagaa over any excuse to deny the responsability a universe of probableistic causality gives them to practice the self dicipline of having a conscience, don't seem to understand about that word "fittest", as in fittest, as in most likely to, survive, is that strength and power do not, at least not directaly, in any blind bludgeonly way, equal, or even come close to the kind of "fittness" involved.

darwinian fitness in the natural world, refers to how a species interacts with other species to create stable environmental communities, NOT where it is in "the" "food chain"!

if hoomans were to persue THAT kind of fitness, the self dicipline to not be screwing up the environment we all depend upon, would not be an issue, it would be something takin for granted that we would all be practicing at every level of society; and that would mean MUCH more environmental sound and responsible decision making.

it would mean we'd have solar electric collection on virtually every roof, windmills on every ridge, something in the water or by some other means to lower human firtility, ALL human firtility accross the board, but starting with the largest, not the most threated nor weakest populations, and combustion, if used at all, only for home heating and cooking, and the methane for that from human and animal biological waste, i.e. fecies, and stored energy recharged from that wind, solar, geothermal, et al, noncombustion grid, and other ways that don't involve burning anything, possibly in some instances, on board solar charging, to propell such mechanical transportation as there would be, much, in not nearly all of it, on very narrow gauge rails to utilize the available energy and materials the most efficiently.

at any rate, it would NOT mean, letting little green pieces of paper, and whoever's fortune it might be to be born with a mouth full of them, to get away with cold blooded mass genocidal murder.

=^^=
.../\...

You don't really have a choice about it.

they're bringing a human to suffer to this earth.

Technically that's all you ever do, regardless of whether your child starts out healthy or not. There's all myriad of things in life that can and almost certainly will screw you over mentally and physically. You never heard the phrase 'life's a bitch and then you die'?

Not that I'm a cynic or anything.

I think you might have missed the point of Darwin's theories, though.

I would have preferred my mother not have held my disability against me as if it were some sort of personal insult to her.

So you'd want her NOT to abort you?


END OF DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD!

Could a committee of gorillas come up with a 'super' gorilla? And if they did, would they vote for homo sapiens? I doubt it. Evolution doesn't mix with eugenics. End of.

Could a committee of gorillas come up with a 'super' gorilla? And if they did, would they vote for homo sapiens? I doubt it. Evolution doesn't mix with eugenics. End of.The red fire ant disagrees.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6693/abs/394573a0.html

I was riding the metro this morning, must have been around 11:00, and when it stopped at my destination I stumbled upon this lady with an 8 year old on a wheel chair.

You may think that there's nothing out of the ordinary, we see children and adults on wheel chairs every day. But with this child, there was something out of the ordinary to me. In fact, it was so out of the ordinary that it produced a series of feelings in me that have left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Since I had time to reach the office, I stopped to chat with the mother and she told me that her son was born with a sever case of cerebral palsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy). He (Ricardo was his name), couldn't talk, hear, nor see. He had to be strapped to a respirator, something I noticed from the plastic tube attached to his trachea and the oxygen tanks behind the wheel chair, and had to be fed. It so happened that the mother had also developed a severe case of ostheoporosis and the beginning of, from what she describe to me, fibromialgia.

She looked down trodden, because her doctor had told her a few days before that hers was a progressive condition and it could be crippling. If the condition worsened enough for her to be crippled in any way, her son was done for. She was on her own, there was no one to take care of the child other than her and she didn't know what to do.

Of course, I was speechless, and although I felt sad for her, I was also enraged. Why is that? She knew this child had no chance at life by himself, the doctors ahd been very clear on the matter and (I'm not questioning her devotion and love for him) still knowing this, she had him.

If I try to describe all the things I felt, this post, I fear, might sound bloggy to you all. So, drawing this to a close, don't you think Mother Nature is wise?

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?

Comments?

Sometimes I've wondered about it too. And living without sight, hearing or speech, on a respirator forever, to me is no way to live and I think it's sad that if she knew the baby would be born that way, that she had him anyway.

But on the other hand, while it would save us all a lot of trouble, I really don't like the avenue that re-applying survival of the fittest takes us down.

I do admire you though for having the guts to voice thoughts that I, and I bet a lot of others, have had but always been too afraid of sounding cruel to say aloud.

The red fire ant disagrees.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6693/abs/394573a0.html

No it doesn't. Not really.

And let's see how that works out for them. In the event that super ants take over the world I will admit that I am wrong. 'K

No it doesn't. Not really. They kill queens based on the genetics that queen has; sounds like eugenics to me.
Evolution mixes fine with eugenics; evolution mixes fine with pretty much anything but suicide. But that's not an endorsement.

Probably. It would make biological sense, although I suspect any endorsement of it will prompt, to quote Mr. Powell, "cries of execration".

You did not read the OP, and that makes me laugh at your answer. Want to know why? Because I never stated that we should let a natural solution take care of us and decide who´s best. The natural selection does need to come into consideration when a parent´s well aware that he´s allowing a human, as infirm as the child in the OP, to come to life.

