I agree with Pkero. I have a similar stance myself.

People who are choosing to have babies with down syndrome when they know about it before they are even born. It kind of sickens me. This child will never really grow up. The parents will take care of them the rest of their lives. When their parents enevitably die? There isn't anyone to take up the role of being their parent, so they go to some sort of facility. When the parents get old and need someone to take care of them?

I think it's cruel, truthfully. To raise a child that will need constant sugeries, constant care. The children who will never be their own person. Forced to endure living in a child's mind their whole life. It's just not right.

On top of all of that, there is the fact that humans are over populated. Allowing more people to live that should not be here is ridiculous and only adding to the problem.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

I agree with Pkero. I have a similar stance myself.

People who are choosing to have babies with down syndrome when they know about it before they are even born. It kind of sickens me. This child will never really grow up. The parents will take care of them the rest of their lives. When their parents enevitably die? There isn't anyone to take up the role of being their parent, so they go to some sort of facility. When the parents get old and need someone to take care of them?

I think it's cruel, truthfully. To raise a child that will need constant sugeries, constant care. The children who will never be their own person. Forced to endure living in a child's mind their whole life. It's just not right.

On top of all of that, there is the fact that humans are over populated. Allowing more people to live that should not be here is ridiculous and only adding to the problem.

Because we're overcrowded, it's okay to kill the disabled? Jesus, what an ethical stance. What a humane thing to do.

These people are worth no less than you, and they are still people. They still have rights. One of those rights is that they won't be subject to crimes against humanity, like Eugenics.

Xrabbite, you said you were done, lmao.

kris is keeping her cool better than i am. you accuse me of not understanding what you're saying, but you're being very hypocritical. take the time to READ and UNDERSTAND what we're trying to say. look up some laws, look up some actual information on these diseases before you come to the awful conclusion that we shouldn't let people with diseases be treated or live.

how do they even effect you? you've obviously never met one, never gotten to know one. this isn't a tribe. we're not a pack of wolves. i'm telling you that we're evolving but you don't understand what i mean by that.

what i mean is times are changing. we're not animals anymore, we have to think logically and fairly. listen to yourself talk. you say you don't want to kill babies.. you just don't want to treat them. so they die a painful death. you KNOW they're dying, apparently, and you don't think they're worth the effort of keeping alive, so just leave them? leave them like a starving mutt, that's what you're saying from my point of view.

as kris has been saying, it's NOT HUMANE. they're not DOGS, they're BABIES. we were all once purple, wrinkled and disgusting looking. ask your mom for baby pictures. don't act superior to them. you are the same, disease ridden or not.

Have you had children Pkero?

Even though I understand your point, and to a degree I understand that if someone should have died and didn't because of the extremity of modern science, that it's against "nature", but having a baby myself who I would have lost due to preterm labor at 25 weeks...I just can't emotionally agree with what you are saying.

Babies, no matter how deformed they may be, as Kris has stated, are still people, and they have no choice over what happens to them. My personal stance is that if you want your child to survive, you have to fight for it, and while I don't agree with 9000 surgeries, the most major ones I would consent to in a heart beat. I myself have a rare type of heart murmer that should kill me every time it beats, and the only reason why I'm still here is because my parents agreed to a heart surgery when I was three. When I was six, I was diagnosed with lukemia and should have died then.

Are you saying that I should have died twice over and not been able to find my husband and given birth to my completely normal daughter?

^ That's pretty much what it sounds like to me. Just because a baby has some "malformation", that doesn't mean that they will pass it on to their children. Perfectly healthy people can pass tons of things on to their children.

In your opinion, Pkero, should people have their genes checked for possible defects before they're allowed to conceive? I'm curious about your stance on that subject.

@Kris: They are less than me. Given, the child with a heart defect I'm sure could do some good things in his life. The child with down syndrome does not have the same capability I do to achieve something of worth in this life. I could very well cure cancer; the down syndrome kid, never.

Humans are in fact a species of animal. There is no point in trying to argue that we are not. It is fact. The only difference is that human beings like to think they are better because the nurse the weak and let them take up valuable time and resources. What self-righteous person would have a person suffer through life for their own selfish need to take care of something?

Also Jesus has nothing to do with it. He is a fictional character. Which brings me to silly religious people. Thinking they have morality because they won't kill a baby then turn around and outcast anyone who doesn't believe what they do. They turn this world upside down. What is right to a religious person and what is right in the law of nature is two very different things. We have unbalaced the scales. More people being born, less dying, and for what? To sleep at night thinking you are a "good moralistic person"? We are litterally killing the world. Ripping truth from it and replacing it with fables and self-justification.

There is such thing as better beings within a species. Better humans than other humans, better dogs than other dogs, better deer than other deer. But not one speices is above another. A human is no better than a dog or a deer. And that is where humans have been mistaken. Thinking they are better when they are not.

