Severely retarded people

No. Those kids try hard, and some do succeed. Mental handicap is not an excuse to kill people You're starting to sound like nazi, baldy..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Case in point: Albert Einstein didn't start speaking really until he was three or five...he had shitty grades, nearly failed school, went from low-end job to low-end job before before working for the swiss patent office...and yet, he turned out to be possibly the greatest genius the world has ever known.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I don't necessarily think so. For that matter, being unable to comprehend one's failures holds a number of advantages. If any retarted person leads an unhappy life, society at large is at fault, for making fun of and not providing for retarted people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Frencheneesz, by irrational, you mean not rational, which is quite different from an unproven statement or a basis on premises not universally accepted.

As soon as you say "every life", your making the universal "all life that exists". (I'm assuming you meant human life, for which you're only talking potential human beings when you consider sperm.)

In most cases, when I hear the term playing God, it's meant to refer to behavior only for gathering knowledge or power itself, not for helping people.

 

I believe I shall voice my views on the matter:

Scientifically, one cannot conclude that even a zygote is a human being, and due to the very nature of abortion on both a physical and psychological level, we cannot conclude that it is anything but first degree murder (as would be defined legally) to abort one's child, retarded or not. As all life is known to cling to life by default, we must assume the child, no matter how retarded, similarly wants life, unless he can rationally communicate a desire to die, in which case one might say that suicide would then be acceptable. However, that being said, once the child is born and the parents, or any charity, cannot take care of this person, they have no right to seek help from the government. If no one wishes to care for them, then they die, just as anyone else who cannot take care of themselves ultimately must die. Moreover, I would strongly recommend that sterilization be mandated for retarded people, in order to avoid further instances of retardation if they breed, as well as those with other inherited genetic disorders of a certain level.

 

I feel retards should be killed by having hooks dug into their anuses and then seperated at high speed, splitting the retard in half. Sometimes (due to the hook machine being kind of old and unreliable) not all the way, but a split from butt to lower back, causing the retard to writh in pain and die a slow, agonising and embarrassing death.

I just think this is the most practical way to deal with this troubling issue of what to do with retards. It is a difficult subject I know.

 

This is interesting - this forum suddenly starting up now, and people replying to responses I made two years ago...

Christopher's post, tho a little crowded, makes a couple good points. One, severely retarded people is a cruel genetic mishap, and is something we should try to prevent. HOWEVER, rounding up everyone we think are "mishaps" and killing them might not be a very prudent (or palatable).

- Hapsburg: "Case in point: Albert Einstein"

Hmm, i'd have to say thats a horrible example. Einstein was not retarded - NOT. He was seen as stupid, but not retarded. Also another thing - he *obviously* "cured" his stupidity - retards cannot cure their retardation. One would have to rebuild their brain strand by strand.

- Okinrus: "If any retarted person leads an unhappy life, society at large is at fault, for making fun of and not providing for retarted people."

You really think ones happiness is significantly affected by who makes fun of you? What about their abilities, the ability to find fulfilling occupation in life, finding love, etc? Society can only do so much. If you wanted to, i'm pretty sure it would be possible to give them a sporatic stream of endorphins to keep them happy. Perhaps stimulate the part of the brain that creates a sense of success and fulfillment. Is it really up to society to facilitate happiness in any abnormal human being that comes along?

In any case, Okinrus, you must have skipped over Christopher's post, because it explicitly stated that he knows - from *experience* - that the severely retarded find their lives unhappily confusing and frustrating. They may not be able to comprehend how to fix their failures, but they still know when they have failed, and noone likes frustrated failures.

- Okinrus: "Frencheneesz, by irrational, you mean not rational, which is quite different from an unproven statement or a basis on premises not universally accepted."

First of all, quit the semantics. Second of all, irrational MEANS not rational - so don't gimme that. Thirdly, faith - almost by definition - is an irrational behavior. Faith is irrational, but irrationality is not synonymous with faith. Its a description not a definition.. You're reading it all the wrong way.

 

My own personal feelings about this issue is that the people who brought the "retarded" kid into the world should be the one to deal with him .....the public, the government, etc should have NO place in raising the kid. They had no place in making the decision to have the kid, they shouldn't be forced to take care of him/her/it.

As I see it today in the USA (and in most western nations), the retarded/severely handicapped quickly become a burden upon society that they didn't choose or want.

How can we allow one person, one family to place such a burden upon a society?

Baron Max

 

'kay, here's another example: Rainman?

 

What if that one "retarded" kid is the future of mankind, in an evolutionary sort of way? What the fuck do you know, barren?

 

Depending of course on the person, yes.