Well, I think you're a little confused, yourself. That doesn't surprise me. "Survival of the Fittest" is just a euphemism for natural selection. So, by titling the topic with the phrase "Survival of the fittest", you have most certainly, though apparently unwittingly, involved the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, i.e. "Natural Selection". Without re-reading your opening post, I also recall a fairly long example of a lion ignoring a sick cub until the cub died. That's also natural selection, but on an instinctive level.

Apparently, you want to discuss something other than that, so I'm not going to waste my time on discussing why modern medicine fits into the natural selection theory. You can go battle your racists and Nazis all you want without my interference.

As for Bottle´s posts, her brother was born normal and started suffering seizures later on. He was perfectly fine before. Why do I use this as an example, because someone was daring enough to suggest that I wanted to euthanized children because they were infirm and that´s furthest from the truth. I never suggested that, and if my reference to lions in the wild was taken out of context, what a shame.
I understand that you weren't talking about killing born infants. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough. My point was that I believe my brother is a good addition to the world. If we'd known, before his birth, that he would end up this way, should my mother have terminated the pregnancy? I'm biased as all hell, of course, but I don't think that's necessarily a better choice. Having my brother has been much, much harder than having a "normal" kid added to our family, but I believe it's worth it.

My point here is that I don't think you can know things like that ahead of time. It could have turned out that my brother was both handicapped and a jerk. I have personally met several kids who are handicapped and also total jackasses. Being handicapped doesn't magically guarantee a person will be good or kind or anything, after all, because handicapped people are PEOPLE, and some people are jerks. But you can't really know until you meet a person, can you?

And you're never going to know if that kid "would have wanted to be born," so don't worry about it.

I think it's wrong to assume that all seriously-disabled people would have been better off not being born. I think it's wrong to assume that the world would be a better place if all such people were screened out before birth. I think it's a lousy idea for a potential parent to apply blanket rules to determine whether or not they, as an individual, will become parent to their, individual, child. Every parent is different, as is every child, and every situation. There's not going to be an easy, simple answer to this one.

If my brother had been catastrophically malformed in the womb, my parents probably would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy. But if he'd been otherwise-healthy yet missing an arm or something, they'd probably have chosen to continue the pregnancy. Where's the line? It's arbitrary, I suppose, and it's different for everyone.

I'm rambling. I'm sorry. This subject is weird for me.

I think it's wrong to assume that all seriously-disabled people would have been better off not being born.

Not to, mm, diminsh his suffering (though, by all [your] accounts, he's handling it), but I don't your brother is quite as seriously disabled as the OP example, or as a child potentially could be.

...Where's the line? It's arbitrary, I suppose, and it's different for everyone.

True.

Whee, good way to be back.

Not to, mm, diminsh his suffering (though, by all [your] accounts, he's handling it), but I don't your brother is quite as seriously disabled as the OP example, or as a child potentially could be.

Certainly not, and thank heavens for that. But my brother will never lead a "normal" life.

I guess that's kind of part of the picture. There's not just "normal" and "disabled" like two polar opposites. It's not like you can look at a kid and say, "This kid is broken" or "This kid is not broken." There's a huge range of ability, of health, of fitness. The distinction between "disabled" and "not disabled" isn't always as clear cut as you'd think.

Also, to bring up the much-used example of Stephen Hawking, there's a guy who is physically "broken." Yet, compared to him, I'm mentally disabled. One person can be both profoundly disabled and also damn near super-powered at the same time!

So you'd want her NOT to abort you?


END OF DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD!

Somehow, I knew some holier-than-thou do-gooder would turn this into an anti-abortion crusade. In a way, it's my fault. I didn't make myself clear. My problem was not with Nanatsu's claim that this woman shouldn't have tried to carry the baby to term per se, as I know better than almost anyone here how difficult it is to care for a disabled child. I cannot condemn any woman who decides that it would be too much to handle. Quite frankly, condsidering how poorly my parents raised me, they should have aborted me. I'd rather be an aborted fetus than the severely screwed up person that I am. I objected to two things. First Nanatsu did not NOT say that this woman knew her son would be born like this. Unless I'm misunderstanding her words, she said that the woman's doctor's were very clear that the child would never be self-sufficient; not that they told her this while the child was still in utero. What we're talking about here isn't abortion, it's euthanasia and eugenics. I object to the notion that the disabled are somehow unfit (although Nanatsu assured me that that wasn't her intention, and I believe her). Second I object to the notion that not aborting or abandoning a disabled child is somehow selfish. The fact that my life sucked had little to do with my disability and more to do with my family. Yes, this poor woman is in over her head. Everyone who has commented to the effect of how stupid and selfish this woman was for trying to cope with her child's condition has simply reinforced my belief that the human race has absolutely NO redeeming value.

I understand that you weren't talking about killing born infants. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough. My point was that I believe my brother is a good addition to the world. If we'd known, before his birth, that he would end up this way, should my mother have terminated the pregnancy?
[...]
I'm rambling. I'm sorry. This subject is weird for me.

No, that was good. Maybe not your usual level of factuality, but still well up to the "worth reading" standard.

=======

Also, to bring up the much-used example of Stephen Hawking, there's a guy who is physically "broken." Yet, compared to him, I'm mentally disabled. One person can be both profoundly disabled and also damn near super-powered at the same time!

