Euthanasia

[PROJECT PAT]

There is a quote by The great southern writer Flannery O'Conner. The exact words escape me, but it was to this effect: "maybe in a hundred years society will have evolved to the point where we will kill them at birth"

She was referring to a mentally retarded character in one of her stories. I think there are two main reasons that euthanasia is looked at so unfavorably in the united states. The first reason is by far the main overbearing reason. and that is religion. Most people in the united states call themselves religious. whether they are or not is a topic of another debate but they do identify themselves as such.

They blindly believe a bunch of extremely homoerotic notions about the gift of life and all this stupid hullaballoo not based whatsoever in logic. Rather than apply these principles strictly to their own lives they will stop at nothing to impose their wills on other people. picketing in front of abortion clinics calling fragile young women murderers and even murdering doctors in complete anathema to the views they profess to hold. but i digress.

the second reason is world war 2. hitler was a great lover of efficiency practicality and logic, and therefore employed euthanasia to great economic and social success. anything related to hitler is a great taboo in our country and is synonymous with evil. unfortunately smoking bans seem to be the exception.

Now to me this is not a moral question at all. anyone who puts it as a moral question must be slightly stupid. to me it is a complete issue of practicality and logic. how much money is wasted on providing wheel chair ramps to every public building? how many good parking spots have you missed out on because they were marked handicapped? how many foaming frothing retarded kids did you have to pass in public school? how much extra do their nurses and specially trained teachers and special facilities and equiptment and accomodations do these kids cost our already stretched local governments?

how many tears to these kids parents and families shed when dealing with day after day the complete abomination of human life presented in these beings?

just to illustrate the social taboos of our society i put it to you this way. i once heard a story about a mormon girl born with a clubfoot. her parents insisting that this was what god intended refused to have it fixed. she will now be crippled for the rest of her life. these parents are seen as sick disgusting fanatics by the vast vast majority of people.

yet when another family gives birth to a hopelessly retarded disgusting thing. not only are they not allowed to "fix" his malladies by drowning him in the bathtub and starting over. they would be charged with murder were they to do so! furthermore society would see them as sick horrible people rather than logical clear thinking human beings.

do my sentiments ring with any of you?

[crimsonsmoke]

I believe that every thing has a chance at life. That said, I've never had the misfortune of having a child who has some severe physical or cognitive impairment.

On a related note, I think euthanasia should be an option. Imagine if you had multiple sclerosis, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, or another degenerative disease. Surely you'd want to die with your wits intact, still clutching to your dignity? Fuck your last moments being a bed-ridden, vegetative mess who can't feel, emote, or engage with those you've known your whole life.
Further, many people who suffer from the above diseases often [try to] commit suicide. This obviously often results in catastrophe, both for the diseased and for their bereaved family... and that's if they die...

[The Better Version]

I think voluntary euthanasia is fine but drowning your down syndrome kid in the bath tub? That's called murder because the child is unwillingly being killed. Its one thing when we give a dying person the option to end it now or live out the disease because A. He's dying and B. He can do what he wants with his dying body.

Its a good idea but it should be heavily controlled. By that I mean it shouldn't be open for anyone to use. Retarded kids, physically deformed people, or just plain old suicidals should never have that option but dying patients with terminal illnesses? I think its crazy not to give them that option.

But ultimately parents should never be able to decide a babies fate once it is born.

[Struwwelpeter]

That's interesting, you feel that parent's should have the right to indoctrinate a child, tell it when it can or can not leave the house, dictate what it consumes and observes, and decide who it can associate with - but not take it's life when they deem it should die? Why are some violations of will acceptable and some are not?

Euthanasia should be an option but only the government should be able to decide who lives or dies. The law should be applied to parents especially to thwart the problem where it starts. Take for example the brown and black women who have ten children without having a source of income (other than welfare and foodstamps) and feeds them so much shit that they become diabetics and she can't afford to sustain them. A common occurrence, there is no shortage of fat little browns running around checking their blood sugar every five seconds and crying. Much of mankind is obsolete. Another example where this should be applied is interracial children and the sterilization of the parents who have them. However, as mentioned earlier, this can never be a decision made by the parents especially women, since abortion rights entitle females and enable them to act outside of the interests of their husbands, their families, their evolutionarily-endowed behavior, et cetera.

Consider how efficient such a system would be for the economy and society in general, and contrast with leftists who want to create systems that SUSTAIN and support the lesser elements of society.

[Full Frontal]

Laws against euthanasia and abortion have always made me want to create a machine that has the crude basis for a human in it and it's only purpose is to feel pain and to reproduce. But it's like... at the genetic level... it's not the machine that dictates the suffering or the reproducing. All the machine does is keep the beings in it alive. It might also have audio/visual output to illustrate the pain that the creatures inside are feeling. Maybe the basis for the human will have a vocal system for that.

[Struwwelpeter]

I have to admit that an anarchist society (with no government intervention) would solve the same problems I mentioned above. In an anarchistic society humans would revert back to the lifestyles and behaviors that we adapted to through evolution and genetic defects would be killed at childbirth and in general. For example, 80,000 years ago if a child was born autistic or with it's eyeballs coming out of it's ass or diabetes, it simply would have been speared and left to rot. There wouldn't be any need for asking the government for the right to do what is man's natural right, it would simply happen because that's the way it is. Much like a bear doesn't need to consider the feelings of a deer before it tears it apart, it's just what the bear is there to do. Humans with random genetic mutations or weird diseases were not "meant" to be preserved and the proliferation of technology and leftism in general are what have enabled this, if it continues for longer we will see a degradation of the species and particular races in general. Technology also enables and society encourages women to be outside of the responsibilities of their husbands and their families which is most likely correlated with the general decline in male testosterone levels and procreation within the most progressed races, which is a terrible thing. All of the problems we face could be solved by simply abandoning government and industrial/biochemical technology in general.

[The Better Version]

That's interesting, you feel that parent's should have the right to indoctrinate a child, tell it when it can or can not leave the house, dictate what it consumes and observes, and decide who it can associate with - but not take it's life when they deem it should die? Why are some violations of will acceptable and some are not?

Yes because its innate in all of us (normal that is) that death is single handedly the worst thing that could happen to anyone or at least in my opinion because if you don't have life then you don't have anything and having nothing is the scariest thing in my book. I would much rather prefer to be indoctrinated by my parents than to have them murder me and I feel even if I was mentally retarded I would still value my life, because once again, that is all we have.

Even if a parent is indoctrinating their children to be racist bastards I still feel this is significantly more humane than drowning them in a bath tub because at least the child has life. I know you're trying to expose my contradictions and it may be contradicting but I can't help it if I value life this much. I'm not going to argue on this one because I don't think there is anything to argue about. There are no facts, just opinions and it is my opinion that death is single handedly the worst thing that could happen to me besides extreme torture and I don't consider being retarded as extreme torture. Maybe if I was in a concentration camp I would want to die but like I said....it has to be extreme.

But I will agree with you on the notion that it would make the World a more efficient place. So thats something to consider....

[Struwwelpeter]

You have yet to demonstrate that it is any less moral to kill a child because it is your property, than it is to indoctrinate them through education and religion nor to prevent them from viewing certain things. Children certainly value their privacy yet you wouldn't consider installing net nanny on their computers to be inhumane. I don't think you would consider forcing a child with testicles coming out of his chest to swim shirtless at a pool to be "inhumane" either, since the feminist, shitty leftist mother wants to show him how he should have "self-esteem" and "nothing to be ashamed of", even though it makes the child want to kill himself. What you call "humane" is in fact the opposite of human behavior since humans are killing machines and it is in the nature of them to behave like "savages" for the most part.

[The Better Version]

Are you still under the impression that morality can be debated? Its a relative subject with an infinite number of definitions. Therefore my ideas on what is moral and what is not is different from yours. Its not a fact, its just an opinion so therefore I don't have to prove or demonstrate anything because that's just how I feel about killing retards.

[Ambient]

You have yet to demonstrate that it is any less moral to kill a child because it is your property, than it is to indoctrinate them through education and religion nor to prevent them from viewing certain things. Children certainly value their privacy yet you wouldn't consider installing net nanny on their computers to be inhumane. I don't think you would consider forcing a child with testicles coming out of his chest to swim shirtless at a pool to be "inhumane" either, since the feminist, shitty leftist mother wants to show him how he should have "self-esteem" and "nothing to be ashamed of", even though it makes the child want to kill himself. What you call "humane" is in fact the opposite of human behavior since humans are killing machines and it is in the nature of them to behave like "savages" for the most part.

Two things:

Firstly who consider's children property? No rational person. If man thinks other people belong to him and he has lordship over them, then he is a dog.

Finally a boy with testicles coming out of his chest would not nessacarily want to kill himself, but peoples shallow and pedantic (yeah I like family guy) insults might. So it could be said that in a society which frowns upon testicles being on a chest would leave such a person with low self-esteem, generally this would be a society that are sexually and physically insecure; they are afraid of the human body. Actually this person could find himself with a rise or boost in self-esteem beyond others. I could only think off the top of my head this could be derived from membership in the porn industry, or some society that idoloses sex and the physical body (perhaps some "primal" community would venerate him as a God), especially by the heterosexual women of the society.

Logically speaking if I am attracted to breasts (a pair of breasts that is), and I find them to be arousing, then I should also be attracted to a women who has an extra pair on her back. Similarly a heterosexual women or gay man who is attracted to testicles in their original context, logically, should be attracted to a man with a pair of testicles on his chest.

[Syphilis]

So long as the autistic kids and genetic retards aren't allowed to reproduce and pollute the species.

[Syphilis]

I have to admit that an anarchist society (with no government intervention) would solve the same problems I mentioned above. In an anarchistic society humans would revert back to the lifestyles and behaviors that we adapted to through evolution and genetic defects would be killed at childbirth and in general. For example, 80,000 years ago if a child was born autistic or with it's eyeballs coming out of it's ass or diabetes, it simply would have been speared and left to rot. There wouldn't be any need for asking the government for the right to do what is man's natural right, it would simply happen because that's the way it is. Much like a bear doesn't need to consider the feelings of a deer before it tears it apart, it's just what the bear is there to do. Humans with random genetic mutations or weird diseases were not "meant" to be preserved and the proliferation of technology and leftism in general are what have enabled this, if it continues for longer we will see a degradation of the species and particular races in general. Technology also enables and society encourages women to be outside of the responsibilities of their husbands and their families which is most likely correlated with the general decline in male testosterone levels and procreation within the most progressed races, which is a terrible thing. All of the problems we face could be solved by simply abandoning government and industrial/biochemical technology in general.
I like this post.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Ambient]

Im very surprised to hear such intelligence coming from mr. pats mouth *pats on the head/.

[The Better Version]

I just think its creepy how most people on this forum can be so distant from humanity. Its like you guys are all robots and only think about logical solutions for efficiency. Ask me something.....does anyone on here have friends?

[Ambient]

I just think its creepy how most people on this forum can be so distant from humanity. Its like you guys are all robots and only think about logical solutions for efficiency. Ask me something.....does anyone on here have friends?

In terms of, true friends... I have three.

[Name's Taken]

the second reason is world war 2. hitler was a great lover of efficiency practicality and logic
wut

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2388/2265813813_63d23bffb9.jpg

Hitler was a fool and got raped in the divorce settlement. That's just one example of Hitler's idiocy. You neo-nazi, kraut loving faggots oughta at least realise Hitler was a moron and in no way resembled the messiah that you tools think he was.

[supperrfreek]

hitler was a great lover of efficiency practicality and logic
Which is why, as opposed to putting his best trained soldiers (the SS) on the front lines, he had them round up Jews and exterminate them. He could have had several million soldiers which he could have used as cannon fodder, yet he decided to shove them in camps, and tie up the equivalent of special forces with the task of guarding them. That's completely logical.

[aussiedude]

ok firstly, i don't have a problem with kids in asia


now that piece of immaturity is out of my system, i do think that in terms of terminal illness, actual cancer etc not just faggy emo teen saying why can't i end it, if it's a persons wish to die on their own terms, then so be it.


in actual fact you have managed to confuse euthanasia with eugenics, the practice hitler took on so to 'clean' the genetic pool of the mentally ill, the disabled from birth and during life etc... so no offense but if you don't know what something is, perhaps advocating it isn't such a great idea

[Struwwelpeter]

Which is why, as opposed to putting his best trained soldiers (the SS) on the front lines, he had them round up Jews and exterminate them. He could have had several million soldiers which he could have used as cannon fodder, yet he decided to shove them in camps, and tie up the equivalent of special forces with the task of guarding them. That's completely logical.

