Is it selfish to keep retarded/low-functioning autistic people alive?

[Passing Through Town]

By the same rationale we use on putting down animals:

I think these people have more value than that of an injured animal.

are we allowing more harm and suffering to come to pass by not doing this? If so, why?

Why? Because we're dealing with the life of a human being. It's not a good idea to take someone's life, especially without their consent to do so. I still don't understand what makes you think you should have that right.

 

[Ser Prize]

I think these people have more value than that of an injured animal.


Why? Because we're dealing with the life of a human being. It's not a good idea to take someone's life, especially without their consent to do so. I still don't understand what makes you think you should have that right.

Whether they have more value is besides the point. If we're allowing more unecessary harm and suffering to come to pass then we should act merciful.

You're on kiwifarms, my man. We of all people know that human life is not uniquely precious.

 

[Passing Through Town]

If we're allowing more unecessary harm and suffering to come to pass then we should act merciful.

Who should have the right to make that call? Who should be the one to determine what harm and suffering constitutes as being unecessary? Why should anyone have the authority to end an innocent person's life without their consent? These are all questions that have to be answered in order for your position to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's not even remotely possible to implement.

You're on kiwifarms, my man. We of all people know that human life is not uniquely precious.

I think it is uniquely precious, but for the sake of argument let's say it isn't. Why not kill everyone then? If all that matters is avoiding suffering, why allow people to live in the first place? Letting people live is just allowing more unecessary harm and suffering to come to pass, no?

 

[zxcvbn]

Respectfully, I think the conversation here boils down to how much you feel like reincarnation and an afterlife come into play. As someone who neither thinks nor cares about the possibility of an afterlife, I say everyone has exactly one life to live. Some people get born with gifts in life, others get born with deficiencies and developmental problems. It's not my place to establish a standard for whose quality of life makes their life "worth living". To me, that's just a waste of time and energy. I'd rather focus on making the lives of people born or living with issues as comfortable as possible. Obviously if you belive in an afterlife, this is a totally different conversation. But you almost have to agree to terms and standards to have a productive conversation on this subject. Otherwise the conversation is just going to spin in circles.

There's just one other thing I wanted to weigh in on...

But if it starts becoming a cost to me, as a tax payer, then it becomes my problem.

Yeah, this is just immature nonsense to me. There are A LOT of policies that I don't agree with funded at all levels of government. Part of the trade we make when we live in a civil society is that sometimes policies are going to be enacted for the greater good that we personally don't agree with. Any suggestion that an individual issue or person who takes government help suddenly becomes "their problem" are just way off base.

 

[Discourteous Discourse]

I don't support abortion in any scenario

Not even an ectopic pregnancy, when the embryo has a 0% chance of survival beacuse it's not inside the uterus, and there's multiple risks for the mother that could result in death?

 

[Passing Through Town]

Not even an ectopic pregnancy, when the embryo has a 0% chance of survival beacuse it's not inside the uterus, and there's multiple risks for the mother that could result in death?

I have a suspicion that you might not be asking this in good faith, but I'll answer anyway. If there's no chance of the child developing to term then you're not aborting anything. It's certainly tragic, but the kid was dead from the start.

 

[GreenJacket]

Would it have been selfish of Barb to deprive the world of CWC?
"Listen, we know that baby will end up raping you when you're old and inform, but what about all the top keks and epic sagas? You gotta take one for the team Mrs. Chandler."

 

[stares at error messages]

People arn't gonna agree with me, but yes. It's really hard on the families who feel ashamed if they have to put their kid in a home, but the cost of dealing with these disorders is astronomical and not realistic for most people to afford or deal with.

I rememeber a story about this mom who had two kids one yonger metal-case and one older non-menal case. She talked about how her entire life was given up and how she never got to have much of a relation ship with her normal son or give her normal son a childhood because at first she really wanted to raise the metal-case herself and not instatutionalisze him. But as they all got older the reality that the metal-case would become more manageble fadded away, and the reality that it was too expensive to keep supporting the violent head-case became unavoidable. The mom ended up putting the kid in a home. In the story she lemented having to put metal-case in a home at first she visited a lot, but latter she stopped and felt freeded and got to move on with her life and have more time to spend on her normal son.

This might not be the question on thread, but yeah put your violent metal-case austistics in a home, maybe even euthanise them. What's the point of forcing a broken person who can't function to stick around jus so you can tart them up for family pictures while the rest of their life is torture. Can you really say that it's worth it to throw you other cildren's lives away just to keep up the social norms acound having childern? It's not the same with severe disablities. Then again, I don't trunst Psycholoists at all. Look up "Reluctant Schiphrenia" https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=4OSReIXxyrI

Another sad reality is that a lot of cows end up either in prison or some other sort of instatution.

 

[Mankirk]

I think these people have more value than that of an injured animal.


Why? Because we're dealing with the life of a human being. It's not a good idea to take someone's life, especially without their consent to do so. I still don't understand what makes you think you should have that right.

If you portray these lives as being forever unable to rise up to the concept of consent, why do you argue like they are full humans? At that point they may as well actually be injured animals. They are pets. God forbid they're allowed to breed, which is a real problem that crops up because people like you win small victories then take it too far. Do whatever dysgenic shit you want in your house but using tax dollars to support and encourage it will only see the problem get larger, and I will oppose it for the health of both future individuals and the society they all inherit.

The life you are judging others for consenting to end is a horrible existence, and it imposes externally on a lot of people who are also capable of determining whether they consent to those conditions forever or not. It is not merciful to create a deficient reject who is only capable of surviving on collective pity that can be turned off due to politics. And you have categorically stated that they are not capable of consent, so they are the ethical equivalent of dumb animals, which was pointed out earlier in this thread, get put down all the time. Even friendly cute ones. I won't judge you for aspiring to raise a sack of potatoes, but you're a piece of shit if you would condemn anybody else for not thinking the same is the highest demonstration of virtue.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

Edgelords who want to volunteer to murder people who they consider unworthy of taking up space due to disability, talk method.

I had to put my elderly, sick cat to sleep recently and even though it was a nice vet practice and extremely fast-acting drugs, she was still afraid and she still knew something weird was going on. And that's a cat- even severely retarded humans are more aware than a cat.

So talk method. Lethal injection? Hammer over the head? Shotgun? And what do you do if he starts sobbing no no no no no?

Even for the cat, the criteria for when it was time to go was more generous than what you freaks are proposing be applied to human beings. As long as she could find joy and comfort in simple creature comforts- looking out the window, eating a favorite food, spending time with loved ones- her life was worth maintaining. Retarded people do all those things all the time, but you want them eliminated. Why?

Once we open the pandora's box of "it's fine to kill someone who doesn't meet certain subjective criteria" don't expect that list to stay static, either.

 

[Gravityqueen4life]

this thread reminds me of the guy that killed 20 downies with a samurai sword

 

[Montalbane]

Honestly its down to the caregivers.
I've got two autistic cousins and give swimming lessons to special kids.

The joy I feel when I see them applying what I teach is immense (Narcissism on my part I know.)

But I also know a family whose firstborn is a 30 year old human torso.
Literally.
Armless
Legless
With no higher mental capacity.
Only screams and cries and sometimes when the pain is at its dullest gargles.
That's it.
Honestly If that were my son I would put him out of his misery because thats what it is.

Read about plenty of cases where parents decide that enough is enough and do the unthinkable.
Can't blame'em.

 

[Lone Dogma]

I don't think we should euthanise the severely retarded. Vegetables however, I find it morally wrong to keep them alive. The only reason they're living is because doctors wanted to show off their dick measuring contests to the world, so they petitioned their leaders to allow them to keep these poor bastards alive.

I'm going to make it clear to my family that the moment I can't wipe my own arse, I want the bullet. Watching the Gerry Anderson documentary recently, just further cemented my opinion.

 

[smeckt]

I think the selfish thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy of retarded children, but I support it regardless. On the other hand, lots of white women enjoy having retarded (and gay or non-white) children for attention, so in that sense it is selfish to give birth to retards. If we are talking about euthanising living retards, then I am against. Put them in a care home

 

[Osmosis Jones]

Wow lads, I had no idea eugenics was such a popular go-to for you.

All this talk about putting yourself in someone else's shoes, but you fail to actually remove yourself. You're comparing one life to another in a way that neither party can observe or sense. You don't know what it's like to be a vegetard, and the vegetard doesn't know what it's like to be normal. The highest point in his life, although objectively it may be very insignificant, is subjectively as important and memorable and good as the highest point in your life.

When we're talking about living versus not living, how could the latter not be worse than the former? Human life is a microcosm, it seems needless to snuff it so early for not being as good as it could have been.

 

[BridgeTroll]

No one has the right to judge the quality of life of another being I'm these terma and that's that.

I understand it with braindead people, that someone might decide to pull the plug, but I wouldn't do it without the expressed prior consent of that person.

 

[Lone Dogma]

All this talk about putting yourself in someone else's shoes, but you fail to actually remove yourself. You're comparing one life to another in a way that neither party can observe or sense. You don't know what it's like to be a vegetard, and the vegetard doesn't know what it's like to be normal. The highest point in his life, although objectively it may be very insignificant, is subjectively as important and memorable and good as the highest point in your life.

It'd be torturous and I'd want that bullet. I don't ever want to be a vegetable; you're a freak of nature being kept alive by doctors who are doing it to helicopter their dick and yell look at me. Unless of course, you're just talking about the severely retarded, then I share your stance.

I understand it with braindead people, that someone might decide to pull the plug, but I wouldn't do it without the expressed prior consent of that person.

Just to understand your opinion on this, would you keep someone who isn't braindead, but so fucked up it's as near as makes no difference, alive or would you put them in the braindead category?

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

sometimes tards are too tarded to even suffer. that's how veg they are

 

[Solus]

What's the difference between a child born retarded and a family member that becomes disabled from injury or disease?
Dad gets hit and the head with a cinder block while working a construction job and can walk and function too good. Just kill him.
Mom has a heart attack and drools. Put her out of her misery.

Slippery slop and all that.

Considering how many fully functional "adult" on this site fail to actually be productive members of society, maybe it's the community that's failing people. Everyone thinks when a kid is born they're going to be successful, but the reality is most of them are going to be working in retail or in restaurants bitching online that other people are a waste of space. When the majority of the population stops being bottom dwelling parasites, then maybe we can talk about the need to be more efficient with money, care and resources.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

I had no idea eugenics was such a popular go-to for you.

Oh yeah, the Farms is full of the kind of retard who thinks eugenics is a good idea.