Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well cupcake I can GUARANTEE you have never been in a REAL life or death self defense situation if you believe that crap. It takes overwhelming violence to stop someone that wants to kill you. If someone pulls a knife on me you expect me to pick up a baseball bat instead of gun if I have the choice? LOL.............you speak in absolutes. Life is one big gray area. I can't imagine how someone like you can manage their way through it with such rigid beliefs and still stay sane???????? It seems to me your sense of reality is grounded in what ifs and what could be instead of what actually does happen.
Says the person who would pretty much kill any baby who had any disability, save 6 toes, if you can even count that as a disability. Don't you think your thinking is a little black and white? A lot of people with a range of disabilities can have fulfilling lives and yet you would pretty much always abort them in favor of a healthy baby, basically implying you only think life is worthwhile if it's a completely healthy able-bodied baby's life. I can understand your position in cases like Jeffery and Janet (extreme cases calling for extreme measures--which isn't to say I would do the same cause I don't know what I would do, but I can understand your position), but you've said you would do the same for a baby with Downs, autism, blindness, SMA, etc. Don't you think that thinking is black-and-white? How many disabled people do you know personally? How much do you know about what actually happens to disabled people--or are you basing your opinions of the value of another human's life off of what you imagine living disabled is like? Are you sure that you're grounded in reality when it comes to the contributions to society that many people, some with quite severe disabilities, make?
The liberals here said their lives are worthless, which is the most disgusting thing I've ever read on this board. I can't believe liberals try to pretend to be these quality of life experts about caring for the poor, yet actually think they have the moral capacity to determine the worth of other people's lives.
Hey, don't paint us all with one broad brush. I am liberal and I've been defending disabled people's right to choose life all along precisely because I don't think it's up to me to determine the quality of another person's life.
I think this is really the issue here. Who speaks for those who can't speak for themselves? Who should decide for those incapable of making their own decisions? The state? The public at large? Or the woman who gave birth to them?
Quote:
There is no greater show of love and compassion than to ignore your own feelings, and think only of someone else's.
That's what it's about folks. It's not about what you or I want. We have no right to impose our own will onto another human being like that. It's what each person wants in regards to their own life--each person has the right to carry out their own will.
Ask yourselves, how would you feel if someone else chose for you what degree you sought, and your career and profession, and where you lived, and who you married and if you had kids, etc. Now imagine if someone chose to kill you, or chose to keep you going--against your own wishes. Don't you see why it's completely disastrous to legally condone choosing life or death for another person?
I know this particular case is extremely difficult in that these two people cannot get whatever wishes they might have across, but it will open the door to allow families to override people's desires in cases where they might be able to express that wish, even if it's just through the blink of an eye. If that person who can only blink wants to live, that should be her choice, not anyone else's. And if she wants to die, that too, should be her choice and no one else's.
The most loving and compassionate thing you can do is carry out whatever their wishes, whatever those are. That might mean putting aside your understanding of their condition as suffering and accepting they want to live. That might mean accepting that you'll have to let your loved one pass, even if you're not ready to let go.
I think if nothing else, this case should teach us to make clear our personal intentions while we still have the ability, so that if it comes to this for any of us, our families and doctors can respect our wishes instead of having to fall back on speculation.
That's what it's about folks. It's not about what you or I want. We have no right to impose our own will onto another human being like that. It's what each person wants in regards to their own life--each person has the right to carry out their own will.
Ask yourselves, how would you feel if someone else chose for you what degree you sought, and your career and profession, and where you lived, and who you married and if you had kids, etc. Now imagine if someone chose to kill you, or chose to keep you going--against your own wishes. Don't you see why it's completely disastrous to legally condone choosing life or death for another person?
I know this particular case is extremely difficult in that these two people cannot get whatever wishes they might have across, but it will open the door to allow families to override people's desires in cases where they might be able to express that wish, even if it's just through the blink of an eye. If that person who can only blink wants to live, that should be her choice, not anyone else's. And if she wants to die, that too, should be her choice and no one else's.
The most loving and compassionate thing you can do is carry out whatever their wishes, whatever those are. That might mean putting aside your understanding of their condition as suffering and accepting they want to live. That might mean accepting that you'll have to let your loved one pass, even if you're not ready to let go.
I think if nothing else, this case should teach us to make clear our personal intentions while we still have the ability, so that if it comes to this for any of us, our families and doctors can respect our wishes instead of having to fall back on speculation.
The problem with this case is that these "children" (40+ years old) never had a chance to make their wishes known - seeing as how the disease robbed them of any capability to make their own legal decisions before they turned of majority age.
In this case, seeing as how there was no chance for wishes to be known, the mother should be able to make the decision based upon their perceived quality of life and what she thinks her children would want for themselves.
She has the ability to do it via removal of their feeding tubes. But that is a slow death. She wants to end their prolonged decades of suffering in one fell swoop. Nice, quick, easy, and painless.
You know, let her children go with dignity and all?
Let me get this straight.......you're actually saying that this lady should have had these babies ANYWAY even IF she knew they had this rare disease inside the womb? Is that what you are actually trying to argue here? Wow if so!!!
You are throwing so many what ifs into this equation it's ridiculous. If I have the full transparency of choosing between a completely healthy fetus and one that has some sort of disease, malformation, whatever. Yes I'm going to choose the healthy viable fetus. Sorry. And fortunately with modern medicine we do have that capacity and it's getting better all the time. You act like you're saying people MUST be forced to raise kids like this as if it's some sort of divine destiny. Crazy!!!
Okay the technology that you are speaking of is very flawed. I know a woman who got the test and they said the baby was perfectly healthy, she has Down syndrome. She got the test again, they said the baby had Downs and that she should abort, she didn't and when the baby was born she was completely healthy. Another woman I know, they told her that she should abort because the baby was completely brain dead, the baby was born he was completely fine. So there are a lot of ifs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalCroozer
Maybe to you they are but morally and technically to me they are not. If all of a sudden I believed in another planet where the only way to get to that planet would be to kill myself what right do you or anyone else have to tell me I can't? Is society going to lock me up in a mental hospital because they think I'm instance because I don't believe in a bearded white guy who's afterlife consists of a city of gold? LOL........ People should be able to make whatever conscious decision they want with respect to their own life as long as it infringes upon no one else.
See if you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't say stupid crap like that.
Quote:
Annette says she first thought about taking control of her children’s lives when the feeding tubes went in. “If God wanted them to live past adulthood, then the tubes wouldn’t have been needed,” she says. “The tubes are allowing them to exist. Without the tubes, they wouldn’t be here. This is no life.”
Hey, don't paint us all with one broad brush. I am liberal and I've been defending disabled people's right to choose life all along precisely because I don't think it's up to me to determine the quality of another person's life.
What is ridiculous is that we treat our animals better than we treat our human loved ones.
And, if you cannot understand the analogy, then I think you are ill-equipped to be involved in this debate.
Who better?
Totally agree with you. We do treat them better. It costs more to rescue a dog than to feed a child. Theres something wrong with that.
Oh I don't know. How about........ God or Allah or Budah or whatever higher power you believe in.
If you don't believe in a higher power than maybe the Universe will help you out.
I'm ultimately pro-choice when it comes to abortion, support same sex rights, believe in a safety network system through programs like welfare and food stamps, etc. On the grand scheme I'm basically a liberal. I don't believe in eugenics, though, especially when it's based on a completely biased assumption that disabled people as a rule live impoverished lives. For what it's worth, I'm not really religious either. I believe in God, but I believe that God's will and each person's personal will are one and the same, including if a mother chooses to abort, which is why I would never try to interfere with that will. I am just trying to give everyone the option to carry out their own will. I vehemently disagree with some people's reasons for aborting (finding out the baby is/might be disabled) but at the end of the day, I have to defend their right to choose.
The problem with this case is that these "children" (40+ years old) never had a chance to make their wishes known - seeing as how the disease robbed them of any capability to make their own legal decisions before they turned of majority age.
In this case, seeing as how there was no chance for wishes to be known, the mother should be able to make the decision based upon their perceived quality of life and what she thinks her children would want for themselves.
She has the ability to do it via removal of their feeding tubes. But that is a slow death. She wants to end their prolonged decades of suffering in one fell swoop. Nice, quick, easy, and painless.
You know, let her children go with dignity and all?
And I agree, in this case, I do think she should be allowed to end her children's lives painlessly. I sense her intentions are good. This case is also distinct in that Janet and Jeffery never had the chance to make their wishes known. My fear isn't with this case in particular, but the huge can of worms it will open, in terms of being able to kill off any adult or abort any baby with any degree of disability--in spite of any wishes they may or may not have expressed. Judging from some of the posts in this thread, even a relatively mild disability is enough for some people to choose death/abortion.
Okay the technology that you are speaking of is very flawed. I know a woman who got the test and they said the baby was perfectly healthy, she has Down syndrome. She got the test again, they said the baby had Downs and that she should abort, she didn't and when the baby was born she was completely healthy. Another woman I know, they told her that she should abort because the baby was completely brain dead, the baby was born he was completely fine. So there are a lot of ifs.
See if you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't say stupid crap like that.
Wanted to address this because I think you don't know what you are talking about in regards to prenatal testing for DS. Your friend may have had "markers" on her baby for DS which are seen via ultrasound. Those who have markers are advised that they can get an amniocentesis and chronic villa sampling to verify the results of the ultrasound markers (usually the markers are a heart defect that is known to present with DS babies and the length of limbs and other physical body parts). If a woman gets an amnio done and chronic villa sampling and a baby is diagnosed with DS that diagnosis has an over 99% accuracy rate. I doubt that your friend had "the test" done, she probably just had a baby with markers for downs.
But on topic, I do think this is a very controversial case. In all honesty, I feel that the mother should have thought about the quality of life of her children when they were younger. If she had and had made specific requests/arrangements, then she wouldn't be in the predicament she is in.
This thread has reminded me that I need to make a plan for myself as I would not want to live in a vegetative state either.
I also don't see what eugenics or abortion have to do with this topic, but in regards to that, I don't feel that someone's choice to abort a disabled fetus is "morally wrong." No matter the quality of life of someone severely disabled (and I want to point out that I do not consider someone blind or deaf as severely disabled and really I would only see is as a physical disability) I don't think it is fair to judge the decisions of a family. All children and especially disabled children, depending on their disability, need constant care. Many disabled individuals, like many with DS, as adults still need the assistance of their family. Many parents may not want to continue to be a primary caretaker throughout the rest of their lives for adult disabled children. They may not want to leave that sort of responsibility on their other children, to be caretakers for a disabled sibling.
Personally I don't view it as horrible or inhumane when DS babies are aborted but that is my personal view. I will honestly say that I would abort a DS fetus and any other disability that is or can be a severe mental capacity. Physical disabilities, I could deal with, blindness, deafness, spina bifida, or physical birth defects like cleft palate or clubbed feet, but I know that I would not bring to term a child with a severe mental diagnosis and I wouldn't want to take the risk of seeing if it was not as severe as multiple doctors (as I would get 3rd and 4th opinions) told me. I wouldn't want to leave that burden for my other children and that is just my honest opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
