Community Tard Baby General (includes brain dead kids) - Fundies and their genetic Fuckups; Parents of corpses in denial

[Fliddaroonie]

Not too sure about support in Ukraine itself, don't they typically dump disabled kids in those awful orphanages where they just leave the kids to rot in cribs? That's where a lot of the Christian martyr potato parents in the US obtain their collection of adopted kids.

Not sure about Ukraine but it was a USSR satellite state and they had actually a pretty progressive stance on abortion.

Could you perhaps be thinking about Romania? Under the Cauczescu regime, not only was abortion banned, but so was contraception, too, meaning orphanages were rammed full on the 1980s and 1990s. Yes there was abuse but there were also simply too many children there for staff to care for. So perfectly healthy neonates went in and they were harmed and damaged by the lack of care, and stimulation which would facilitate normal growth and development.

It was utterly horrific and a true stain on Romania's history

 

[katrizia]

Not sure about Ukraine but it was a USSR satellite state and they had actually a pretty progressive stance on abortion.

Could you perhaps be thinking about Romania? Under the Cauczescu regime, not only was abortion banned, but so was contraception, too, meaning orphanages were rammed full on the 1980s and 1990s. Yes there was abuse but there were also simply too many children there for staff to care for. So perfectly healthy neonates went in and they were harmed and damaged by the lack of care, and stimulation which would facilitate normal growth and development.

It was utterly horrific and a true stain on Romania's history

I think it happens in most of the Soviet Bloc countries.

https://gdc.unicef.org/resource/no-way-home-exploitation-and-abuse-children-ukraines-orphanages

Rejected: Ukraine’s Unwanted Children (Child Documentary) | Real Stories

 

[A tree]

Not sure about Ukraine but it was a USSR satellite state and they had actually a pretty progressive stance on abortion.

Could you perhaps be thinking about Romania? Under the Cauczescu regime, not only was abortion banned, but so was contraception, too, meaning orphanages were rammed full on the 1980s and 1990s. Yes there was abuse but there were also simply too many children there for staff to care for. So perfectly healthy neonates went in and they were harmed and damaged by the lack of care, and stimulation which would facilitate normal growth and development.

It was utterly horrific and a true stain on Romania's history

The Romanian orphans were so neglected they became pseudo-autistic. One in 10 had autistic type behaviours but it was almost entirely as a result of trauma and being raised with no love or warmth or primary attachment caregiver figure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-children-from-romanian-orphanages-can-tell-us-about-autism/2017/05/12/c8d772a2-3004-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html

 

[GenociderSyo]

If you want to see a good example of autistic behaviors due to neglect theres a documentary and a follwup called Bulgaria's Abandoned Children. You can watch a teenage girl who comes in autistic but very vocal and ends up just sitting and rocking within a few months.

 

[lolcow yoghurt]

Could you perhaps be thinking about Romania? Under the Cauczescu regime

You mean Ceaușescu? The soviet bootlickin commie?
Anyway, I think it explains why Romanians are autists.

 

[Fliddaroonie]

You mean Ceaușescu? The soviet bootlickin commie?
Anyway, I think it explains why Romanians are batshit insane homo commies.

Aye that's him. Apologies, long week and can no spell plz and thank.

There's actually a pretty good three part BBC documentary about failed commie states that's on YouTube. It's pretty interesting. I forget the name but it's worth a watch, specially the third and final episode which specifically focuses on Romania.

 

[Android raptor]

The Romanian orphans were so neglected they became pseudo-autistic. One in 10 had autistic type behaviours but it was almost entirely as a result of trauma and being raised with no love or warmth or primary attachment caregiver figure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-children-from-romanian-orphanages-can-tell-us-about-autism/2017/05/12/c8d772a2-3004-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html

Just think, red states are about to experience this phenomenon even more than they already do.

 

[Sam Hyde Simp]

"Being born just to enjoy life while others cater to your needs sounds like the ideal life."

That's assuming you don't require multiple surgeries, feeding tubes, suffer from seizures, require a ventilator, etc etc like the majority of the kids we see here

Yes, there is the chance that if it's severe physical disability-
-that would require surgeries and around the clock care, but to me, human life has too much potential value that I would always take the chance.
We are beings with consciousness:
who knows what happens to us when we are freed from our mortal coil.
Maybe the disabled are tests to see who we are. As society is judged by how it takes care of the most venerable, and subjecting the most venerable to immediate termination is logical but not good. Hell, eugenics is logical. Look at slaves they are bred to be strong; so imagine, if we killed all dumb people = better society right ?