The much-used example of Hawking is also something of a red-herring, since as far as I know there is no genetic test which would have identified his ALS in the womb.

Another question raised by Hawking is late-onset genetic disease. From my brief reading of WikiP, there is a genetic form of ALS, Familial Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, which CAN be given a probability (40% it says) by genetic tests, but generally comes about between the ages of 40 and 60.

I'd argue that a person so affected still has the best 40 years of their life, and denying them any life at all because they have a chance of developing a disease when they are legally adult and still able to choose euthanasia (unimpaired judgement) is really taking away a decision which should be theirs.

EDIT: Oh, I used Hawking myself. However, we should be careful to just use him as an example of a "person with a disability but huge ability too" and not step over that line into "but eugenics would have killed Hawking." I'm not totally sure that embryonic tests couldn't have identified his illness or potential for illness, like I said: I just wred a bit of WikiPedia and that's all I know.

The much-used example of Hawking is also something of a red-herring, since as far as I know there is no genetic test which would have identified his ALS in the womb.

Helen Keller good enough?

However, this arguement is a red herring too (;)).

The point is more that we cannot judge someone's "worth" on what they look like or obvious physical disabilities.

Helen Keller good enough?

However, this arguement is a red herring too (;)).

Particularly since Helen Keller was born completely normal. It was a childhood illness which took her sight and hearing.

:)

Somehow, I knew some holier-than-thou do-gooder would turn this into an anti-abortion crusade.

No, it's even worse than that. Your comments to this thread show it's hitting pretty close to home for you ... and you've been really down about your future recently too.

That's pretty much what Nova Magna Germanica is reduced to, they gave up winning a debate months ago.

That you gave a civil answer at all makes it pretty plain you're twice the person he is. At least twice.
:fluffle:

I understand that you weren't talking about killing born infants. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough. My point was that I believe my brother is a good addition to the world. If we'd known, before his birth, that he would end up this way, should my mother have terminated the pregnancy? I'm biased as all hell, of course, but I don't think that's necessarily a better choice. Having my brother has been much, much harder than having a "normal" kid added to our family, but I believe it's worth it.

No, Bottle, you made your point perfectly clear. Your brother is a great part of your family, he's a good kid and it 's normal of you to feel weird about a topic like this one when something similar to what I discussed touched you so closely. Your brother, as any other human being (and I'm not contradicting myself) deserves to be alive.

I want you to know, as I told Maineiacs, that if my bluntness on the subject offended any of you, I'm terribly sorry. I can't stop feeling like a monster since I saw that child yesterday and actually thought about the points I established on the OP.

I used your post as an example because before you came into the discussion, someone said that I was in favor of practicing euthanazing children with disabilities and that's not the case.

My point here is that I don't think you can know things like that ahead of time. It could have turned out that my brother was both handicapped and a jerk. I have personally met several kids who are handicapped and also total jackasses. Being handicapped doesn't magically guarantee a person will be good or kind or anything, after all, because handicapped people are PEOPLE, and some people are jerks. But you can't really know until you meet a person, can you?

In the case discussed on the OP, the mother knew ahead of time, by her second trimester, that her unborn son was already suffering from severe palsy and that he might be deaf too.

Even a child with palsy (and Steven Hawkins was given as an example by another of the posters) can grow up to be a productive person in society. But it's not society nor productivity what concerns me. It's the fact that this child, Ricardo, can't speak, can't hear, can't talk, can't move and he remains alive because he's strapped to a breathing machine.

That he's a blessing to his mother, like your brother is a blessing to your family, I don not doubt. But, is it fair to him to be kept that way?

And you're never going to know if that kid "would have wanted to be born," so don't worry about it.

I still feel like a monster after voicing and feeling what I did.

I think it's wrong to assume that all seriously-disabled people would have been better off not being born. I think it's wrong to assume that the world would be a better place if all such people were screened out before birth. I think it's a lousy idea for a potential parent to apply blanket rules to determine whether or not they, as an individual, will become parent to their, individual, child. Every parent is different, as is every child, and every situation. There's not going to be an easy, simple answer to this one.

No, there's not going to be a simple nor definitive way of approaching this subject. Perhaps is better if it stays unresolved.

Particularly since Helen Keller was born completely normal. It was a childhood illness which took her sight and hearing.

:)

Was she?

Well I live and learn. Thanks


Still, the principle remains

No, Bottle, you made your point perfectly clear.
[...]
I want you to know, as I told Maineiacs, that if my bluntness on the subject offended any of you, I'm terribly sorry. I can't stop feeling like a monster since I saw that child yesterday and actually thought about the points I established on the OP.

The lion analogy was poorly chosen (it happens after birth) and linking to the WikiPedia article which gave a quite different definition of "Survival of the fittest" from the way you used it (its a tendency not a case-by-case rule) was also understandable in light of how emotional you admit to being at the start of the thread.

Controversy makes a good thread, and in a sense it's useful to start out wrong. You're no bigot. :)

The lion analogy was poorly chosen (it happens after birth) and linking to the WikiPedia article which gave a quite different definition of "Survival of the fittest" from the way you used it (its a tendency not a case-by-case rule) was also understandable in light of how emotional you admit to being at the start of the thread.

