And everyone has a right to live. Your saying that people should only have so many children based on social status due to over-population, you also state that children should be killed for birth defects that were beyond their control and that the old should be euthanized because in their eyes they are a burden to society. Survival of the fittest my ass, the rich would benifit in your dream society. While the poor would die and lose rights and freedoms to benifit the rich part of society. If you want a dictatorship like that move to China. You obviously don't know how good we all have it. Please do the world a favor, remove your undesirable genes from the gene pool.SinisterSpade|LH| said:
The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?
- Thread starter Pimppeter2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Uhh, Selfish? If she is taking care of the kids, then there is no problem.Oh one more thing Famouse autistic people.mrdude2010 said:
Fitzgerald
Einstein
Newton
link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_autistic
Yes, only considerd but still likly autistic people are better at mathmatics then the average man.
What I hear from a lot of people in this thread, apparently to the point where you can't take care of yourself.PhiMed said:
I'm not against euthanasia, but there's a BIG difference between "not being able to take care of yourself" and "having a terminal illness wich causes you constant agonizing pain". If you're going to kill people because they can't take care of themselves, you're doing so only because they're a bother to you not because it's in their best interest.
I'm no Mother Theresa, but if you have a kid who can't take care of himself you take some fucking responsibility and care for the child.
I already get pissed off if I hear Animal Cops talking about euthanazing a dog because their not usefull anymore, but to hear people on this forum talk that way about human beings is what really makes me lose faith in humanity.
Wow, I was gong to comment on this thread with some sense of righteousness since I have a son who is in the autistic spectrum. I have read numerous books and consulted with doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, chiropractic neurologists, you name it.
But after seeing how the discussion has deteriorated into an all out flame war between idiots who don't know what they are talking about and idiots who think they know what they are talking about, I would much rather reserve my comments and not give any more ammo to them.
Yeah, I am aware I am replying by saying I won't reply. However, I figured I'd bring up the ridiculousness of the way the conversation turned.
OT: last time I checked, in your country people are free to decide whether they want to bring children to this world or not. If there is an issue with that, have "someone" amend your constitution to your liking.
But after seeing how the discussion has deteriorated into an all out flame war between idiots who don't know what they are talking about and idiots who think they know what they are talking about, I would much rather reserve my comments and not give any more ammo to them.
Yeah, I am aware I am replying by saying I won't reply. However, I figured I'd bring up the ridiculousness of the way the conversation turned.
OT: last time I checked, in your country people are free to decide whether they want to bring children to this world or not. If there is an issue with that, have "someone" amend your constitution to your liking.
Having myself a severely autistic little brother (well, little is a relative term: he was born when I was 4, now he is a good 6cm taller than me), I can indeed tell that even a single autistic child can be more than a handful.
I didn't see it then, being a child myself, but our parents really struggled. Not so much in the monetary sense, but in the parenthood sense. They've never been ashamed of him, neither have I or my big brother. But taking care of his needs have caused us severe headaches in the past.
Trying to imagine four more of him... I just can't do it. I can't see how I could deal with all of them equally, take care of them equally and find solutions to ensure their happiness. Not to the level they deserve, not to have the best possible chance at happiness in life.
The mother... it isn't my place to say if what she is doing is moral or not. To be honest, I truly don't know. Both positions could be argued for and against.
All I can say while remaining true to my personal view on life, but simultaneously thinking of my little brother and the stuff we've gone trough to include him in our daily life as a brother should and now that he is an adult to give him the best chance at happy life...
is that the mother, should she wish for more children, perhaps think things trough. To at least have some foresight, some plan of future, should she decide to have more children and in the case they too have severe autism.
It isn't my moral right to critize her potential decisions regarding having (or not having) more children. But what I feel I can do, is question her preparedness for the possible case that her potential future children might have severe autism as well.
I didn't see it then, being a child myself, but our parents really struggled. Not so much in the monetary sense, but in the parenthood sense. They've never been ashamed of him, neither have I or my big brother. But taking care of his needs have caused us severe headaches in the past.
Trying to imagine four more of him... I just can't do it. I can't see how I could deal with all of them equally, take care of them equally and find solutions to ensure their happiness. Not to the level they deserve, not to have the best possible chance at happiness in life.
The mother... it isn't my place to say if what she is doing is moral or not. To be honest, I truly don't know. Both positions could be argued for and against.
All I can say while remaining true to my personal view on life, but simultaneously thinking of my little brother and the stuff we've gone trough to include him in our daily life as a brother should and now that he is an adult to give him the best chance at happy life...
is that the mother, should she wish for more children, perhaps think things trough. To at least have some foresight, some plan of future, should she decide to have more children and in the case they too have severe autism.
It isn't my moral right to critize her potential decisions regarding having (or not having) more children. But what I feel I can do, is question her preparedness for the possible case that her potential future children might have severe autism as well.
I'm going to argue this from a different point. I actually agree that weakening the gene pool is undesirable, but your measures don't need to be taken. In effect, the problem takes care of itself. The chances of a disabled person reproducing is generally quite low, and therefore any genes associated with the disorder are usually not passed through effected persons but by carriers of the gene that do not exhibit symptoms. Thus, these defects will eventually become rarer when the statistics are adjusted for population growth. The measures you suggest would be very unpopular and raise moral questions, and therefore are illogical to implement.SinisterSpade|LH| said:
I believe the issue of contention is whether we believe that popular support is useful. Your plan calls for government intervention. A governments ability to act is always based on popular support (even a tyranny would fall if they could not control their people). Attempting to implement your plan would cause popular support to be lost, and therefore endanger the power of the government in power. Meanwhile, enforcement of the policies would become ineffective as resistance would be widespread. Your plan would cause a government to lose more than it would gain.SinisterSpade|LH| said:
