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.
If the child is fully or mostly functioning, of course not. If you are talking about a child that is basically a vegetable then that is different. Now I am not advocating that we put people to sleep. Technology is good enough that one should know the state of their baby before birth. When a pregnant woman (and partner) has her anatomy scans, if it is revealed that the fetus does have a debilitating abnormality, something severe that means he/she will basically be an infant for life in a wheelchair, than the parent/s need to be 100% honest with themselves and decide if that is something that they truly want and are willing to take on. If they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the child, that is their own choice, but if it is not something they can handle, then they should abort and try again. No shame in that.
First post from you that I actually agree with.
Back in the early '80s I knew a couple that had had a severely disabled baby. It stayed a 'baby', never grew, had no mental development, couldn't talk, was in constant pain and frequently wracked with seizures that broke its own bones. It required constant attention and loads of drugs. It 'lived' like that for 18 years. It was a horrible way to live, for both the child and the parents, who were so distraught that they never dared have another.
But, when people are still arguing over a woman/couple aborting an unborn fetus, I imagine that some would be wanting murder charges against those who allowed/caused such a child to die. I see it as inhumane torture to prolong such a life regardless of the quality...or, more accurately, the lack thereof.
Put to sleep? Why not just say "killed"?...I always thought it strange that while some may want to be the "selector" (or be able to designate "der selector") nobody ever wants to be a "selectee". I wonder why?
What makes you think that no one wants to be a "selectee", as you put it?
Some people have DNRs/Living Wills in place for this purpose. I have told my wife that if I ever develop Alzheimer's/dementia or some other chronic/incurable condition that would cause me to be a constant burden, and I am incapable of doing it myself I want her to put me out of my (and her) misery. I have a deep hole all ready, all she has to do is dump me in and cover me up. I've seen people trying to 'care' for others in this condition and I don't want that for her, or for me. Kill me and move on.
Again a dictator ordering a certain type of person's to be eliminated is NOT the same as a family making an informed decision together. The doctors can say this person should be euthanized, but ultimately the family gets to decide.
The core concept is the same: Another person, in this case a family member, decides whether or not somebody else gets killed (euthanized). The infant being considered for death does not get to give any input. Even restricting it to the warm image of "family members", do estranged family members get the same input in the death decision? Who gets to be a deciding family member? Who is a family member? What is an estranged family member?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
What slippery slope? Be specific. No one would force anyone to commit or preform assisted suicide, but why should one needlessly suffer so that YOU, a non involved person, can sleep better at night?.
Sure, the slope gets slippery. Consider the following hypothetical train of thought in A-E:
A. Animals are just like us, and we euthanize animals all the time
B. We are not killing anybody, we are uhmm..... "putting them to sleep".
C. The person being killed no longer needs to volunteer in all cases. In certain circumstances, other people can select that person to be killed.
D. Ok, in some other cases, the Selectors do not even need to be family (person has no family etc)
E From now on, the Selectors can consider a variety of things (quality of life, social impact, efficient use of reseources) when making a kill / no kill decision.... .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer
What makes you think that no one wants to be a "selectee", as you put it?
Some people have DNRs/Living Wills in place for this purpose. I have told my wife that if I ever develop Alzheimer's/dementia or some other chronic/incurable condition that would cause me to be a constant burden, and I am incapable of doing it myself I want her to put me out of my (and her) misery. I have a deep hole all ready, all she has to do is dump me in and cover me up. I've seen people trying to 'care' for others in this condition and I don't want that for her, or for me. Kill me and move on.
If you volunteer, you are no longer a true "selectee". Also DNR is not the same as actively killing somebody (my mother had one of those, and we followed it). The poster in the OP wants to actively kill non volunteers because a third party has detemined that they are incapable of living a "quality life".
If you volunteer, you are no longer a true "selectee". Also DNR is not the same as actively killing somebody (my mother had one of those, and we followed it). The poster in the OP wants to actively kill non volunteers because a third party has detemined that they are incapable of living a "quality life".
You practically have to volunteer, because there is such an adverse mindset against 'selection'. If you don't 'volunteer' in advance you are likely to be denied the option of a merciful end to suffering. There are some cases where the humane thing to do is to end it, rather than prolong it, but some people are so dead-set against the merciful option and they want all life to continue regardless of quality and suffering that it makes it difficult to do it.
For a while I had a job that brought me into 'nursing homes' frequently, where I observed 'patients' who had zero quality of life. They were hooked up to machines, tubes in, tubes out. They didn't move, didn't talk, didn't do *anything*. They were technically 'alive', but they weren't really living. Not even considering the cost of maintaining someone in this state, the question occurred to me "Is it 'right' to do this to people, to force them to remain a [technically] living thing?" My conclusion was that it is not. The decision to terminate a 'life' can be difficult, but sometimes it is the best and most humane thing to do for *all* concerned. And yes, I have had personal experience in making that decision. (Further, deponent sayeth naught.)
I would hope that someone would do that for me if I were unable to do it for myself, but, given the opposition to it from some sources it seems unlikely that such would occur, therefore I find it necessary to make my wishes known in advance...though it seems that even then there is no guarantee that it will happen as I desire, because of such opposition.
I see this young mother wheeling her deformed child around and that young mother always has a look on her face of sadness. Of course she wanted a healthy young child but now has to put up with that kid that she has to dress, feed, bathe, and do everything for on into old age. It saddens me to see this. Why can't she have that child put to sleep and have another kid that might be a healthy one. Better for everyone including society.
It would be much better for society as a whole if - instead of the state allowing parents to murder their own children simply because they weren't pretty enough - the state stepped in and murdered children who are inhuman, sociopathic monsters. Psychological tests could be administered at an early age, and children who demonstrate that they are so utterly devoid of compassion, morals, ethics, and basic human decency that they would murder an innocent baby could just be smothered.
That fits perfectly with what you had in mind - right?
I see this young mother wheeling her deformed child around and that young mother always has a look on her face of sadness. Of course she wanted a healthy young child but now has to put up with that kid that she has to dress, feed, bathe, and do everything for on into old age. It saddens me to see this. Why can't she have that child put to sleep and have another kid that might be a healthy one. Better for everyone including society.
Reminds me of the lawsuit last year where the couple were having tests done to see if their child was going to be born disabled. They had the normal ones done and some others, the 'Some others' were discarded by the doctors as not correct. But, yes the child was born with down's syndrome.
The couple sued and won.
So, now is the question, shall we have ALL females tested for possible "Disabled Births" and thus ONLY have them aborted then? Shall we infringe on the Mother's right to have children only if WE say she can or should?
Such is the fine line between us and animals....
Animals will let the weak die or kill it. In nature, only the strong survive. As humans,w e have "Compassion" beyond that of an animal, but shall we return to the animal ways and thus start killing the weak?
To simply terminate the life of another human being without researching ALL the possibilities is unspeakable. There are so many resources and searching is so easy with the internet. This is not the time to take the easy way out.
I'm sure that it's not the "easy way out" for anyone going through this. What's more unspeakable are people who never have been placed in that situation passing judgment.
I see this young mother wheeling her deformed child around and that young mother always has a look on her face of sadness. Of course she wanted a healthy young child but now has to put up with that kid that she has to dress, feed, bathe, and do everything for on into old age. It saddens me to see this. Why can't she have that child put to sleep and have another kid that might be a healthy one. Better for everyone including society.
Having 4 kids, 2 of which are special ed but, not with the maladies you described, simply slower and ridiculed on a routine basis throughout their lives so, I can tell you without ANY hesitation, that I would not "put them to sleep".
It has been trying on regular basis but, I would go through a wall for them. They are not a "burden" to you or society at large. They maintain modest jobs and it's MY job to save enough for them so they will be okay throughout their lives. Believe it or not, they teach me things, too? Wish that social bullying hadn't been so tough on them these last 20 years but, society is, what it is.......
In the end, It's a challenge and sacrifice I welcome highly.
No, I do not think "putting them to sleep" would solve anything for me. I think I would be exponentially sadder if they were gone than when they are here?
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.