Controversy makes a good thread, and in a sense it's useful to start out wrong. You're no bigot. :)

Point noted and taken.:)

They kill queens based on the genetics that queen has; sounds like eugenics to me.
Evolution mixes fine with eugenics; evolution mixes fine with pretty much anything but suicide. But that's not an endorsement.

Possibly this is a semantic argument. I've always taken eugenics to require intent. In other words, we are breeding towards X or Y. Evolution on the other hand has no intent. It just happens.

Nononono, that's a title. A nickname is for when I'm not purging the Earth of your filthy right-handedness.

My apologies then Gen the TWO, for confusing them. :D

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?

Comments?

I watched a TV show once where a lioness was taking care of a baby goat, after losing her own cubs, (who were eaten by another male lion). She was starving, the other animal pay her no heed, and as far as her insticts could tell, he was doomed without his natural mother. Eventually, she failed to protect it from some hyenas, because she was too weak as to continue keeping the goat close, and the baby was dead. Soon afterwards, she died from starvation, as she was too weakened to hunt again due to the effort expended in keeping the baby safe.

Interesting coincidence. This woman is going to expend herself so much that she's going to die trying to care for his son, perhaps he will die eventually and the mother will follow soon. In the case of the lioness, it was a baby of an entirely different species. So, in the animal kingdom this anomaly is also present.

So, it this stupid behavior? In my proud opinion, it is, but I can understand it. I think I'll never understand you breeders at all.

I suppose I should make an effort to add something serious to this discussion...

My youngest son has Cerebral Palsy, two forms actually, in addition to that he has OCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCD) and some symptoms of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism. If we (my wife and I) had known while she was still pregnant that he would have these problems we would have considered abortion.

<snip>
So, it this stupid behavior? In my proud opinion, it is, but I can understand it. I think I'll never understand you breeders at all.

I find it strange that you would see this behavior as anomalous or stupid.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be so wrapped up in a severe case of self-centeredness. Hasn't it dawned on you that it's exactly a sacrifice like that which gives some people meaning? You guys talk about this mom as if she were somehow a victim of her own silliness.

Frankly I think she deserves a hell of a lot more respect than that. Her life will be shortened by this sacrifice but IMHO that gives her life more meaning and value than most of the people I've met in my life who live to a ripe old age. Instead of obsessing over how it's hurting HER and trying to get out of it she has chosen to make the sacrifice anyway.

So what if her son can't be 'cured?' Is that the only measure by which we can evaluate her success? If she dies and he follows her to the grave, will we look at her and say "what a shame... a life wasted?" I won't. I see no waste. I see love. I see compassion. I see self-sacrifice. What could be more noble than that?

Don't judge her, but don't pity her either. Just offer some respect to someone who deserves it.

I suppose I should make an effort to add something serious to this discussion...

My youngest son has Cerebral Palsy, two forms actually, in addition to that he has OCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCD) and some symptoms of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism. If we (my wife and I) had known while she was still pregnant that he would have these problems we would have considered abortion.

Which is what I have consider too and, although I'm sure I'll do it if that's ever the case, the realization of it makes me feel horrible.

Not quite done with the soapbox yet...

To relate what I just said to survival of the fittest... I think a person who is willing to give their all for someone who depends on them is more fit to live than plenty of the people I've met in my life. In human culture, a person's value is NOT measured merely by their ability to survive and procreate.

/soapbox

I find it strange that you would see this behavior as anomalous or stupid.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be so wrapped up in a severe case of self-centeredness. Hasn't it dawned on you that it's exactly a sacrifice like that which gives some people meaning? You guys talk about this mom as if she were somehow a victim of her own silliness.

Frankly I think she deserves a hell of a lot more respect than that. Her life will be shortened by this sacrifice but IMHO that gives her life more meaning and value than most of the people I've met in my life who live to a ripe old age. Instead of obsessing over how it's hurting HER and trying to get out of it she has chosen to make the sacrifice anyway.

So what if her son can't be 'cured?' Is that the only measure by which we can evaluate her success? If she dies and he follows her to the grave, will we look at her and say "what a shame... a life wasted?" I won't. I see no waste. I see love. I see compassion. I see self-sacrifice. What could be more noble than that?


Don't judge her, but don't pity her either. Just offer some respect to someone who deserves it.

To make one thing clear, I don't pity nor condemn the mother. I am angry at her. And I am angry at myself because, after taking a look at that child, I wished right there and then that he wasn't born. Strapped to machines, unable to communicate nor know what was happening around him. Incredibly cruel!! And by thinking those things, I am and will always feel like a monster. That boy shouldn't have been born. He shouldn't have, and saying it makes me sad. So sad... saying it makes me feel like I'm an evil person, that I don't have feelings. Keeping a human hooked to a machine is horrible!

But I don't fool myself. I voiced how I felt on the subject and I'm not looking for anyone's sympathy. The mother deserves no feeling on my part whatsoever. But the child does.

To make one thing clear, I don't pity nor condemn the mother. I am angry at her. And I am angry at myself because, after taking a look at that child, I wished right there and then that he wasn't born. Strapped to machines, unable to communicate nor know what was happening around him. Incredibly cruel!! And by thinking those things, I am and will always feel like a monster. That boy shouldn't have been born. He shouldn't have, and saying it makes me sad. So sad... saying it makes me feel like I'm an evil person, that I don't have feelings. Keeping a human hooked to a machine is horrible!

