Yeah, this is kind of cold-hearted, but this is my viewpoint, and I'm sticking to it.

Our main goal as a race is survival. Namely, survival of the fittest, according to Darwin. But what about babies born with defects?

My cousin and his wife had a baby who was born with a major heart defect and would have died if not for modern medicine. My argument is that the baby SHOULD have died. The baby will still require several more surgeries as he grows older, and even then he needs constant monitoring. Additionally, this is a weakening of the gene pool. I mean, if the baby could live without a major surgery, I think it should be fixed to make the life easier. As long as it's something simple. But if it's a weak gene that's being passed on, shouldn't it just be stopped where it is?

And yes, this is going to start a lot of arguments. If you are someone who had a birth defect, I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to offend you, and I probably think you're a cool person. Just my opinion on the general matter.

Any other thoughts?

Eugenics is a horrible, horrible thing.

What about people who are born with down-syndrome? Should they be killed?
What if a child is a few months old and we find out that it has autism? Should that child be killed?
And where should it stop? Blindness and deafness are both "weakening the gene pool", so should we kill blind and deaf children?

You are not worthless because of disability, and your genes are not tickets to death machines. We are people, all of us, and we deserve rights. Surely we should be protected from Eugenics, a crime against humanity known for how it leads to genocide (Eugenics also resonates with Nazi Germany to me, because that's how the Holocaust got kicked off: determining that some humans are beneath others and should be taken care of, whether or not they were Jewish, disabled, etc.).

Kris, I can't say it any better than you can. Say no to eugenics practices...seriously.

The thing is, once you start, you can't stop. Life is cruel enough without killing anyone with less than perfect genes (hell, it happens everyday without thinking scientifically). Just imagine a world where you just killed anyone who wasn't proper for the gene pool. Who would be considered unfit, really? Maybe we'd pick the best skin color for survival, best eye color, best hair color, highest intelligence, least emotional damage. It would go on and on and on. And we'd have a very fit race, certainly. But I'd hate it.

Maybe this warmth we feel for those who are disabled in some way is a weakness, but I think it's a weakness worth holding onto. Compassion is what makes me feel human, and I think many others feel the same.

That's exactly the problem. You start with people who have physical or life threatening illnesses and then move on to people with mental illnesses. (even minor ones)

next, are you going to want to kill people that have cancer?
ugly people? i mean, they're just going to have to get plastic surgery later, and nobody wants to see their ugly mugs walking around anyway. :roll:

nobody deserves to die. it's NOT that baby's fault. there is something wrong with you too, OP, that doesn't mean you deserve to die. we all have flaws. some are more serious than others, but every single flaw we have is not our fault. we're all perfect and beautiful in a special way, unique to everyone else.

my point is... that baby is NOT YOUR PROBLEM. he's not hurting you AT ALL. but you want to destroy him because of something that was out of his power. you're talking about a helpless, innocent child, not an animal. a person with thoughts and feelings. not to mention the emotional pain the parents would go through. that's just.. disgusting to even think about.

I think you are all missing her point. She is talking about babies born with things like the heart on the outside of the ribcage or the guts outside of the body, where they will have to go through constant painful surgery throughout their most likely shortened lifespan because of their condition.
I don't think ugly/mentally ill/retarded fit into that category as they are not life threatening conditions. I also don't think conditions like these can be classified as illness as they are not a disease or anything brought on by the persons individual lifestyle.

However, I do think they deserve a chance at life. I also think it would be wrong/inhumane to "put them out of their misery".

I say go for it. Think about it, really.
There are tribes out there that kill the disabled, because they cannot contribute.
They will kill the babies with defects, since there's no way they are going to/can take care of them. They don't kill their babies that have some kind of growth, such as half of a twin or something. Heck, even other animals will kill off who cannot contribute to their pack or whatever.

And they're doing just fine. What about us?

We're spending billions of dollars to keep the old/weak/sick/ect alive. What's even the point? To have someone else who isn't goign to help our society at all around? Yeah Yeah Yeah I know, every human has a chance at life it's not their fault its inhumane ectectect. But really? REALLY? That's what we are taught when we are young. We're taught these things, but does that make it true?

I know I might sound SO cold-hearted, but that's just the way I see things..

Originally Posted by Xrabbite

I say go for it. Think about it, really.
There are tribes out there that kill the disabled, because they cannot contribute.
They will kill the babies with defects, since there's no way they are going to/can take care of them. They don't kill their babies that have some kind of growth, such as half of a twin or something. Heck, even other animals will kill off who cannot contribute to their pack or whatever.

And they're doing just fine. What about us?

We're spending billions of dollars to keep the old/weak/sick/ect alive. What's even the point? To have someone else who isn't goign to help our society at all around? Yeah Yeah Yeah I know, every human has a chance at life it's not their fault its inhumane ectectect. But really? REALLY? That's what we are taught when we are young. We're taught these things, but does that make it true?

I know I might sound SO cold-hearted, but that's just the way I see things..

Lol, because human rights mean nothing.

Jews are infesting our communities and are the downfall of society.
Hurry, let's set up the ghettos and camps.
(I'm being facetious, not offensive)

okay, if you want the money things to change, insurance shouldn't cover it. but if someone could pay for it themselves, why kill the baby?

we're spending billions of dollars to house psychotic people who aren't contributing.
homeless people who aren't contributing.
children in africa that aren't even part of this country, nor is it very likely that a bowl of rice will drastically improve their lives. in fact, they'll probably die.

about disabled people never being able to contribute... where did you come up with that bull?
parkinsons:
michael j. fox
adolf hitler
muhammed ali

wheelchair ridden:
stephen hawking
franklin delano roosevelt
teddy pendergrass

cerebral palsy:
geri jewell
stephen hawking

cleft:
king tut
doc holiday
cheech marin

blind:
helen keller
stevie wonder
franklin delano roosevelt
harriet tubman
louis braille

epilepsy:
hugo weaving
vincent van gogh
napoleon boneparte
charles dickens
michelangelo
leonardo da vinci

have i made my point yet?

Originally Posted by Kris

Lol, because human rights mean nothing.

Jews are infesting our communities and are the downfall of society.
Hurry, let's set up the ghettos and camps.
(I'm being facetious, not offensive)

I never said anything about Jews, ghettos or camps. I was talking about people who have medical life-threatening conditions. A healthy Jew would be fine in my opinion, but if they were n the verg eof death all the time and needed over 9000 surgeries and constant supervision and unable to contribute to anything.. well.. get the shotguns.


There are too many people on Earth anyway, and a lot of us don't even do anything at all because of conditions that they should have died from but didn't because of modern medicine.

are you really saying you wish there wasn't modern medicine? that every time we had a booboo we would have to suck it up and it would be just fabulous if we died because there's too many
people anyway?

have you NEVER been sick or injured in your entire life?

You aren't absorbing what I'm saying here..

I never said that. I never wished that.
I'm just saying, if you should be dead you really should be. And we spend so much time and money to keep these people alive. those people you mentioned, Miach, contributed. I never said they can't contribute. Most disabled people contribute in no way, shape, or form. It does NOT mean that they cannot, by any means, but most do not.

Also; Whenever I'm sick I tend to not rely on modern medicine. You don't need a pill for everything. And injured.. I just suck it up. I haven't done anything to land me in the hospital anyway.

Originally Posted by slickie

She

I'M A DUDE KTHX.

And people, come on. I'm talking about if it's going to kill you right off the bat. If you're blind, that's not a weak gene or anything. I'm talking about something that will actually kill you if you're born with it. Misunderstanding, much?

If you get a disease as you go on, as long as it's not genetic, it's just a disease. I have glasses. I'm not saying me having bad eyes is a weak gene and I should be killed. I'm not pulling a Light Yagami and saying "PERFECT WORLD PLS." I'm just saying. If a weak gene is passed on and has a threat to the life of future generations, why just not let nature take its course?

I'm not saying kill babies. <_<

you never said they couldn't, no, but you said they weren't going to. how do you know if an infant is going to contribute or not? do you know all of that, just because some of them do not?

the 'natural thing' is to evolve. while we evolve, our resources evolve. this includes medicine. with medicine continuing to evolve, we're finding more and more cures. you don't know that these babies really aren't going to live or are going to be a burden to society. they might even make a full recovery.

if nothing evolved, we wouldn't have mcdonalds, we'd all grow our own food and we'd probably eat each other. we wouldn't be having this debate on the computer right at this very second, either.

as someone with family members and friends with life threatening diseases, you are never going to convince me that it's okay to kill off people that have those diseases. i'll say that right now. if you prove your points to me, i'll back off. just "lol kill them because they're never going to contribute and they would die if we didn't pay for them!!!!" isn't going to cut it for me. if you knew someone and understood that they are just as human as you and i, maybe you would understand where i'm coming from.

edit: oh, and sorry if i'm coming off hostile. i don't mean to be hostile, but my intentions are to get a point across in any way possible, and sometimes that's a little blunt.

Originally Posted by Miach

if nothing evolved, we wouldn't have mcdonalds, we'd all grow our own food and we'd probably eat each other.

Mcdonalds is gross and we don't need that. It is not our only food source. Most food is grown, you know. Food has to be grown in order for us to eat it. Those burger buns from McDonalds and everywhere kind of come from wheat, and you have to grow wheat.

So when it goes down to it, we really do grow our food. And we aren't eating each other, and when family farms were the way to go, we STILL weren't eating each other..

History.

Anyway; anyway.

Back on topic, shall we?

The killing, or rather, eventual death, of one that should die an extremely early death (At birth, shortly after, ect), should just happen. we shouldn't be spending so much money on one person when it's not even likely they will survive it all. Sure, disabled people can make an impact on the world, but being blind or deaf may be a disability, but that is a condition that you can LIVE in.

When we're talking.. say.. Congenital heart disease, or Group B Streptococcal ... Stuff like that.. There _ARE_ chances that said newborn will survive, but when they're born like that, it pretty much just means "this kid should not survive".

i know about all the food stuff, it's just a general example. and yes, people did eat each other and still do in some places.

again, people with heart disease and every disease there is are still people and still make an impact, no matter how small.

my personal opinion is that if babies with life threatening diseases are killed off or not cared for, stop caring for EVERYONE. in fact, i'd rather see old people not cared for. these are children that haven't gotten a chance to live yet.

I can see what you are saying, but really..

And I am well aware that cannibalism is practiced for spiritual purposes, and occasionally to survive as a last resort.

I'm done with this. I have said my honest opinion and explained, and I have read and understand where everyone else is coming from (even if I do not agree).

But just to make it clear, I'm talking about things that can actually kill you. I have terrible, terrible eyesight, almost blind. I can live with that. I am fine. A friend of mine has a family member that was supposed to die at birth. They survived due to surgeries, therapies, and all that. They have become a burden on their family and I believe that they should have died when nature intended them to. Nature is not modern medicine or the values of people today.

i know what you mean. it's been repeated again and again, and i've tried to tell you what i mean again and again. it's clear to me, i don't think it's clear to you, but that's not really my problem. :P

You're blowing what I'm saying out of proportion, though. I'm not saying don't evolve. Everyone is comparing what I say to something else and trying to make it part of my point, which is not.

Explain your reasoning for why we shouldn't just let infants with conditions that WILL kill them die, other than that it's "just plain wrong." My argument is that it could cause future generations to have the same problem. Don't compare what I'm saying to having Down Syndrome or something, because I never said anything about it or any other conditions that won't kill you.

I'm with Pkero. Honestly. I've given my backup and everything, but we've never really heard anything from you, Miach, other than "Its wrong" "Its inhumane" "Everyone should have a chance to live".

Care to explain? :]

You have to understand that simply because someone is physically weaker than you, they are not worth less than you. They deserve life and human rights just as much as you.

And besides, refusing or not treating someone is going against the Hippocratic Oath. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see that upheld to a high standard.

As for the Hippocratic Oath thing, Kris, that's just a reason why my side of the argument doesn't happen. I'm saying the parents shouldn't do so much to keep their baby alive if it's going to take that much to KEEP it alive in the first place. I know no one wants to lose a child, but it could prevent their own child to have to deal with the same problem. To me, it makes more sense in the long run.

But if these babies grow into such weak adults who require regular monitoring and care, what are the chances of them having children of their own? Wouldn't they either be dead, or far too frail for sexual activity if that were the case? Unless I'm misunderstanding (again! ^^)?

Originally Posted by Deji-chan

But if these babies grow into such weak adults who require regular monitoring and care, what are the chances of them having children of their own? Wouldn't they either be dead, or far too frail for sexual activity if that were the case? Unless I'm misunderstanding (again! ^^)?

The idea is that without a major surgery, the baby will die. The argument I'm making is that babies that will die this way, SHOULD die this way.