I'm really not sure, I wonder if those options aren't available in Thailand? Obviously Ukraine is fucked at the moment. The nanny seems to really love the kid, probably a matter of time til she just leaves him with the nanny permanently. She's trying to turn 'special motherhood" into her brand but obviously that's not working out too well.

She survives off her business and donations. I don't think Thailand has any type of benefits or support for the disabled. Shitty as spanking him his, she's doing handling it better than I would. I for sure would have left him at the hospital and got on the next flight out of Thailand. No fucking way.

I know a lot of missionary groups active there that would at least provide financial support/caretakers. Know a family that took a child from being offered to the monks--who are known to be fking faggots.

Yeah but if you get born to parents who don't actually love you or want you to be happy or as healthy as possible, you get stuck in a living hell with no easy way to get out, or even make others aware you're being hurt in the first place.

I've heard of severely disabled kids having everything from their parents putting cigarettes out on them to being raped and sold to others to rape by their own fathers.

Bringing any kid into an existence where it isn't wanted or won't be cared for properly tends to end poorly, with disabled kids you pretty quickly get into some of the worst acts of cruelty to children you can think of.

Yeah raise a good point; there is some con there for sure.
But only if you think life just ends when things go black.
I think that there will be justice; so I have to try to live consistently.

 

[A tree]

Yeah raise a good point; there is some con there for sure.
But only if you think life just ends when things go black.
I think that there will be justice; so I have to try to live consistently.

Assuming you're Christian where do you stand on Mercy as a concept?

Given that the biblical rules were made at a time where disabled people didn't survive and life extending medicine didn't exist surely Christianity has to somewhat retcon itself to avoid causing terrible suffering?

Say I'm a loving God and I'm looking down at Gwen Hartley and Robyn Ramirez, am i not thinking "it was My will for those children to die. If I was sending a lesson it was a lesson for those parents in mortality."

Who is laughing in the face of God more? The parent who knowingly destroys Gods creation by allowing the child to pass or the parent who defies God's will by opting for a feeding tube to prolong the child's suffering?

For me the feeding tube parent acts for themselves. Even if they act in faith it is their faith, the child has no concept of faith or God. The parent acts for what they believe is the good of their own soul. They already believe the child will go to heaven being an innocent, so they prolong the suffering lest they themselves are punished in the afterlife.

The child lives out the torture year on year in the material world. The world we know to be "real".

So we cause a child who God willed to die, to live and suffer, in order to possibly save the soul of an adult, in an afterlife which no human can possibly know exists.

If I was a loving God how would I view the parent who chooses terrible grief and suffering for themselves in the material world and allows God's will to be done and the child to pass.

So who committed the selfless act? The parent who chose certain suffering for themselves so the child could know peace eternal in heaven or the parent who chose suffering for the child so they could have their own reward in heaven.

Who was more christ-like in their motivation?

 

[Fliddaroonie]

Yes, there is the chance that if it's severe physical disability-
-that would require surgeries and around the clock care, but to me, human life has too much potential value that I would always take the chance.
We are beings with consciousness:
who knows what happens to us when we are freed from our mortal coil.
Maybe the disabled are tests to see who we are. As society is judged by how it takes care of the most venerable, and subjecting the most venerable to immediate termination is logical but not good. Hell, eugenics is logical. Look at slaves they are bred to be strong; so imagine, if we killed all dumb people = better society right ?


I know a lot of missionary groups active there that would at least provide financial support/caretakers. Know a family that took a child from being offered to the monks--who are known to be fking faggots.



Yeah raise a good point; there is some con there for sure.
But only if you think life just ends when things go black.
I think that there will be justice; so I have to try to live consistently.

I mean yes. But in some cases like anencephaly, consciousness is not possible. So if you don't mind me asking, where do you stand on such cases?

Where a neonate will literally not have the actual brain structure to allow for consciousness. It's a hard one for sure and I'm convinced most of us who deal with that are the outliers. A plan and a system still has to allow for those.

Not to pl too much. But to be told at your 20 week foetal abnormality scan Mrs flidds u be cooking a spudlet? Do you choose to carry to term knowing it'll die soon after or what?

It's a hard thing to negotiate, and not a choice I would wish upon my worstest enemy.

 

[A tree]

I mean yes. But in some cases like anencephaly, consciousness is not possible. So if you don't mind me asking, where do you stand on such cases?