I understand, and my comments weren't really directed toward you, but more toward a few of the responses.


But I don't fool myself. I voiced how I felt on the subject and I'm not looking for anyone's sympathy. The mother deserves no feeling on my part whatsoever. But the child does.

We disagree on the mom, but that's alright.

I don't think you should feel guilty or like a monster for having the thoughts you do. Thoughts are our most intimate possession and yet the hardest thing to control. It's how you act on those thoughts that defines you as a person. Who can know the thoughts that went through this mom's head? Maybe she berates herself too for the same reason and feels guilty about it... but the nobility lies in the fact that she still does the right thing anyway.

The fact that you feel bad about thinking those things is a sign that you're a good person, but don't let it consume you. :)

I don't think you should feel guilty or like a monster for having the thoughts you do. Thoughts are our most intimate possession and yet the hardest thing to control. It's how you act on those thoughts that defines you as a person. Who can know the thoughts that went through this mom's head? Maybe she berates herself too for the same reason and feels guilty about it... but the nobility lies in the fact that she still does the right thing anyway.

The fact that you feel bad about thinking those things is a sign that you're a good person, but don't let it consume you. :)

QFT

I understand, and my comments weren't really directed toward you, but more toward a few of the responses.

I'm aware of that Neo B.


We disagree on the mom, but that's alright.

Yes, we do disagree. But at least we seem to agree to disagree and that's ok.

I don't think you should feel guilty or like a monster for having the thoughts you do. Thoughts are our most intimate possession and yet the hardest thing to control. It's how you act on those thoughts that defines you as a person. Who can know the thoughts that went through this mom's head? Maybe she berates herself too for the same reason and feels guilty about it... but the nobility lies in the fact that she still does the right thing anyway.

Her nobilty is aparent, and I'm sure she's a great mother. But this sacrifice is frightening and (in my eyes) irresponsible, and what will become of the child could be terrifying.

The fact that you feel bad about thinking those things is a sign that you're a good person, but don't let it consume you. :)

It won't. I'll just mop about it for a few more hours and then I'll go back to being me. No worries there.:)

I'm aware of that Neo B.


Ok just wanted to be sure. ;)


Yes, we do disagree. But at least we seem to agree to disagree and that's ok.


Totally. I wish there could be more of that around here...


Her nobilty is aparent, and I'm sure she's a great mother. But this sacrifice is frightening and (in my eyes) irresponsible, and what will become of the child could be terrifying.


Yes... it is terrifying. I hope she's able to find a solution in time.


It won't. I'll just mop about it for a few more hours and then I'll go back to being me. No worries there.:)

Good! Maybe the "how freaky can you be" thread will help with that ;)

I was riding the metro this morning, must have been around 11:00, and when it stopped at my destination I stumbled upon this lady with an 8 year old on a wheel chair.

You may think that there's nothing out of the ordinary, we see children and adults on wheel chairs every day. But with this child, there was something out of the ordinary to me. In fact, it was so out of the ordinary that it produced a series of feelings in me that have left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Since I had time to reach the office, I stopped to chat with the mother and she told me that her son was born with a sever case of cerebral palsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy). He (Ricardo was his name), couldn't talk, hear, nor see. He had to be strapped to a respirator, something I noticed from the plastic tube attached to his trachea and the oxygen tanks behind the wheel chair, and had to be fed. It so happened that the mother had also developed a severe case of ostheoporosis and the beginning of, from what she describe to me, fibromialgia.

She looked down trodden, because her doctor had told her a few days before that hers was a progressive condition and it could be crippling. If the condition worsened enough for her to be crippled in any way, her son was done for. She was on her own, there was no one to take care of the child other than her and she didn't know what to do.

Of course, I was speechless, and although I felt sad for her, I was also enraged. Why is that? She knew this child had no chance at life by himself, the doctors ahd been very clear on the matter and (I'm not questioning her devotion and love for him) still knowing this, she had him.

If I try to describe all the things I felt, this post, I fear, might sound bloggy to you all. So, drawing this to a close, don't you think Mother Nature is wise?

In the Animal Kingdom, when a lion baby is born sick, the mother knows it and lets it die. She knows this baby lion has no chance and there's no reason to waste it's energy in keeping it alive if she has two other babies that are perfectly healthy and that do have a chance to join the pride. This is called Survival of the Fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and I consider it wise. Do you think we humans should start doing that too? Considering that a child who's born with a severe condition and can't hear, talk or see, wouldn't it be better to let this child die? Is it cruel to still bring it into this world knowing he/she will never be able to fend for him/herself? That this child will never have a chance at a normal life, is it humane to raise it?

Comments?

The Nazis has a film called Dasein Ohne Leben. It made exactly the point you're making.

The völkisch state must see to it that only the healthy beget children .... Here the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future .... It must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and can therefore pass it on.

“National Socialism is nothing but applied biology.”

