Should infants born with serious mental defects be euthanized?

[nota bene]

It already is too expensive according to most conserva-publicans. Once the preserved life exits the birth canal, things like food stamps and higher education are deemed way too costly, even though starvation and ignorance costs many times more in the long run.
They've already made a morally relativistic decision.

Funny thing is, there are hundreds of profoundly retarded Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint babies living in walled compounds right now who have little or no difficulty getting food stamps and welfare assistance from Utah or Arizona, both hardcore conservative states.
Their genetic purity is above doubt, they are truly "white and delightsome".

Methinks it's mostly the little mud babies in our big cities that the conserva-pubs really hate.

"Mud babies"? Seriously?

I'm a conservative, although not a Republican, but I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who finds weird your linking food stamps and higher education. I surely hope that you don't think that higher education is a right rather than an privilege for anybody.

 

[Bodi]

Oh My God. What the actual ****?

That's an absolutely incorrect, and downright horrible statement to make.

It is all subjective... so no, it is not incorrect or horrible.

 

[X Factor]

You reported me to you nazi superior, and if you want to meet in your mommies basement, just give me the digits, and so can remove your white power filth from the earth.

Whoa, somebody's freight elevator snapped a cable.

 

[Bodi]

Whoa, somebody's freight elevator snapped a cable.

Seriously... and it doesn't even make sense. I clarified that I was talking about "in the womb" regarding
serious mental defects... he says his kid has a mild mental defect... and then he ****ing freaks!! :lol:

 

[Bodi]

You reported me to you nazi superior, and if you want to meet in your mommies basement, just give me the digits, and so can remove your white power filth from the earth.

No I didn't silly. Mods tend to notice posts that go off the deep end like yours did.

Where do you come up with "white power" anyway... no matter how you read what I said that seems a bit of pure fantasy.

You want the address of my mom's house? WTF?

 

[Bodi]

"All men [persons] have a right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness"

Is a human with a serious mental defect a 'person'? If you believe the quote above, and answer "yes" to this question, the only logical answer to the poll is "no"

The DoI is not a legal document...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"Mud babies"? Seriously?

I'm a conservative, although not a Republican, but I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who finds weird your linking food stamps and higher education. I surely hope that you don't think that higher education is a right rather than an privilege for anybody.

So you're saying it's a black or white issue, and higher education cannot be made accessible to everyone willing to do the work required?
It also sounds like you're possibly attempting to paint my statement into a corner that depicts it as the painful bleating of some bleeding heart who expects equal outcome rather than equal opportunity.

My in state tuition at UCLA was pretty much couch change in 1982. Any slob working the fry machine part time at Burger World could afford it.
If that slob's parents make 250 thousand a year, they should be able to pay full price but if that slob is on their own and they are willing to make good grades, it should be accessible enough that said slob can exercise upward mobility and lift themselves out of poverty.

Food stamps and access to higher education are linked because a small child who is hungry can't concentrate hard enough in elementary school to make the kind of grades they will need to be accepted at an institution of higher learning later on in life. That's because poor performance early on sets a child up for failure later in life.

If you think food stamps and higher education are expensive, you either have not adequately calculated what we currently pay for institutionalized ignorance, or your income is partly derived directly or indirectly from a school to prison pipeline mentality, which means you depend upon such ignorance to keep your revenue streams profitable.

Or, you just haven't bothered to think the issue through, and you are not the only one who hasn't.
If you want less takers and more makers, then you must be willing to invest in that which yields more capable contributors to society.
It's a wise investment.

 

[Scrabaholic]

And we tear them apart while in they're womb for no reason other than the inconvenience of their existence. Sadly, the question of "euthanizing" them after birth is a completely logical progression.

No, it isn't.

 

[Cally]

The line is easily drawn for me. However, it must be said that the concentration of these theoretical issues is not practical. While I reject the ethics of a lot of the posters here, including those I ordinarily respect, we are not living in dire straits, nor is it likely we will. Saying you are in favor of making the tough choices may show people like me how you view persons like myself, a couple of the other posters here, or their family members or friends, but it also doesn't live on any real policy plane.

It is unnecessary to make this discussion personal.