Where a neonate will literally not have the actual brain structure to allow for consciousness. It's a hard one for sure and I'm convinced most of us who deal with that are the outliers. A plan and a system still has to allow for those.

Not to pl too much. But to be told at your 20 week foetal abnormality scan Mrs flidds u be cooking a spudlet? Do you choose to carry to term knowing it'll die soon after or what?

It's a hard thing to negotiate, and not a choice I would wish upon my worstest enemy.

Sorry to come over all mumsnet hun but I'm so sorry to read this. A hideous decision to have to make. There are no winners in these situations. Every possible outcome is desperately sad so we much choose the one which we can live with.

 

[John Merston]

Maybe the disabled are tests to see who we are. As society is judged by how it takes care of the most venerable, and subjecting the most venerable to immediate termination is logical but not good. Hell, eugenics is logical. Look at slaves they are bred to be strong; so imagine, if we killed all dumb people = better society right ?

Comparing a child with ,say, a mild case of cerebral palsy to a literal brainless baby is a serious insult to the former.

 

[Android raptor]

Maybe the disabled are tests to see who we are. As society is judged by how it takes care of the most venerable, and subjecting the most venerable to immediate termination is logical but not good. Hell, eugenics is logical. Look at slaves they are bred to be strong; so imagine, if we killed all dumb people = better society right?

I can assure you that even people with relatively minor disabilities don't like being thought of or treated as a test for normies. Disabled kids are not accessories that exist to show the world how special and empathic their non-disabled family members are.

Especially since a lot of those families aren't nearly as kind and empathic to the kid as they want outsiders to think behind closed doors.

 

[A tree]

Comparing a child with ,say, a mild case of cerebral palsy to a literal brainless baby is a serious insult to the former.

It should really go without saying that this thread isn't about disabled people. I'm sure there's a few of us here. It's about children who can never have any quality of life ever and the only potential they have is the potential to suffer as long as they live.

 

[Sam Hyde Simp]

Assuming you're Christian where do you stand on Mercy as a concept?

Given that the biblical rules were made at a time where disabled people didn't survive and life extending medicine didn't exist surely Christianity has to somewhat retcon itself to avoid causing terrible suffering?

Say I'm a loving God and I'm looking down at Gwen Hartley and Robyn Ramirez, am i not thinking "it was My will for those children to die. If I was sending a lesson it was a lesson for those parents in mortality."

Who is laughing in the face of God more? The parent who knowingly destroys Gods creation by allowing the child to pass or the parent who defies God's will by opting for a feeding tube to prolong the child's suffering?

For me the feeding tube parent acts for themselves. Even if they act in faith it is their faith, the child has no concept of faith or God. The parent acts for what they believe is the good of their own soul. They already believe the child will go to heaven being an innocent, so they prolong the suffering lest they themselves are punished in the afterlife.

The child lives out the torture year on year in the material world. The world we know to be "real".

So we cause a child who God willed to die, to live and suffer, in order to possibly save the soul of an adult, in an afterlife which no human can possibly know exists.

If I was a loving God how would I view the parent who chooses terrible grief and suffering for themselves in the material world and allows God's will to be done and the child to pass.

So who committed the selfless act? The parent who chose certain suffering for themselves so the child could know peace eternal in heaven or the parent who chose suffering for the child so they could have their own reward in heaven.

Who was more christ-like in their motivation?

Lots of interesting questions!

Presupposition:
I would say that it's impossible to know that someone does or does not have a conscience, soul, spirit, w/e just based on brain activity .

I would also say I believe more in the 'God who Is' than typical Christianity. Although, I had to do something with the historical person of Christ, so I guess I would be called a Christian.

Mercy is an interesting concept as "mercy triumphs over judgement".
So it would really have to do with how 'mercy' is defined.

Say all that waits us is nihilism. Black nothing is waiting.
Then ending their ONLY possible chance at SOMETHING is a terrible injustice.


If let's say there is a loving entity of all power waiting to receive them into perpetual bliss and forgive them automatically (you mentioned babies are sinless but I disagree those fuckers will bite you if u take their shit),
then of course the more merciful thing would be to terminate it immediately.

However, I am not all powerful nor all knowing,
so to try and play god and dispense mercy, as a being completely encased inside of time, is hubris of an unimaginable degree.

I would say the angels that came to Sodom is a good example of what I am talking about:

Disabled people aren't merely tests on mercy like the angels were.
Instead, they are a result of the fractured world we live in.
One where people will do anything to chase their own personal goals of happiness.