There was one area in which the Nazis did insist upon a clear break with medical tradition: They mounted a consistent attack upon what they viewed as exaggerated Christian compassion for the weak individual instead of tending to the health of the group, of the Volk. This partly Nietzschean position, as articulated by Ramm, included a rejection of the Christian principle of caritas or charity, and of the Church’s “commandment to attend to the incurably ill person and render him medical aid unto his death.”33 The same position was expressed in the Nazi Party medical outlet Ziel und Weg (Aim and Road) from the time of its founding in 1931. The matter was put strongly by Dr. Arthur Guett, a high-ranking health official, who declared that “the ill-conceived ‘love of thy neighbor’ has to disappear .... It is the supreme duty of the ... state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the population in order to secure ... a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk [Volk] for all eternity.”

There was considerable advocacy elsewhere of “mercy killing,” including its recommendation in the United States by the same Foster Kennedy who was honored at the Heidelberg jubilee.¹ And anyone trained in American medicine has personal experience of doctors, nurses, and medical attendants colluding in the death of patients, usually children, who have been extremely impaired physically and mentally. But those practices have been restrained by legal limits and strong public reaction, and have not developed into a systematic program of killing those designated as unworthy of living.

In Germany, however, such a project had been discussed from the time of the impact of “scientific racism” in intellectual circles during the last decade of the nineteenth century. Central to that development was the stress upon the integrity of the organic body of the Volk — the collectivity, people, or nation as embodiment of racial-cultural substance. That kind of focus, as with any intense nationalism, takes on a biological cast. One views one’s group as an “organism” whose “life” one must preserve, and whose “death” one must combat, in ways 'that transcend individual fate.

One such theorist, Adolf Jost, issued an early call for direct medical killing in a book published in 1895 and significantly entitled “The Right to Death” (Das Recht auf den Tod). Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American tradition of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual’s “right to die” or “right to death” or “right to his or her own death,” as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state’s right to kill. While he spoke of compassion and relief of suffering of the incurably ill, his focus was mainly on the health of the Volk and the state. He pointed out that the state already exercises those “rights” in war, where thousands of individuals are sacrificed for the good of the state. Ultimately the argument was biological: “The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.” The state must own death — must kill — in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy.²*

The crucial work — “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life” (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens) — was published in 1920 and written jointly by two distinguished German professors: the jurist Karl Binding, retired after forty years at the University of Leipzig, and Alfred Hoche, professor of psychiatry at the University of Freiburg. Carefully argued in the numbered-paragraph form of the traditional philosophical treatise, the book included as “unworthy life” not only the incurably ill but large segments of the mentally ill, the feebleminded, and retarded and deformed children. More than that, the authors professionalized and medicalized the entire concept. And they stressed the therapeutic goal of that concept: destroying life unworthy of life is “purely a healing treatment” and a “healing work.”

Binding and Hoche turned out to be the prophets of direct medical killing. While there were subsequent papers and discussions by German psychiatrists of the Hoche-Binding thesis, it is probably fair to say that, during the years prior to the Nazi assumption of power, their thesis was by no means a majority view in German psychiatry and medicine.7 Under the Nazis, there was increasing discussion of the possibility of mercy killings, of the Hoche concept of the “mentally dead,” and of the enormous economic drain on German society caused by the large number of these impaired people. A mathematics text asked the student to calculate how many government loans to newly married couples could be granted for the amount of money it cost the state to care for “the crippled, the criminal, and the insane.”8

Moreover, the extensive public and medical discussion of the sterilization project tended always to suggest that more radical measures were necessary. In an August 1933 speech at the opening ceremony for a state medical academy in Munich, the Bavarian commissioner of health, Professor Walter Schultze, declared that sterilization was insufficient: psychopaths, the mentally retarded, and other inferior persons must be isolated and killed. He noted, “This policy has already been initiated in our concentration camps.”9 On all sides there took shape the principle that the practice of extermination was part of the legitimate business of government.

Mental hospitals became an important center for the developing “euthanasia” consciousness. From 1934, these hospitals were encouraged to neglect their patients; each year funds were reduced and state inspections of standards were either made perfunctory or suspended altogether. Especially important were courses held in psychiatric institutions for leading government officials and functionaries — courses featuring grotesque “demonstrations” orchestrated to display the most repulsive behavior of regressed patients — of “life unworthy of life.” After 1938, these courses were systematically extended to include members of the SS, political leaders of the Party, the police, prison officials, and the press. In the process the medical profession itself was made ready for the extraordinary tasks it was to be assigned.10

The Nazis exploited film for the same purpose, and doctors played a large role here as well. Early films, such as “The Inheritance” (Das Erbe, 1935), were mainly didactic and ostensibly scientific in depicting medical and social consequences of hereditary impairment. A subsequent film, “The Victim of the Past” (Opfer der Vergangenheit, 1937), covered the same ground and went much further: it not only contrasted “healthy German citizens” (girls doing gymnastics, etc.) with regressed occupants of back wards, but spoke of Jewish mental patients and of the “frightening transgression” of the law of natural selection, which must be reinstated “by humane methods.”



Wow. You're a true Nazi...

Ok just wanted to be sure. ;)



Totally. I wish there could be more of that around here...



Yes... it is terrifying. I hope she's able to find a solution in time.