This is probably because you have no real grasp on what you are talking about, but found a couple really cool books or ideas and ran with it. I'm probably exaggerating. Maybe it was merely a collection of blogs, wikipedia entries, and youtube videos. I get it. It's rather chic these days to give off an aura of intellect regarding policy despite being ill-equipped for the discussion. It gives me a renewed sense for how I would prefer to not live in your dystopian fantasies, but not much else.

butthurt? sure sounds like it.. Of course the comments I have made are theoretical. That is the point of these discussions. Obviously, it’s not practical to euthanize babies born with defects. But what I really want to emphasize is that the defects most people would consider “fatal” are conditions such as anencephaly, for example. A baby born with no brain is obviously incapable of developing consciousness. Plenty of ridiculous people consider such a baby to be a blessing. Of course, the only “blessing” is the delusional belief in some higher purpose. The cold-hard fact is that an anencephalic human is as much of a person as a vegetable.

Can an organism with no consciousness at any point in its life be considered a person? Profound mental retardation is another example. My cousin works with the mentally handicapped, and many of them are violent. All of them cost the state anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 a year. The violent ones are the most expensive since they require two employees to watch them 24hours a day. What is the point? Can they ever develop into a productive citizen? No. And some of these people are so violent that they have injured employees to the point of being hospitalized.

What we care about is additional medical research, early interventions & supports, reevaluated and redesigned transition programs, and so on. There are plenty of things we can do to either improve the quality of life these individuals have, develop a better sense for what we don't know about how to deliver a better quality of life, and give them and their families the power to influence their own lives. Fixating on some cryptic post-apocalyptic nightmare is just silly.

Lol no one has said a single word about an apocalypse-- Only economic and monetary common sense. Stating that resources are becoming increasingly rare is a fact. Apparently, you and many others can’t seem to grasp that aspect of reality. Obviously, medical research is a top priority. I’m not concerned with quality of life issues as much as preventing these disabilities in the first place. Why focus on making disabilities more tolerable when the focus should be eliminating as many disabilities as possible. Many of them have a genetic component, for example. Some of them are the result of poor prenatal care. Yes, let us do more research. That is how tax dollars should be spent. Not pissing away money on employees, apartments, groceries, doctors, nurses, medicine, etc. It’s the current environment of today’s healthcare system: no cure..only treat an illness.

 

[SCitizen]

Throughout World History, hundreds of millions of children were killed or deadly neglected due to their disability.

The idea being advocated here is evil.

But British judges who jail people for bad ideas are greater evil.

 

[Cally]

'The medical costs of care for children with disabilities resulting from birth defects have been estimated to exceed $1.4 billion annually.'

Birth Defect Statistics | The Physicians Committee




The U.S. federal budget is $3.5 trillion...so the cost of looking after these children - assuming taxpayers paid the entire cost - would be 1/2500'th of the federal budget.

So let's drop this nonsense about America cannot afford to look after these children...because that is total bull****.

The U.S. military budget for 2016 is $585 billion. If it is between saving these children for a year or paying for 1/417'th of the military budget...I will take the former in a millisecond.

And anyone who wouldn't is shallower then a puddle.

Medicaid, medicare, social security

so let's examine the cost of upkeep:

To pay for To keep one mentally retarded person in a nonprofit group home costs an average of $91,162 a year.

To keep that person in a state-run group home costs an average of $116,263.

The cost of keeping that person at Southbury Training School is $101,357 a year.

At the state's other smaller regional institutions the average yearly cost per person is $153,610.

billions more in additional costs. no matter---you don't care. Even if i posted stats showing double the cost, your response would still be exactly the same.

Yes, you are saying "let's kill them off".

No, I’m not. This is a theoretical discussion.

Who is to decide who is worthy of living? Healthcare CEO's, the fed? What you are saying is that $$$ are to determine worth.

What do You think determines worth?

For me, it’s productivity. It’s not necessarily money, but talent. I am fully aware that some people with disabilities are extremely talented. Stephen Hawking, for example, has made several great contributions in physics.. but he is paralyzed with ALS. Plenty of children with autism could in fact have savant syndrome and be profoundly talented in one aspect of music or science. As Turtledude mentioned, most people who would support euthanizing disabled infants would only ever do so in the most extreme circumstances.