OK, a serious retarted person who is unable to find these things is unable to realize that he or she can't do these things. But for the mildly retarted person, love is possible, say with other mildly retarted people, and so is occupation. Sure, they can't become a rocket scientist, but some types of occupations are possible. In the Walmart down the street from my house, a mildly retarted woman greets customers and folds cloths.

Within ordinary means, society is capable to have retarted people lead a happy life. I don't see any reason not to.

Failure is too vague. If my expectation is to get done one problem, I might have success if it's an easy problem. But if my expectation is to get done one hard problem, I might fail. Wouldn't retarted people have success on easy problems and failures on hard problems? How and why would they judge how difficult their problems are with society at large. How would I, a non-mathematician, be able to judge how difficult Fermat's last theorem was?

I'm not following you. Faith really has no standard definition. True, faith is belief not based on material evidence. But belief is rational unless if it has a contradiction. Otherwise, you could say such subjects as mathematics are irrational, because they, too, use unproven premises.

 

So you're saying/implying that everyone pay money to support ALL kids ....just in case they MIGHT be the "future of mankind"?

Because if you're just singling out "retarded" kids for us all to help, then isn't that discrimination? And surely YOU don't believe in discrimination, do you?

If the family has a kid, they should support it. That's what having a kid is all about, ain't it?

Baron Max

 

If we lived in a perfect world there would be no such thing as reterded pople, mentally ill people, cancer, serial killers, child abuse, porno, prostitution, hatred, prejudice, stupidity, war, crime...retards are just another aspect of life on earth...no one said it would be easy, and no one is perfect...even those who appear perfect to others, arn't perfect... Retards and all the other misfits of our society are obviously less then perfect, and that what annoys us, its transparency, we see it as a first impression, as a fault we can't ever redeem to god or the scientific community, we can't fix it so it frustrats us, so we hate it! We hate things that can't be repared, that show no hope, that can't struugle to evn help[ themselves for hope, its a loose loose battle, and America only thinks win win... Our society causes us to feel this way, instead of just excepting it as purposeless to society at large, we victimis the victims of genetics gone bad, we blame the parents for faulty genes, we mock each other for not comprehending the obsuletness of their exsistence, we want to kill them.. to end the tyranny of the problems it ensues in our sub-consiousness, because we can we would, but religion prevents us to do this.... Please bless the Lord every day that you don't have to live in the Hell these poor souls do everyday, and be done with it!!!!!

 

I guess if we want to argue the topic of whether or not mentally handicapped people should be euthanised at birth, I'll have a go of it.

If you're going to kill a human being (and the idea that a baby only becomes a human being after it has passed through a few inches of flesh is, to me, ridiculous!), who gets to draw the line? How retarded is too retarded? Is it a matter of those who are able to make the decisions are the ones who are allowed to? I suppose it's the way of man to do this. Survival of the fittest and all. Perhaps there are some mentally handicapped folks out there, the ones who apparently have nothing going on between their ears in some people's opinions, who think it's people who come up with the idea of euthanising them who actually deserve the euthanasia. Whose opinion outweighs whose? Should the opinions of the non-handicapped outweigh the opinion of the handicapped...simply because they can? I really don't feel that one human being has the right to determine another human being's worth. That is not something that we are capable of judging, as we cannot know the inner workings of that person's mind, nor can we determine what that person's future might hold. Anybody seen Forest Gump?? Ok, a fictional character, but still.

All I'm saying is that no one has the right to judge whether or not someone else's life is full enough, good enough, or satisfying enough. Perhaps we don't understand how anyone could be happy living in the state they are in, but so many times I've heard differently. Many parents, even though their lives would've been so much less complicated with a non-handicapped child, have said they feel blessed to have had their mentally handicapped child. Who are we to judge?

 

I don't think this is about killing them, for god's sake! But if a couple brings a child into the world, they should be prepared to care for it. Plain and simple.

No child, with living relatives, should ever be a burden to the society. If that is to be the case, then society should have a say in whether a child is concieved or not. Can't have one without the other. It's "your" child, "you" care for it.

Baron Max

 

Baron, I strongly dislike you. You are promoting everything that is wrong with america the great. I thought that we were supposed to be beyond our animalistic origins. You are promoting the continuance of that animalistic origin.

By saying "it's 'your' child, 'you' care for it," you are promoting "survival of the fittest." Did you realize that? Do "christians" realize what they really believe in? Are you a southern baptist, or an evolutionist? Personally, I don't give a god-damned what you are saying, but let's get this clear for the rest of the audience here.

 

So, you're advocating mass-murder, genocide, state-sponsored killing programs?
Sounds an awful lot like the Nazis, Bell. You wouldn't happen to be one of them, would you? :bugeye: