The Mentally Deficient

[Emperor Devon]

Inspired from a conversation in Ahto, I thought I'd make a thread to discuss the issue in a more serious place.

 

What are your thoughts on the mentally deficient, those plagued with Down Syndrome, Rett Sydrome, and all the other disorders that result in mental retardation?

 

I myself think they are a needless burden upon society. They take more than the average citizen, and give less back. Attempts to streamline them into public schools fail miserably from what I've seen and experienced, and asylums for them are a waste of resources. In my opinion, mothers should have abortions when they find out their child has a disorder that results in mental retardation, and thus end the problem and needless drain upon society.

 

Thoughts?

[TK-8252]

They should be aborted once the mother finds out that the kid will be retarded or otherwise disabled. They will die young anyway and never become productive members of society, only a burden on others.

 

The ones that are born, though, must be treated with special care like they're treated now.

[90SK]

That's a standpoint I agree with. If a child is going to be mentally incapacitated at birth, why should the mother condemn herself to a lifetime of catering to the special needs of a child that will never become a self-sufficient adult?

 

Though, it'd have to be totally for the mother to decide. And the deficiency would have to be moderate: criteria for aborting a child on the grounds of inability are something that can be manipulated.

[Jae Onasi]

While it's possible to determine the presence of Down's in utero, there is absolutely no way to tell the level of retardation before birth, or even for a few years after birth. You'd be condemning children who might have a very mild disability to death.

 

Since when do we determine someone's worth by their ability to contribute financially to society? If they contribute love and joy in a family, isn't that a worthwhile contribution? Does this mean that by extension we should rid the world of anyone who can't contribute financially? Are you volunteering to get killed if you go blind, deaf, or become otherwise handicapped and become a "needless drain on society?" What if you lose a job and can't find another one, does that mean you become a needless drain as soon as you collect unemployment? When do we stop? When we create the perfect super-race?

 

That mother may love her child so much that she's willing to make a few extra sacrifices. My friend who lives a block away has cerebral palsy and has to use a wheelchair. Her husband has cerebral palsy. Her mother has Alzheimer's, and her brother, who lives with her, is retarded. Her son is 'normal.' She's one of the most amazing women I've met. Last weekend, she sat at the top of a 50 foot tower for 36 hours (was going to be 4 days, but an electrical storm, 60 mph winds, and threat of tornado forced her down for awhile). She did this to raise money for an organization that does Alzheimer's research, and she raised a lot of funds.

If you'd condemned her to death because of her physical disability, people in my town would be far less informed about Alzheimer's and the organization would not have the funds it so badly needs.

 

Having a mental or physical disability does not mean one can't contribute to society in a meaningful way. It's also impossible to determine the contributions a person will make before they're even born.

 

Aborting a baby on the possibilty that s/he might not contribute to society is both foolish and unethical.

[Emperor Devon]

Since when do we determine someone's worth by their ability to contribute financially to society?

 

As I consider money to be a foolish concept that we'd be better off without, (yes, laugh at me, all of you!) that has no bearing in my reasons.

 

If they contribute love and joy in a family, isn't that a worthwhile contribution?

 

Wouldn't that family be able to have more love and joy if their son/daughter doesn't need help getting dressed at 17? As I see it, the mentally deficient can be loved, but with all the complications that arise from it, normal or exceptional people can be loved more. People with children who are mentally retarded should have abortions, and have sex again. They can have children who they can love more, and which will benefit society more. As I see it, everyone's happy if the second option is chosen. I've met mentally deficient people before, and they were extremely annoying to say the very least. It'll be good for everyone that way.

 

Are you volunteering to get killed if you go blind, deaf, or become otherwise handicapped and become a "needless drain on society?" What if you lose a job and can't find another one, does that mean you become a needless drain as soon as you collect unemployment?

 

Whoa, since when did I start proliferating Nazi propaganda? Besides, there are many people who contribute to society who are blind or deaf. But those who are mentally deficient cannot, as their simple minds prevent them from doing anything mentally or physically.

 

When do we stop? When we create the perfect super-race?

 

The idea of all humanity being flawless mentally and physically is an appealing one, but it's all but impossible to, and killing of those who aren't is counterproductive.

 

{snip}

 

That friend of yours souds like she contributes more to society than someone with Down Sydrome. But nowhere have I advocated killing of the physically disabled.

 

It's also impossible to determine the contributions a person will make before they're even born.

 

Mostly true, though if you find your baby is mentally deficient, you'll know for a fact that his/her uses will be far smaller than someone else's.

 

Aborting a baby on the possibilty that s/he might not contribute to society is both foolish and unethical.

 

And what if the second child you had ended up being a scientist who helped cure diseases, a politician who made the country a better place, or some other useful thing?

[90SK]

While it's possible to determine the presence of Down's in utero, there is absolutely no way to tell the level of retardation before birth, or even for a few years after birth. You'd be condemning children who might have a very mild disability to death.

 

Since when do we determine someone's worth by their ability to contribute financially to society? If they contribute love and joy in a family, isn't that a worthwhile contribution? Does this mean that by extension we should rid the world of anyone who can't contribute financially? Are you volunteering to get killed if you go blind, deaf, or become otherwise handicapped and become a "needless drain on society?" What if you lose a job and can't find another one, does that mean you become a needless drain as soon as you collect unemployment? When do we stop? When we create the perfect super-race?

 

It would be a decision the mother would have to make. Mandatory abortions are something we'll never see under our current political system.

 

Nobody wants to slaughter the disabled. The proposal is to abort children with predicted mental disabilities that might permanently incapacitate their ability to function socially, unassisted. Is it ethical to bring someone into the world that will have to live assisted with no real prospect of becoming fully coherent or having normal independence? Perhaps it would be an act of mercy to end what many couldn't even consider a life before it ever begins.

[CapNColostomy]

Agreed (with Jae). I've worked with mentally ill/disabled people for years. Many of them have regular jobs, and families that love them. I think it's kind of ****ed up to even think about the fact that there are people out there that think even for a moment that they should have been aborted.

[TK-8252]

Since when do we determine someone's worth by their ability to contribute financially to society? If they contribute love and joy in a family, isn't that a worthwhile contribution? Does this mean that by extension we should rid the world of anyone who can't contribute financially? Are you volunteering to get killed if you go blind, deaf, or become otherwise handicapped and become a "needless drain on society?" What if you lose a job and can't find another one, does that mean you become a needless drain as soon as you collect unemployment? When do we stop? When we create the perfect super-race?

 

You've entirely missed the point by a mile. A fetus is not a "someone" first of all. Second, love and joy isn't something that you can eat, wear, or live in. You have to eat, you have to wear clothes, and you have to live somewhere. That means you have to have money to buy those things, which means you have to work, which is something that retarded people don't do very well.

 

And to suggest that aborting a defective fetus would be like killing EVERYONE on Earth who is retarded/disabled/deaf/blind/jobless/homeless/starving/etc. is just stupid. A fetus isn't a person. It's not a human being. A blind guy is a person, a homeless dude is a person, etc. There is no relativity between killing a functional human and an undeveloped fetus.

 

Aborting a baby on the possibilty that s/he might not contribute to society is both foolish and unethical.

 

Abortion is foolish and unethical when it's used in place of birth control, or if a female fetus is aborted just because the parents wanted a male. THOSE things are foolish and unethical. Sparing a child from a miserable life where they are unwanted by society and must be cared for like a house pet, that's not foolish or unethical at all. It's the only humane thing to do.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I myself think they are a needless burden upon society. They take more than the average citizen, and give less back. Attempts to streamline them into public schools fail miserably from what I've seen and experienced, and asylums for them are a waste of resources.

Utilitarian bio-ethics, hm? Measuring peoples' worth by how much they contribute? How cute.

 

In my opinion, mothers should have abortions when they find out their child has a disorder that results in mental retardation, and thus end the problem and needless drain upon society.

In my opinion, people should not be measured by what they give to society versus what they take from society. A human being is a human being. It may not be an A4 person, but hey, it should still be allowed to live.

 

They should be aborted once the mother finds out that the kid will be retarded or otherwise disabled. They will die young anyway (...)

Where did you hear that? There are lots of mentally handicapped children who grow up to live happy lives.

 

That's a standpoint I agree with. If a child is going to be mentally incapacitated at birth, why should the mother condemn herself to a lifetime of catering to the special needs of a child that will never become a self-sufficient adult?

Why would she condemn herself to a lifetime of grief because utilitarians such as you don't think the baby's "valuable" enough to society?

 

What if you lose a job and can't find another one, does that mean you become a needless drain as soon as you collect unemployment? When do we stop? When we create the perfect super-race?

That's what struck me, too. I'm not saying that if we do a, b will happen, but what's the moral difference? The "it's just a fetus"-argument doesn't cut it with me, since we do know that with 90% certainity, that fetus's going to grow into a human. It might be "just a lump of flesh", but it's a lump of human flesh that'll grow into a little American, German, Tutu or Korean if allowed to grow.

 

As I consider money to be a foolish concept that we'd be better off without, (yes, laugh at me, all of you!) that has no bearing in my reasons.

Then kindly explain what you mean with "They take more than they give".

 

People with children who are mentally retarded should have abortions, and have sex again.

You really think they'll dare that after having a mentally handicapped kid? Think again.

 

As I see it, everyone's happy if the [abortion] option is chosen.

Thank you for speaking for me.

 

I've met mentally deficient people before, and they were extremely annoying to say the very least.

I find it very disturbing that you use that as an argument.

 

Whoa, since when did I start proliferating Nazi propaganda?

Since here.

 

Oh, and yes, utilitarian bio-ethics is one of the more fundamental parts of Nazism. Not to pull the Hitler card or anything - you were the one who asked.

 

And what if the second child you had ended up being a scientist who helped cure diseases, a politician who made the country a better place, or some other useful thing?

 

And to suggest that aborting a defective fetus would be like killing EVERYONE on Earth who is retarded/disabled/deaf/blind/jobless/homeless/starving/etc. is just stupid. A fetus isn't a person. It's not a human being. A blind guy is a person, a homeless dude is a person, etc. There is no relativity between killing a functional human and an undeveloped fetus.

They're two sides of the same coin.

 

But OK, let me re-write what Jae said to have it fit: What about fetuses who'll turn out to become blind, deaf, really depressed, malformed, or whatever else? Is it OK to abort them then?

 

Sparing a child from a miserable life where they are unwanted by society and must be cared for like a house pet, that's not foolish or unethical at all. It's the only humane thing to do.

Again the "unwanted by society"-thing. But you know what, if "society" can't handle that certain people have a right to be born and experience Earth even though they can't design a space-ship, then that's society's problem.

 

Just that society doesn't want something doesn't mean that something should be wiped out.

 

And what if the second child you had ended up being a scientist who helped cure diseases, a politician who made the country a better place, or some other useful thing?

What if the second child becomes a rapist?

What if the first child cures a disease? What if the first child has a child that cures AIDS?

 

You can go "what if-" all you want, it doesn't change a thing.

[sockerbit89]

When it comes to these kind of questions i believe strongly that this is not a matter to be desided by a country's gouverment but by the parents of the child. To abort disabled children as a policy i believe is strictly wrong and a step towards a facist mentallity. Solidarity not functionality, this would mean we would base people's worth and freedom on their contribution to society. That is facism and there's no way around that.

 

Why not gas every elderly person over the age of 85? They don't contribute they just lay in bed and gets fed through tubes. And then why not shot a few homeless people, and addicts, and people who hasn't got a job.

 

Yeah we would all be a whole lot richer but is it right?

[swphreak]

The only thing I care about regarding mentally deficient people, is that they're treated the same way as other people when it comes to the law.

 

I remember seeing something on comcast.net about a 12 year old boy with the mentality of a 3 year old harassing a neighbor's daughter, at one point throwing rocks. When the police were called, they wouldn't do anything because he was retarded and "didn't know any better." (The actual video was about the neighbors putting up a "Warning: Retard" sign and everyones' response to it.)

 

I, myself, had to occasionaly work with a disabled person (in a wheelchair and I quesion her intelligence level as well) at the movie theater, and in the end, she spent more time being useless than useful. Usually one of us would have to cover for her because she was either late, left early, or using one of her frequent 15 minute cell-phone-in-the-bathroom breaks. Yet, she would never get a write up or in trouble, and the managers couldn't fire her because "she's disabled and they'd get sued." If I was in charge, I would have fired her and taken the lawsuit head on, she was not a real productive member of the team and broke all sorts of rules.

[ET Warrior]

You've entirely missed the point by a mile. A fetus is not a "someone" first of all.

That's all well and good, it's an argument I've used enough when arguing for the right to choose abortion, but it holds no water in this argument.

 

If you're going to be able to test an unborn child for something like mental retardation, then you're going to have to wait until the fetus has developed enough to have a level of conciousness, and at least a partially developed brain. You're terminating a self-aware being, based solely on some preconception that they will be miserable, unwanted, and useless.

 

As much as I hate slippery slope arguments, I think it absolutely applies in this situation. There is nowhere to draw the line. At what point is a fetus clearly going to be un-productive? Who gets to make that decision? What if the mother doesn't WANT to abort her baby? Too bad, so sad, do it anyways?

 

Wouldn't that family be able to have more love and joy if their son/daughter doesn't need help getting dressed at 17?

Apparently you don't understand family love, or "Unconditional" love. A mother/father who loves their child would not love them anymore if they were fully mentally capable. They might wish that, only so their child would maybe have more friends, or go on more dates, but they couldn't love them anymore.

 

As far as "contributions" to society, that's a fantastic load of bull****. I have come across plenty of mentally handicapped people who contribute more than plenty of "normal" people. If you're going to use that as a standard then you are advocating we systematically remove all non-productive people from the world. Let's start with hobos! We can beat them to death with baseball bats.

 

I've met mentally deficient people before, and they were extremely annoying to say the very least.

So now we get to kill annoying people too? That's fantastic, there's a few people on my list that I'm sure the world will be better off without.

[Pho3nix]

I'm with Phreak on this one, they should be treated the same as other people when it comes to the law.

 

I dunno what to think about the whole abortion thing though, it's not a good reason to kill off a "person" (fetus in this case) just because they are/will be annoying in life. But i'm also kinda for the "Eat or get eaten" philosophy. They don't survive by themselves in society without our help, so I guess they are pretty useless? Let's say a disabled lion is born, will it survive in nature? No. It doesn't give anything back to the pack so it would probably die at a young age or be banished.

[ET Warrior]

A lion that breaks it's leg also will not survive in nature, unless someone intervenes and fixes that leg. Do you want us to stop having doctors? You broke your leg? That's unfortunate. It didn't heal properly? Well, I guess you're no good to us anymore. *gunshot*

 

I would HOPE, as a society we will evolve beyond such petty ideals as dog eat dog, but this thread is a good reminder that we haven't as of yet. And we seem to have a long way to go.

[El Sitherino]

Wouldn't that family be able to have more love and joy if their son/daughter doesn't need help getting dressed at 17?

I've seen girls at the mall surrounded by their friends and with their mom getting help getting dressed. Should we kill them too? They can't decide what they want to wear, they're wasting precious social contribution time.

 

I've met mentally deficient people before, and they were extremely annoying to say the very least.

I have too, worked with them for many years. They're no more annoying than normal people. Infact, many of them have proven themselves more socially capable than some people that are supposedly "all there" mentally.

 

 

It'll be good for everyone that way.

Yeah, everyone but the retarded kid you kill.

 

 

But those who are mentally deficient cannot, as their simple minds prevent them from doing anything mentally or physically.

Bull****.

 

I'll bet you've probably even met some mentally deficient people that you didn't even realize were.

 

 

killing of those who aren't is counterproductive.

CONTRADICTION!

 

 

And what if the second child you had ended up being a scientist who helped cure diseases, a politician who made the country a better place, or some other useful thing?

And what if they ended up being a complete dumbass, but are not technically retarded?

 

What if's are weak arguements.

 

which means you have to work, which is something that retarded people don't do very well.

Seems to me it something a lot of people don't do very well, retarded or not.

Perhaps it's simply a lack of motivation?

 

Sparing a child from a miserable life where they must be cared for like a house pet.

Now I'm not a parent, but I've spent a lot of time taking care of kids.

 

And from what I've learned, kids require quite a bit of care all the way up until the little bastards are 18-20.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I would HOPE, as a society we will evolve beyond such petty ideals as dog eat dog, but this thread is a good reminder that we haven't as of yet. And we seem to have a long way to go.

There's a good deal of "kill-those-not-benefitting-society"-attitude in society. Read One door away from Heaven by Koontz, he brings you up-to-date on it.

And from what I've learned, kids require quite a bit of care all the way up until the little bastards are 18-20.

And beyond:D.

[sockerbit89]

 

I dunno what to think about the whole abortion thing though, it's not a good reason to kill off a "person" (fetus in this case) just because they are/will be annoying in life. But i'm also kinda for the "Eat or get eaten" philosophy. They don't survive by themselves in society without our help, so I guess they are pretty useless? Let's say a disabled lion is born, will it survive in nature? No. It doesn't give anything back to the pack so it would probably die at a young age or be banished.

 

Lions are actually different from most cat animals because they have a more evolved form of "social life". Lions share food with other in the same pack who are unable to hunt well enough. Just as many other animals (wolves, chimps, mercats etc... )

 

Also that whole jungles law thing is the most utterly stupid thing ever. If we don't care about other people why take care of our own children? What it would mean is facism and how well have that worked out? A democratic society can not function without solidarity.

 

Whoa, since when did I start proliferating Nazi propaganda? Besides, there are many people who contribute to society who are blind or deaf. But those who are mentally deficient cannot, as their simple minds prevent them from doing anything mentally or physically.

 

How is killing mentally deficient children for not being able to work morally worse than what the Nazi's/Facists proclaim when they say only the strongest survives?

 

In the end this is only about getting more money. Do we want more money to buy **** we don't need or do we want to help everyone have a good life and to be able to feel love and joy.

[Emperor Devon]

Should we kill them too? They can't decide what they want to wear, they're wasting precious social contribution time.

 

I was using that as an example of how incapable they are. I can use another, if you'd like.

 

I have too, worked with them for many years. They're no more annoying than normal people.

 

You've had your experiences with them, and I've had mine.

 

Yeah, everyone but the retarded kid you kill.

 

And?

 

Bull****.

 

Please, let's keep this civilized.

 

I'll bet you've probably even met some mentally deficient people that you didn't even realize were.

 

As a child, most likely. Later, doubtful. But as you have no knowledge of the people I've met in my life, you can't say.

 

CONTRADICTION!

 

No, I wouldn't say it is. I was reffering to the creation of a super-race, which can't be done by killing off people. My main point is that it would benefit society if there no mentally deficient. It would benefit society even more if we were a super-race, yes, but tat's all but impossible to do, and trying to do it would kill of millions of people.

 

And what if they ended up being a complete dumbass, but are not technically retarded?

 

At least their minds are advanced enough to have jobs.

 

What if's are weak arguements.

 

Given how many mentally deficient people have been born in the history of humanity, what is the probability that some of the mothers would've given birth to much more useful children if they had abortions?

 

Seems to me it something a lot of people don't do very well, retarded or not. Perhaps it's simply a lack of motivation?

 

Who knows?

 

And from what I've learned, kids require quite a bit of care all the way up until the little bastards are 18-20.

 

And how many of them will need constant care whether by you or someone at an asylum when they're in their 80s?

 

How is killing mentally deficient children for not being able to work morally worse than what the Nazi's/Facists proclaim when they say only the strongest survives?

 

Because the children are not being rounded up, tortured and shot?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Should we kill them too? They can't decide what they want to wear, they're wasting precious social contribution time.

 

I was using that as an example of how incapable they are. I can use another, if you'd like.

Some of them are. Many of them are fully able to function normally in society. Some to the point where you won't realize they're "retarded".

 

You've had your experiences with [challenged people], and I've had mine.

Exactly. Some are annoying as Hell, some are nice, some are both. Just like with regular people.

 

Yeah, everyone but the retarded kid you kill.

And?

Oh, right, of course, once you have an IQ of less than 80 you don't care if you're killed. My bad:rolleyes:.

 

No, I wouldn't say it is. I was reffering to the creation of a super-race, which can't be done by killing off people.

Yes, it can be. Kill of all the handicapped and everyone with an IQ of <120, and you have a super-race with an average IQ of almost a quarter of a hundred more than the old one, and no disabilities.

My main point is that it would benefit society if there no mentally deficient.

Yup. It'd also benefit society more if there were no elderly, seriously physically or mentally ill, or otherwise unable to function.

At least their minds are advanced enough to have jobs.

And the minds of people with various forms of disabilities never are?

 

And how many of them will need constant care whether by you or someone at an asylum when they're in their 80s?

When Alzheimer's or kicks in, quite a few.

 

How is killing mentally deficient children for not being able to work morally worse than what the Nazi's/Facists proclaim when they say only the strongest survives?

Because the children are not being rounded up, tortured and shot?

He meant philosophically. How's the attitude better, not how's the method better.

[TK-8252]

Personally what I find disturbing are the arguments that say that we're advocating something along the lines of "hey we might as well just round up all the homeless and disabled people and just shoot them as well." Stop using that insane rhetoric. A fetus is NOT equal to a living breathing thinking human being. I thought that the liberals here knew that already.

 

And what's even more amazing is that it's coming from the crowd here that is very much for the right to abortion. No one here is suggesting that we FORCE people to have abortions when a doctor says the fetus is defective... that would make us no better than China.

 

All I'm saying is that the better choice would be to abort a fetus that's retarded so you don't bring it into the world where its going to be a problem all its life. Holy ****, yeah I know that normal people aren't perfect either. I don't need to be told that because I know that better than anyone else here. But chances are they won't need to be treated like a pet all of their life.

 

Why are the people here who are pro-choice on abortion such critics of aborting for the reason that the child will be retarded?? If women are going to have the right to an abortion, why is it wrong to abort a defective fetus as opposed to a normal one? Kill the regular kid, instead of the retarded one? Are you guys just so concerned about being politically correct?

[Jae Onasi]

I've seen girls at the mall surrounded by their friends and with their mom getting help getting dressed. Should we kill them too? They can't decide what they want to wear, they're wasting precious social contribution time.

 

"Social contribution time." I love that phrase. I can just picture the gaggle of giggling girls....

 

 

Personally what I find disturbing are the arguments that say that we're advocating something along the lines of "hey we might as well just round up all the homeless and disabled people and just shoot them as well." Stop using that insane rhetoric.

 

It's not rhetoric. Say you start killing fetuses for being at risk for being 'mentally deficient'. When do you stop? What if they're born that way--can you still kill them then? Say there's a birth injury, like not enough oxygen to the brain, and the child's now going to be mentally deficient. Should we kill those children? Let's say they're normal, but they fall when they're a toddler and develop a traumatic brain injury and are mentally deficient as a result. Kill them, too? They're not boing to be able to 'contribute', whatever that's supposed to mean.

Where do you stop the killing?