So who is non productive? The war veteran who may live in his own personal hell of PTSD? How about a formerly productive college professor with Alzheimers?

Not the war veteran.. he or she has more than earned the money and support received, and if anything, they deserve even more. Alzheimers—that’s complicated. During the late stages, people are extremely disoriented, and often don’t remember family members. It’s a severely degenerative condition that diminishes consciousness to the point of adults becoming infantile. What sort of life is that? Where is this dignity people speak of? Plenty of family members pretend to treasure Granny, prolonging her suffering as she lives through hospitalizations and then stowed away in a nursing home where none of her family changes her diapers or feeds and bathes her. But plenty of these people hold strong sentiments about the value of human life.

Would you sacrifice yourself for the greater good if you, now a plegic because, coming home from work you were tboned by a, otherwise productive, drunk driver?

Yes, but it wouldn’t be a sacrifice. I would never choose to live disabled. Suicide would be the only viable option in my case. Even if I could adapt to such a pitiful life, I would never burden my family with the cost of my care both in time and money. People are selfish to expect to be cared for endlessly regardless of the burden it places on others.
People are outraged at the prospect that personal value is not something endowed upon every human regardless of personal talent, contribution, or lack thereof. Everybody wins a medal these days.

Merely having human DNA does not impart value to an organism.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's unethical, but there are advantages to it. The ancient Greeks did it, and China and North Korea do it today.

There's a large variety of mental defects and a large range of disabilities that go with them. If it's a very serious disability, like with Zieka virus, with no hope of anything but a life of dependency, I think it fair to leave it up to the parents to decide. May God have mercy on their souls for having to make such a decision.

 

[nota bene]

So you're saying it's a black or white issue, and higher education cannot be made accessible to everyone willing to do the work required?
It also sounds like you're possibly attempting to paint my statement into a corner that depicts it as the painful bleating of some bleeding heart who expects equal outcome rather than equal opportunity.

My in state tuition at UCLA was pretty much couch change in 1982. Any slob working the fry machine part time at Burger World could afford it.
If that slob's parents make 250 thousand a year, they should be able to pay full price but if that slob is on their own and they are willing to make good grades, it should be accessible enough that said slob can exercise upward mobility and lift themselves out of poverty.

Food stamps and access to higher education are linked because a small child who is hungry can't concentrate hard enough in elementary school to make the kind of grades they will need to be accepted at an institution of higher learning later on in life. That's because poor performance early on sets a child up for failure later in life.

If you think food stamps and higher education are expensive, you either have not adequately calculated what we currently pay for institutionalized ignorance, or your income is partly derived directly or indirectly from a school to prison pipeline mentality, which means you depend upon such ignorance to keep your revenue streams profitable.

Or, you just haven't bothered to think the issue through, and you are not the only one who hasn't.
If you want less takers and more makers, then you must be willing to invest in that which yields more capable contributors to society.
It's a wise investment.

So about those “mud babies”?
No, I am not saying that this is a black-or-white issue; what I said was that trying to link food stamps and higher education is weird. Just FYI, there are plenty of kids who are not nutritionally deprived—deprived in any way, in fact—who also fail for one reason or another to make the grades. And also just FYI, there are two-year colleges with open admissions policies, and if a student does well, he or she can transfer to a four-year institution.

If you’re really concerned, poor nutrition damages little kids before they even start school. But I happen to be a strong supporter of free breakfasts and lunches for schoolkids. Early Childhood Development Overview

I have a problem with your referring to “slobs who work fry machines” because I’m not a preachy elitist. Your either/or speculation that I have failed to “adequately calculate” or have not “bothered to think the issue through” is presumptuous. You would crap a cupcake, my superior friend, if you knew how I have mainly earned my living.

 

[dimensionallava]

So about those “mud babies”?
No, I am not saying that this is a black-or-white issue; what I said was that trying to link food stamps and higher education is weird. Just FYI, there are plenty of kids who are not nutritionally deprived—deprived in any way, in fact—who also fail for one reason or another to make the grades. And also just FYI, there are two-year colleges with open admissions policies, and if a student does well, he or she can transfer to a four-year institution.

If you’re really concerned, poor nutrition damages little kids before they even start school. But I happen to be a strong supporter of free breakfasts and lunches for schoolkids. Early Childhood Development Overview

I have a problem with your referring to “slobs who work fry machines” because I’m not a preachy elitist. Your either/or speculation that I have failed to “adequately calculate” or have not “bothered to think the issue through” is presumptuous. You would crap a cupcake, my snotty friend, if you knew how I have mainly earned my living.

why do you support food stamps and call yourself republican? most republicans don't, do you mean you dont "mind" food stamps....thats completely different supporting them. There's a reason the KKK doesn't support public schools, and you seem to be either completely ignorant of why they would do that, or are pretending to be ignorant like most republicans.

 

[nota bene]

why do you support food stamps and call yourself republican? most republicans don't, do you mean you dont "mind" food stamps....thats completely different supporting them. There's a reason the KKK doesn't support public schools, and you seem to be either completely ignorant of why they would do that, or are pretending to be ignorant like most republicans.

You need to read more carefully. I said that I support free school breakfasts and lunches. I am not a Republican. I don't care what the KKK supports or does not support; this hate group is a meaningless irrelevancy of pitiable losers that has no impact whatsoever on school lunches or any other social program.

Go find somebody else to misread and willfully misinterpret please.

 

[dimensionallava]

You need to read more carefully. I said that I support free school breakfasts and lunches. I am not a Republican. I don't care what the KKK supports or does not support; this hate group is a meaningless irrelevancy of pitiable losers that has no impact whatsoever on school lunches or any other social program.

so your conservative but not a republican? I thought you were an american?

the KKK is not irrelevant when one of the largest political party's supports their entire political platform

 

[Fiddytree]

It is unnecessary to make this discussion personal.

You're talking about the near genocide of vast swaths of over 50 million Americans of which I, my family and friends are members of with a rationale not truly embraced since Binding and Hoche. Did you honestly expect me to not take it personally? Perhaps I could, if I had no skin in the game and barely any education on the matter. But this is such a ridiculous scenario that it barely makes any sense to address it.

Not to mention that when you discuss costs, you have little conception as to how much cheaper and time effective it would be to implement community-based solutions that cost a fraction of what it takes for institutionalized or incarcerated care, or the elusive "cures" for the disability. Then you consider that you get more out of employing people with disabilities, yes, even a great deal of the ones you seem to feel aren't worthwhile human beings, than you do keeping them at home. The bang for buck output on those solutions is outstanding and continues to demonstrate it, and will continue to demonstrate it if given additional infrastructural and political support. Will there be a need for residential services with more restrictive settings? Absolutely. But the vast majority of people don't need to be there and structuring it that way is an incredibly poor use of resources, both for the state as well as for use of human capital found in the clients themselves. That's not even counting the moral obligations of society.

Again, there is no likelihood that the United States will be in a hell that requires you to act like you're a character in The Road. So why bother fantasizing about it? You probably do because you don't know any better and it secretly gets you off knowing you "went there." Good for you, pal. You still sound like a fool.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So about those “mud babies”?
No, I am not saying that this is a black-or-white issue; what I said was that trying to link food stamps and higher education is weird. Just FYI, there are plenty of kids who are not nutritionally deprived—deprived in any way, in fact—who also fail for one reason or another to make the grades. And also just FYI, there are two-year colleges with open admissions policies, and if a student does well, he or she can transfer to a four-year institution.

If you’re really concerned, poor nutrition damages little kids before they even start school. But I happen to be a strong supporter of free breakfasts and lunches for schoolkids. Early Childhood Development Overview

I have a problem with your referring to “slobs who work fry machines” because I’m not a preachy elitist. Your either/or speculation that I have failed to “adequately calculate” or have not “bothered to think the issue through” is presumptuous. You would crap a cupcake, my superior friend, if you knew how I have mainly earned my living.

Well you've gone and made a lot of assumptions about me too, since we're pointing fingers.
It's very simple, we are responsible, we are behooved to invest in the next generation that goes before us and to not do so is simply way more expensive, therefore I do believe higher education IS a right, at least for those whose efforts show they deserve it.
And you may not know this, but community colleges are suffering from a lack of open slots.
They're being subjected to a post office type starvation diet just like the rest of the public sphere, so you CAN get in, if there is room.