If nothing happens when you die, then you are a monster for eliminating the only chance they had at anything. even if that something was 10 seconds of brain function before endless nothing.--you played god, but maybe they would have wanted 10 seconds of something. Who are you to say?

If you believe a perfect, just God awaits them AND will forgive them on the count of being babies (sinless) THEN it's a mercy to kill them.

BUT if you believe what I do:
that they [disabled people , babies with seconds of life, cells DOA, w/e] are a result of the fractured state of the world, and they may have a chance at something because God may have more grace, then it's logical that you should raise them.

 

[Android raptor]

It should really go without saying that this thread isn't about disabled people. I'm sure there's a few of us here. It's about children who can never have any quality of life ever and the only potential they have is the potential to suffer as long as they live.

More than anything else, this thread is about shitty parents (and other unsavory characters like SBSK) exploiting their fucked up kids publicly, or carrying potatoes to term solely to grift and brag on the internet to other fundies about how life-affirming they are.

Plus random weird shit like dead embryo cumjars.

If nothing happens when you die, then you are a monster for eliminating the only chance they had at anything. even if that something was 10 seconds of brain function before endless nothing.--you played god, but maybe they would have wanted 10 seconds of something. Who are you to say?

Nah, no one is a monster for yeeting an embryo that has zero awareness or capacity to suffer. You are a monster if you force it to grow into a whole-ass kid destined to suffer and be mistreated.

I say this as a literal, doctor diagnosed, short bus-riding autist.

 

[A tree]

If nothing happens when you die, then you are a monster for eliminating the only chance they had at anything. even if that something was 10 seconds of brain function before endless nothing.--you played god, but maybe they would have wanted 10 seconds of something. Who are you to say?

Who are you to say they would want such a life? In the case of a true tater baby a decision is made either way:
A choice to allow nature to take its course or a choice to intervene. Why is the interventionist not also playing God?
The tater is a "soul" with zero agency. Someone else must make the decision. Why is the interventionist decision better in your eyes when it can only bring suffering.
To be absolutely clear these babies have died within days or minutes of birth for all of human history.
Why in the last 50 years would God have decided they should be forced to live? And if there is no God, your original argument was that it was wrong to take a life becuse you yourself might be punished in the afterlife.
So if there is no God what is the moral motivation to choose for someone else that they must live to suffer?

Why does one need to be all powerful or all knowing to make such a decision? It must be made by fallible mortals.

BUT if you believe what I do:
that they [disabled people] are a result of the fractured state of the world.

Can you expand on that? I dont believe my shitty body has anything to do with anything except my parents combined shitty genetics.
Are you saying I'm like this because people just can't get along?

 

[Sam Hyde Simp]

I mean yes. But in some cases like anencephaly, consciousness is not possible. So if you don't mind me asking, where do you stand on such cases?

Where a neonate will literally not have the actual brain structure to allow for consciousness. It's a hard one for sure and I'm convinced most of us who deal with that are the outliers. A plan and a system still has to allow for those.

Not to pl too much. But to be told at your 20 week foetal abnormality scan Mrs flidds u be cooking a spudlet? Do you choose to carry to term knowing it'll die soon after or what?

It's a hard thing to negotiate, and not a choice I would wish upon my worstest enemy.

I would just say brain activity != consciences.
Have been many documented "miracle" cases of low brain activity / no brain activity and patients make full recovery with everything intact.

I will call conscience --soul for sake of brevity.

And no one can say that something is born without a soul because I would argue that is the only differentiating factor from animal to human.
The very nature of humanity is contained in the soul .
No one has been able to define it accurately, yet we all (okay most) agree human life has something intrinsically valuable and worth protecting.

To answer your question I would endeavor keep it--I believe in an all powerful being.
And that means He/She/It/They can instantly change things. So, I would be wary to terminate any potential life and play at god.
However, stillborn and other things where it's verifiable 100% DOA, then I have no problem with "killing" for obvious reasons.

Who are you to say they would want such a life? In the case of a true tater baby a decision is made either way:
A choice to allow nature to take its course or a choice to intervene. Why is the interventionist not also playing God?
The tater is a "soul" with zero agency. Someone else must make the decision. Why is the interventionist decision better in your eyes when it can only bring suffering.
To be absolutely clear these babies have died within days or minutes of birth for all of human history.
Why in the last 50 years would God have decided they should be forced to live? And if there is no God, your original argument was that it was wrong to take a life becuse you yourself might be punished in the afterlife.
So if there is no God what is the moral motivation to choose for someone else that they must live to suffer?