Good! Maybe the "how freaky can you be" thread will help with that ;)

;)

I watched a TV show once where a lioness was taking care of a baby goat, after losing her own cubs, (who were eaten by another male lion). She was starving, the other animal pay her no heed, and as far as her insticts could tell, he was doomed without his natural mother. Eventually, she failed to protect it from some hyenas, because she was too weak as to continue keeping the goat close, and the baby was dead. Soon afterwards, she died from starvation, as she was too weakened to hunt again due to the effort expended in keeping the baby safe.

Interesting coincidence. This woman is going to expend herself so much that she's going to die trying to care for his son, perhaps he will die eventually and the mother will follow soon. In the case of the lioness, it was a baby of an entirely different species. So, in the animal kingdom this anomaly is also present.

So, it this stupid behavior? In my proud opinion, it is, but I can understand it. I think I'll never understand you breeders at all.

Is good post.

But you know "breeders" is a somewhat derisory term used by gays to describe straights?

Straights who don't intend to breed are entitled to feel offended. It's like calling gays "shit-sticks" as though the only reason to have sex is to get your dick covered in shit.

From what I've read, the woman's sickness is not related to her son's condition. It just bumps up the level of tragedy involved.

The urge to reproduce is very subtle. As it should be. It doesn't just require you to have sex with the opposite gender ... effective parenthood requires much more than that.

As a rather ungracious swipe at another poster, the last resort of the urge to parenthood is "fuck. If you can, fuck." Clearly, rape has been rewarded by the principle "survival of the fittest."

Wow. You're a true Nazi...

Called a Nazi yet again by someone who clearly hasn't taken the trouble of reading throughout the thread.:rolleyes:

Wow. You're a true Nazi...

Hey, that's not fair. What the Nazis really did wrong was try to invade Greater Europe.

The US was cool with the Nazis until it looked like that might actually happen.

Those Nazis put on a damn fine Olympics. You gonna hold that against them?

EDIT: It IS a rather long thread now, Nanatsu. :)

Hey, that's not fair. What the Nazis really did wrong was try to invade Greater Europe.
<snip>

EDIT: It IS a rather long thread now, Nanatsu. :)

Meh, at least I know I'm not a Nazi.

Yeah, this thread has become rather... extended.:p

Called a Nazi yet again by someone who clearly hasn't taken the trouble of reading throughout the thread.:rolleyes:

I was kinda surprised it took this long. Usually the Hitler tactic gets whipped out way sooner.

I was kinda surprised it took this long. Usually the Hitler tactic gets whipped out way sooner.

No, the Nazi reference was used from the very get go.:p

I find it strange that you would see this behavior as anomalous or stupid.

I do, however, I can understand the instinct, and so forth, I partially understand it and comprehend it.

A lot of people in this thread seem to be so wrapped up in a severe case of self-centeredness. Hasn't it dawned on you that it's exactly a sacrifice like that which gives some people meaning? You guys talk about this mom as if she were somehow a victim of her own silliness.

Depends on how you look at it. A sacrifice like that has no meaning. The kid is not going to get better, he isn't going to have a resemblance of a normal life. She's throwing away her life for nothing. If she sacrificed her life to improve his status of living in any way, she would have my respect. If she could actually change something through her sacrifice, she would have my respect. If she could exchange herself with her son, she would have my respect.

As it is, she's banging her head to a wall until she dies, willingly and knowing that she's not going to bring down not even a brick with her efforts. That's silly, even stupid, and she is a victim of her own silliness. My main feeling is pity, because she's just another victim of her basic instincts. Might sound callous to you, but that is the way it is. Sacrifice is only worthy when the cause is, and in this case, the only possible worthy cause is improvement of the kid. Continous breathing doesn't mean "life", as I see it, so step down of your high horse.

Frankly I think she deserves a hell of a lot more respect than that. Her life will be shortened by this sacrifice but IMHO that gives her life more meaning and value than most of the people I've met in my life who live to a ripe old age. Instead of obsessing over how it's hurting HER and trying to get out of it she has chosen to make the sacrifice anyway.

Frankly I think she deserves some degree of respect for her willpower, nothing else. You can use willpower in a stupid manner, anyway. Her sacrifice has no meaning, no purpose with the exception of hurting herself to the point of death. It's assisted, prolongued suicide.

So what if her son can't be 'cured?' Is that the only measure by which we can evaluate her success? If she dies and he follows her to the grave, will we look at her and say "what a shame... a life wasted?" I won't. I see no waste. I see love. I see compassion. I see self-sacrifice. What could be more noble than that?

Yeah, you kept a kid through an eternity of pain and you brought yourself down as a cost. Love, compassion? What I see here is perhaps obsession. Meaningless sacrifice. Maternal instinct. Love? The kid wants that? craves that? He asked for that? No, it's just what she sees as her duty, nothing more, nothing else.

Is good post.

But you know "breeders" is a somewhat derisory term used by gays to describe straights?

No, I had no idea.

Straights who don't intend to breed are entitled to feel offended. It's like calling gays "shit-sticks" as though the only reason to have sex is to get your dick covered in shit.