I agree, that would be illogical, I'm pretty sure Adolf Hitler found it to be illogical as well, that's probably why he never did either of those things.

[Struwwelpeter]

Oh and I'd like to ask; since when is anyone who is a realist (be it on gender, race, orientation, etc) a supporter of National Socialism?

[Dog]

I'm an avid supporter of euthanasia of severely handicapped (ie. certain conjoined twin cases, harlequinn babies, "elephant men"[I forget the proper term]). Formal, objective definitions would have to be established, but in general, when I see parents so desperate to have a child that they curse their deformed child to live a half-life of torment and misery (emotional and psychological at "best"), I think the parents should be jailed.

I have less of a problem with parents keeping mentally retarded children, but I don't think society should be responsible for parents who just want to keep a pet. If parents know in the prenatal or newly-born stage that their child is mentally handicapped and they insist on keeping it, then they should have to bear the burden themselves. Semi-related, but I'd also like to see laws that would allow for a spouse to file for divorce from his/her partner if the partner insisted on raising a mentally-handicapped child against his/her wishes.

[Zay]

I'm an avid supporter of euthanasia of severely handicapped (ie. certain conjoined twin cases, harlequinn babies, "elephant men"[I forget the proper term]). Formal, objective definitions would have to be established, but in general, when I see parents so desperate to have a child that they curse their deformed child to live a half-life of torment and misery (emotional and psychological at "best"), I think the parents should be jailed.

I have less of a problem with parents keeping mentally retarded children, but I don't think society should be responsible for parents who just want to keep a pet. If parents know in the prenatal or newly-born stage that their child is mentally handicapped and they insist on keeping it, then they should have to bear the burden themselves. Semi-related, but I'd also like to see laws that would allow for a spouse to file for divorce from his/her partner if the partner insisted on raising a mentally-handicapped child against his/her wishes.

I like this. Stop using deformed people like they're some sort of trophy used to show how progressive you are. It's not the child that's happy he was born a freak, it's you that's arrogant and smug.

[The Methematician]

I'm an avid supporter of euthanasia of severely handicapped ........

I strongly agrees with this. My definition of the term "severely handicapped" include those who are, when grouped together as a distinct group of people, have lower than average IQs.

Also, people who are heavily pigmentized, and are unable to shed these excessive pigments although they live/after they'd moved into a low sunlight environment are "severely handicapped" in my book.

My "severely handicapped" also applies to those people who are, for the past 5000 years of modern human history, unable to become civilized, people who are unable to invent their own written language and numbers .... unable to come up with their own stringed musical instruments .... unable to invent an indigenous tools to transport foods into their mouth .... these ... these peoples are .... indeed .... severely handicapped.

Thus ...we must enforce euthanasia on these "severely handicapped" people. By force if necessary ....

[Steve]

You're expecting too much out of society. Most people are too fully enveloped in the irrational fabrications they hide behind to keep themselves happy, and because this is the majority anyone who says otherwise is rejected by society.

It's the same principle as "the world is flat." No one wants to be wrong, so when the majority opinion is the wrong one there is enough manpower to reject anyone who says otherwise even if they have the best verifiably supported answer.

The reason the line is drawn before infancy is because the fetus or newborn is sufficiently developed for the outcome to be predicted yet few enough resources have been wasted that this can still be justified as productive. Additionally, the fact that people refuse to acknowledge (not a matter of opinion), while the fetus or newborn has a working brain they are not at all yet mentally capable so they have no opinion on the matter.

[Bubba Ho tEP]

All of the problems we face could be solved by simply abandoning government and industrial/biochemical technology in general.

how many new problems would that bring up?

[PROJECT PAT]

how many new problems would that bring up?

a lot less than it would solve.

[Bubba Ho tEP]

Are you still under the impression that morality can be debated? Its a relative subject with an infinite number of definitions. Therefore my ideas on what is moral and what is not is different from yours. Its not a fact, its just an opinion so therefore I don't have to prove or demonstrate anything because that's just how I feel about killing retards.

i don't know why, but i died laughing at this post

a lot less than it would solve.

technology is the future of the human race

also, hitler was very illogical. all i have to say- two-front war