 

A fetus is NOT equal to a living breathing thinking human being. I thought that the liberals here knew that already.

 

I disagree. A fetus is a human. It's not able to live outside the womb yet, but it's a person nonetheless.

 

No one here is suggesting that we FORCE people to have abortions when a doctor says the fetus is defective... that would make us no better than China.

 

That's what this sounds like to me--'oh, we've had an amniocentesis and found Down's syndrome. Abort them all and now!' Only problem: there's absolutely no way to determine level of functioning just by knowing someone has 3 of gene 21 instead of the normal 2. So do you just assume they'll all be complete and total gorks? Kill off the ones who might be functional just so we don't want any chance of having to deal with a drooling idiot?

 

All I'm saying is that the better choice would be to abort a fetus that's retarded so you don't bring it into the world where its going to be a problem all its life.

 

Raising my 'normal' children has not been problem-free, I assure you. No child is problem-free. I anticipate we'll have many more problems before they become independent, too. However, the joy and love they bring to our family far outweighs the work. My sister-in-law is a foster parent for kids who have been abused and who are borderline functional in some cases. She has some extra tasks she has to do to care for them, but she gets so much satisfaction out of making a positive difference in their lives that she's been doing this for about 15 years now. She doesn't view them as 'problems'.

 

Kill the regular kid, instead of the retarded one? Are you guys just so concerned about being politically correct?

 

I don't particularly like seeing aborting the normal ones, either. I live with it, but I don't like it. I wish birth control was so good that we never had to deal with abortion.

 

 

Given how many mentally deficient people have been born in the history of humanity, what is the probability that some of the mothers would've given birth to much more useful children if they had abortions?

 

Our humanity is not determined by how 'useful' we can be to society. Our human worth is not determined by our ability to work. If it was, we'd all be killed off as soon as we retired or were incapacitated and unable to work. You would be imposing your definition of 'useful to society' on everyone else. My definition of 'useful to society' includes so much more than just net worth.

 

Determining who should live and die is playing God.

[ET Warrior]

A fetus is NOT equal to a living breathing thinking human being. I thought that the liberals here knew that already.

That's all well and good, it's an argument I've used enough when arguing for the right to choose abortion, but it holds no water in this argument.

 

If you're going to be able to test an unborn child for something like mental retardation, then you're going to have to wait until the fetus has developed enough to have a level of conciousness, and at least a partially developed brain. You're terminating a self-aware being, based solely on some preconception that they will be miserable, unwanted, and useless.

Maybe you missed it the first time. You can't tell if your baby is going to be mentally retarded before it's developed a brain. You cannot. You might not even be able to tell until it's 4 or 5 years old, or sometimes even later than that.

 

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, because the thread itself is about making a pro-active decision to terminate all potentially disabled babies before they come to term. This isn't even remotely close to debating whether or not the choice to have an abortion is an acceptable one. This thread is about seeking out retarded fetus' and aborting them.

 

I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for themselves, if they honestly think their lives will be miserable and they'll hate their child forever because it is disabled then that is potentially their perogative. But to say that they SHOULD because it's a benefit to society is the worst thing I have ever heard.

 

So yes. To advocate the active attempt to terminate all mentally disabled fetus' is more or less equivalent to advocating the termination of any person deemed non-beneficial to society.

[TK-8252]

It's not rhetoric. Say you start killing fetuses for being at risk for being 'mentally deficient'. When do you stop? What if they're born that way--can you still kill them then? Say there's a birth injury, like not enough oxygen to the brain, and the child's now going to be mentally deficient. Should we kill those children? Let's say they're normal, but they fall when they're a toddler and develop a traumatic brain injury and are mentally deficient as a result. Kill them, too? They're not boing to be able to 'contribute', whatever that's supposed to mean.

Where do you stop the killing?

 

More of the exact same kind of insane rhetoric that I'm so tired of hearing.

 

If you can abort a regular fetus then you can abort a retarded one as well. If you cannot abort a regular fetus then you cannot abort a retarded one. It's that simple. No exceptions.

 

I disagree. A fetus is a human. It's not able to live outside the womb yet, but it's a person nonetheless.

 

Ask any doctor or scientist and they will disagree with you.

 

That's what this sounds like to me--'oh, we've had an amniocentesis and found Down's syndrome. Abort them all and now!' Only problem: there's absolutely no way to determine level of functioning just by knowing someone has 3 of gene 21 instead of the normal 2. So do you just assume they'll all be complete and total gorks? Kill off the ones who might be functional just so we don't want any chance of having to deal with a drooling idiot?

 

You go to a doctor. If they say the fetus is defective, the better option is to abort it. If the doctor is unsure then don't abort it. It's that simple.

 

Raising my 'normal' children has not been problem-free, I assure you. No child is problem-free. I anticipate we'll have many more problems before they become independent, too.

 

Holy ****, I KNOW THAT! I said that I knew that already and I don't need to be told that like I'm an ignorant bastard.

 

Determining who should live and die is playing God.

 

I agree. Keeping Terri Schiavo on life support was playing god.

 

Maybe you missed it the first time. You can't tell if your baby is going to be mentally retarded before it's developed a brain. You cannot. You might not even be able to tell until it's 4 or 5 years old, or sometimes even later than that.

 

Then don't abort it if you can't be sure. If the doctor says it WILL have a certain disability then it'd be better to abort.

 

But to say that they SHOULD because it's a benefit to society is the worst thing I have ever heard.

 

Why? Because it's not the politically correct thing to do?

 

So yes. To advocate the active attempt to terminate all mentally disabled fetus' is more or less equivalent to advocating the termination of any person deemed non-beneficial to society.

 

More insane rhetoric. Yawn.

[ET Warrior]

Ask any doctor or scientist and they will disagree with you.

Blatant untruth. I know MANY doctors, biologists, and chemists, etc. who will agree that a fetus is a human being.

More insane rhetoric. Yawn.

Just because you ignore the comment and call it rhetoric doesn't necessarily constitute an effective rebuttal.

Why? Because it's not the politically correct thing to do?

Please. Political correctness is something I've NEVER been accused of. It is terrible because saying that we need to actively determine who is going to be of value to society and get rid of the rest is pretty much the most barbaric thing I've read on this discussion board. It's also the MO that the Nazi's followed. You want to hide behind the facade that you aren't killing humans then I suppose you go right ahead, but if you asked any red-blooded German circa 1940 they would have had the same reasoning. It's okay becuase Jews aren't human.

 

Of course, you woulnd't agree with them, but then again not everyone seems to agree with you.

 

The element of this debate that puts me on the negative is the use of 'SHOULD'. I think there are VERY few instances (if any) where women SHOULD have an abortion, as opposed to when they CAN have an abortion.

 

Instigating a policy that deems a {potential) human life as less valuable based on some in-determinate idea of worth is horrific at best.

[TK-8252]

Blatant untruth. I know MANY doctors, biologists, and chemists, etc. who will agree that a fetus is a human being.

 

Then by those standards, EVERY abortion is murder and infanticide, and you should be speaking out against all abortion. Are you going to do that?

 

Just because you ignore the comment and call it rhetoric doesn't necessarily constitute an effective rebuttal.

 

I ignore it because it is so obsurd. Abortion of a defective fetus is the same as Nazi genocide, yadda yadda.

 

It is terrible because saying that we need to actively determine who is going to be of value to society and get rid of the rest is pretty much the most barbaric thing I've read on this discussion board.

 

A fetus is not a "who." If it was, then all abortion is murder and every single doctor who performs an abortion should be prosecuted for murder.

 

It's also the MO that the Nazi's followed. You want to hide behind the facade that you aren't killing humans then I suppose you go right ahead, but if you asked any red-blooded German circa 1940 they would have had the same reasoning. It's okay becuase Jews aren't human.

 

More of the Hitler card.