I am sick to death of hearing the condescending trope about how poor kids can just go to community college.
It's farsical, it's disingenuous and it's contemptible, because if there was so much room and adequate funding, kids WOULD be going to them.

community colleges lack of funding - Google Search

So I could give two ****s what you do for a living because if it has anything to do with poor kids getting access to super affordable higher education OR poor kids getting adequate nutrition before, during or after elementary school (yes, even via food stamps if necessary) I vote you get fired for having that very elitist attitude you just projected onto me.

I WAS that poor slob working the fry machine...LOL. How elitist of me to poke fun at myself!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

so your conservative but not a republican? I thought you were an american?

the KKK is not irrelevant when one of the largest political party's supports their entire political platform

 

[Mr Person]

And we tear them apart while in they're womb for no reason other than the inconvenience of their existence. Sadly, the question of "euthanizing" them after birth is a completely logical progression.

It's no more a "completely logical progression" than is claiming that imposing the death penalty will lead to preemptive execution of potential murderers, nor is it any more logical than claiming that scratching a dog's ear leads to buggery.

The placement of abortion on the line of viability under medical science is a balancing act done in recognition of the fact that there is no objectively real defining line that determines the moment when what starts as an egg with a sperm in it and what ends up as a newly birthed screaming being. And, of course, by "tear apart" you can only be referring to a seriously botched late-term D&X or D&E*, conducted in cases that threaten the life of the mother. (In fact, tearing apart a fetus in the womb would stand a good chance of producing a rather potential fatal infection... )




*(exact acronym escapes me at the moment)

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Steven Hawking would have been thrown on the rocks if that was the case.

Prior to Islam, it was common practice to bury female babies in the sand in Mecca.

 

[Mr Person]

so your conservative but not a republican? I thought you were an american?

the KKK is not irrelevant when one of the largest political party's supports their entire political platform

The GOP is full of scumbags.

The GOP does not support the KKK platform.

 

[X Factor]

The GOP is full of scumbags.

:roll:

 

[DA60]

Medicaid, medicare, social security

so let's examine the cost of upkeep:



billions more in additional costs. no matter---you don't care. Even if i posted stats showing double the cost, your response would still be exactly the same.



No, I’m not. This is a theoretical discussion.



What do You think determines worth?

For me, it’s productivity. It’s not necessarily money, but talent. I am fully aware that some people with disabilities are extremely talented. Stephen Hawking, for example, has made several great contributions in physics.. but he is paralyzed with ALS. Plenty of children with autism could in fact have savant syndrome and be profoundly talented in one aspect of music or science. As Turtledude mentioned, most people who would support euthanizing disabled infants would only ever do so in the most extreme circumstances.



Not the war veteran.. he or she has more than earned the money and support received, and if anything, they deserve even more. Alzheimers—that’s complicated. During the late stages, people are extremely disoriented, and often don’t remember family members. It’s a severely degenerative condition that diminishes consciousness to the point of adults becoming infantile. What sort of life is that? Where is this dignity people speak of? Plenty of family members pretend to treasure Granny, prolonging her suffering as she lives through hospitalizations and then stowed away in a nursing home where none of her family changes her diapers or feeds and bathes her. But plenty of these people hold strong sentiments about the value of human life.



Yes, but it wouldn’t be a sacrifice. I would never choose to live disabled. Suicide would be the only viable option in my case. Even if I could adapt to such a pitiful life, I would never burden my family with the cost of my care both in time and money. People are selfish to expect to be cared for endlessly regardless of the burden it places on others.
People are outraged at the prospect that personal value is not something endowed upon every human regardless of personal talent, contribution, or lack thereof. Everybody wins a medal these days.

Merely having human DNA does not impart value to an organism.

No, I wouldn't.

Because unlike you apparently, I would rather every American fork over an extra $10 a year each rather then have children murdered because they have mental birth defects.

So you would rather have all these 1,000's of children killed rather then pay an extra $10 per year?

YES OR NO?

 

[shrubnose]

I was actually talking about serious physical and clear mental defects like Down's Syndrome, missing limbs and other deformities. And as I said, it ought to be completely up to the parents to decide. Whatever decision you make, you ought to be responsible for.

Where on this planet are people not responsible for the decisions that they make?