Why does one need to be all powerful or all knowing to make such a decision? It must be made by fallible mortals.

Can you expand on that? I dont believe my shitty body has anything to do with anything except my parents combined shitty genetics.
Are you saying I'm like this because people just can't get along?

To answer your first question(s):
Because to live is to suffer. Our purpose isn't to avoid suffering our purpose is grander. To subdue nature, tame it, create, forge our own beings in our likeness-- to imitate who made us in all ways we can.

Ultimately we have completely different starting points;
I am not the one to make the call.
That's what I am saying. I will NOT let nature have it's way. I will force myself to learn, I will comb my hair, I will exercise because nature is constantly at war pushing me to disorder.
God is a God of Order.

To answer your final question:

It's not simply because "people don't get along".
It's because people want to be god.
They don't want anyone to tell them what to do and want to rule and reign.
That's the original fallacy of man--pride and one we all fight every day.
Because people will not submit to ultimate authority then all sorts of problems arise.
Imagine you are god. you created everything perfect and gave one rule. But your creations say:

"Nah I'm good I want to be you instead".
That decision made fractured the entire world.
What would you say?
"Okay you want to play at creator? Do it then. I'll back off to some other part of the universe. Try your hand at perfection. Fix things yourself!"

But God is not man, so still He intervenes and saves and dispenses mercy and justice to people with an upraised arm saying emphatically "I CAN DO A BETTER JOB THAN YOU [god]"

 

[Thomas Eugene Paris]

The Romanian orphans were so neglected they became pseudo-autistic. One in 10 had autistic type behaviours but it was almost entirely as a result of trauma and being raised with no love or warmth or primary attachment caregiver figure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-children-from-romanian-orphanages-can-tell-us-about-autism/2017/05/12/c8d772a2-3004-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html

There's an excellent documentary about this topic called Children Underground.

Spoiler

A close relative of mine worked for a multinational organization and had reason to live and work in some truly notorious places over the course of a career. Think Guatemala in the early 1990s, Bosnia shortly after the civil war, you get the idea. Until his death, he maintained that the most disturbing place he'd been was Romania shortly after the fall of Ceausescu. The young kids living in the subway stations huffing glue really did him in. He was not a touchy feely or paternal man, but those kids shook him to the core. I'll never forget the way he spoke about it.

 

[Fliddaroonie]

I would just say brain activity != consciences.
Have been many documented "miracle" cases of low brain activity / no brain activity and patients make full recovery with everything intact.

I will call conscience --soul for sake of brevity.

And no one can say that something is born without a soul because I would argue that is the only differentiating factor from animal to human.
The very nature of humanity is contained in the soul .
No one has been able to define it accurately, yet we all (okay most) agree human life has something intrinsically valuable and worth protecting.

To answer your question I would endeavor keep it--I believe in an all powerful being.
And that means He/She/It/They can instantly change things. So, I would be wary to terminate any potential life and play at god.
However, stillborn and other things where it's verifiable 100% DOA, then I have no problem with "killing" for obvious reasons.


To answer your first question(s):
Because to live is to suffer. Our purpose isn't to avoid suffering our purpose is grander. To subdue nature, tame it, create, forge our own beings in our likeness-- to imitate who made us in all ways we can.

Ultimately we have completely different starting points;
I am not the one to make the call.
That's what I am saying. I will NOT let nature have it's way. I will force myself to learn, I will comb my hair, I will exercise because nature is constantly at war pushing me to disorder.
God is a God of Order.

To answer your final question:

It's not simply because "people don't get along".
It's because people want to be god.
They don't want anyone to tell them what to do and want to rule and reign.
That's the original fallacy of man--pride and one we all fight every day.
Because people will not submit to ultimate authority then all sorts of problems arise.
Imagine you are god. you created everything perfect and gave one rule. But your creations say:

"Nah I'm good I want to be you instead".
That decision made fractured the entire world.
What would you say?
"Okay you want to play at creator? Do it then. I'll back off to some other part of the universe. Try your hand at perfection. Fix things yourself!"

But God is not man, so still He intervenes and saves and dispenses mercy and justice to people with an upraised arm saying emphatically "I CAN DO A BETTER JOB THAN YOU [god]"

I sincerely hope you're never in that position yourself. And I do mean that in the nicest possible way. It's not a thing any of us should live through ever.

That said if you are I hope your faith is enough to carry you through. Maybe I am weak and my faith is weak which is why I could not.

Either way thanks for the interesting reply. It's always good to read a well thought out counterpoint