I'm a straight not able to breed. That take me to another level. As I'm not able, I don't intend to breed. Thus, the rest of the world's population able to breed is a "breeder", and the few "chosen" ones unable are not. If they decide to be gay, have or not to have children it's their problem, if they have the ability, they are theorically breeders. For me, perfectly fertile people, male or female, are breeders, without taking into account if they are gay, bi, straight, or anything else.

No, Bottle, you made your point perfectly clear. Your brother is a great part of your family, he's a good kid and it 's normal of you to feel weird about a topic like this one when something similar to what I discussed touched you so closely. Your brother, as any other human being (and I'm not contradicting myself) deserves to be alive.

I want you to know, as I told Maineiacs, that if my bluntness on the subject offended any of you, I'm terribly sorry. I can't stop feeling like a monster since I saw that child yesterday and actually thought about the points I established on the OP.

I used your post as an example because before you came into the discussion, someone said that I was in favor of practicing euthanazing children with disabilities and that's not the case.

No worries. I certainly wasn't offended.

I've had thoughts similar to yours, actually. There have been some really difficult times with my brother, and I've definitely thought about how much easier life would be if we hadn't added him to the family. There have been times I felt like it was just too freaking unfair. From talking with other people in support groups and such, I've learned that these feelings aren't remotely rare. Most people who have a disabled child have that kind of thought at one time or another, and just about all of them feel completely horrible about it!

I don't think feelings like that make you a monster. What would be monstrous would be choosing not to examine your feelings, or choosing to act on them unthinkingly. Having feelings isn't wrong.


In the case discussed on the OP, the mother knew ahead of time, by her second trimester, that her unborn son was already suffering from severe palsy and that he might be deaf too.

Even a child with palsy (and Steven Hawkins was given as an example by another of the posters) can grow up to be a productive person in society. But it's not society nor productivity what concerns me. It's the fact that this child, Ricardo, can't speak, can't hear, can't talk, can't move and he remains alive because he's strapped to a breathing machine.

That he's a blessing to his mother, like your brother is a blessing to your family, I don not doubt. But, is it fair to him to be kept that way?

Yeah, that's what makes this such a mess. On the one hand, if you say "Well, perhaps she should never have had this child," then it's selfish because she's choosing not to have a kid because of all the extra effort required to care for him. But if you say, "Well, perhaps she should have the kid," then it's selfish because maybe the kid is a blessing to HER but his life isn't much of a blessing to HIM.

Neurological/mental disorders can make this the worst, in my opinion, because you can't simply ask the person in question. Stephen Hawking is more than capable of sharing his feelings on his life, but kids like my brother...not as much.

My brother has a lot of trouble with communicating abstract concepts. It seems weird, but he has a lot of trouble naming and sharing his own feelings. It took years of therapy before he was able to articulate "frustration," as distinct from just "angry" or "sad." He FELT frustration, but had not figured out how to share his experience with us.

Obviously this makes it very hard to ask him things like, "Are you happy to be alive?"

With the kid you saw on the metro, it's rather similar. You can't get at what's really in his mind. So no matter what choice you make, you're making it based on what YOU think or feel, not based on what HE thinks or feels. That is something that scares me...the idea of making life-or-death decisions for another person without even knowing what their opinion really is!

Of course, that's a lot of parenting, even in normal situations, right? I mean, your kid can't communicate their abstract feelings for years and years, but you've still got to make hard choices.

No worries. I certainly wasn't offended.

I've had thoughts similar to yours, actually. There have been some really difficult times with my brother, and I've definitely thought about how much easier life would be if we hadn't added him to the family. There have been times I felt like it was just too freaking unfair. From talking with other people in support groups and such, I've learned that these feelings aren't remotely rare. Most people who have a disabled child have that kind of thought at one time or another, and just about all of them feel completely horrible about it!

I don't think feelings like that make you a monster. What would be monstrous would be choosing not to examine your feelings, or choosing to act on them unthinkingly. Having feelings isn't wrong.


Yeah, that's what makes this such a mess. On the one hand, if you say "Well, perhaps she should never have had this child," then it's selfish because she's choosing not to have a kid because of all the extra effort required to care for him. But if you say, "Well, perhaps she should have the kid," then it's selfish because maybe the kid is a blessing to HER but his life isn't much of a blessing to HIM.

Neurological/mental disorders can make this the worst, in my opinion, because you can't simply ask the person in question. Stephen Hawking is more than capable of sharing his feelings on his life, but kids like my brother...not as much.

My brother has a lot of trouble with communicating abstract concepts. It seems weird, but he has a lot of trouble naming and sharing his own feelings. It took years of therapy before he was able to articulate "frustration," as distinct from just "angry" or "sad." He FELT frustration, but had not figured out how to share his experience with us.

Obviously this makes it very hard to ask him things like, "Are you happy to be alive?"

With the kid you saw on the metro, it's rather similar. You can't get at what's really in his mind. So no matter what choice you make, you're making it based on what YOU think or feel, not based on what HE thinks or feels. That is something that scares me...the idea of making life-or-death decisions for another person without even knowing what their opinion really is!

Of course, that's a lot of parenting, even in normal situations, right? I mean, your kid can't communicate their abstract feelings for years and years, but you've still got to make hard choices.

I'm glad we seem to agree on some points and I'm also glad I didn't offend you.