I agree that no species is better than any other, but that doesn't validate children with down syndrome being killed before or after birth. Also, I'm far from religious personally...so don't think that everyone saying it's wrong is "a crazy religious person". I do, however, have a child. She is healthy and happy, but I would love her even if she weren't healthy. If my daughter were to develop autism, should she be killed because she will never contribute to society? I'll fight to the death to defend my daughter's right to live. Screw anyone who would try to kill my child.

Also, there are plenty of healthy people who never contribute anything to society. Should lazy people also be killed?

@PhantomLolita: I'm not saying all people who oppose this idea are crazy religious people. Those are generally the most annoying. There are animals in the wild that will kill their own young if there is something wrong with them. They don't do it because they are hungry or because they are savage, they do it for their own good. Saving it from dying a slow horrible death or a life of pain in the wild.

Humans are very weak creatures. From that very breeding and nurturing of weakness. So because you would not be strong enough to end your child's suffering, you wouldn't want someone who is strong enough to do what is necessary?

This remindes me of that one book. Argh. What was it? Gathering Blue.


If you ask me, if the child can survive, and live a happy life, then let them live. If the child is going to be miserable their entire life, would you really want them to suffer like that? I'm not saying just murder them, but... If you think about it, what's more humane? Letting them suffer for "human rights", or to prevent them from suffering? I understand someone who loves their child, but... How would they go to school? Be tortured every day becasue people don't understand, or further in life, they'll always have to be taken care of.

As for the reproduction part, if they have a genetic defect that will cause suffering to their child, don't have one. Adopt instead. Why not save a child, and give them a home, rather then making your own who could cost thousands in operations, medication, and being in general, miserable?

(I'm not a debate person. Please don't jump on me. Q___Q)

I agree with RetroTV. Adoption seems like a really great Idea if you want children but know that your child has a strong possiblity of having a terrible defect. There are quite a few children that need homes and having your own deformed or sick child just for the satisfaction that you gave birth to it is selfish.

I wonder why more people don't adopt. Where is that sense of humanity then?

i'm not sure why we're getting into killing down syndrome kids, because that's not life threatening, and i was very boldly told that this was ONLY about babies with life threatening diseases. i don't know why we're getting into religion either.

Well, most kids I've met who have things like down syndrome and autism aren't "suffering" and are very happy people. As for the whole thing with animals killing their young, I get that. However, as humans with technology we have the ability to give children life whereas other animals do not. If those animals kept their young alive, they would probably die or take valuable resources away from the healthy young animals. In modern society, we don't have these issues.

Edit: Things like down syndrome were brought up for a reason. The topic speaks of passing bad genes and it seems to be relevant. The problem with killing for one genetic issue is that it probably wouldn't just stop at one. It would more than likely move eventually into one malformation after another. That's where eugenics comes in.

Let me put this into perspective: If YOU were born with your heart outside your ribcage and had to wear a protective "shell" on your chest because it is likely you would die during the surgery it would take to put the heart back underneath your ribcage, wouldn't YOU want to live, want to have a chance at life?
along with down syndrome, etc.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

@Kris: They are less than me. Given, the child with a heart defect I'm sure could do some good things in his life. The child with down syndrome does not have the same capability I do to achieve something of worth in this life. I could very well cure cancer; the down syndrome kid, never.

Humans are in fact a species of animal. There is no point in trying to argue that we are not. It is fact. The only difference is that human beings like to think they are better because the nurse the weak and let them take up valuable time and resources. What self-righteous person would have a person suffer through life for their own selfish need to take care of something?

Also Jesus has nothing to do with it. He is a fictional character. Which brings me to silly religious people. Thinking they have morality because they won't kill a baby then turn around and outcast anyone who doesn't believe what they do. They turn this world upside down. What is right to a religious person and what is right in the law of nature is two very different things. We have unbalaced the scales. More people being born, less dying, and for what? To sleep at night thinking you are a "good moralistic person"? We are litterally killing the world. Ripping truth from it and replacing it with fables and self-justification.

There is such thing as better beings within a species. Better humans than other humans, better dogs than other dogs, better deer than other deer. But not one speices is above another. A human is no better than a dog or a deer. And that is where humans have been mistaken. Thinking they are better when they are not.

No, you are not above anyone.
Let's say that I think I'm above you because of your bad eyesight. Hey, I can see without glasses, perfectly fine and clear. But since you cannot, and eyesight can be genetic, we should rid you from the gene pool, because you are inferior to people with 20/20 vision.
Does your eyesight make it so that you can't live a happy life? No, it doesn't. But neither does down's syndrome.
Does your eyesight mean that you won't accomplish anything later in life, with some help? No, it doesn't mean you're a failure, but neither does a heart defect.

But, that's too bad! Your genes are inferior than mine, I'm a better person capable of doing more than you, therefore, you get to be killed.

IQ can also be linked to genetics. Someone with a low IQ cannot achieve as much as someone with an average or above average IQ. Therefore, someone with a low IQ should be done away with, killed, and discarded, because they are disposable and not furthering evolution. Right? I mean, this is what you're telling me.

You're not going to further the human race? You don't have good genes? Then, good bye to you, because you are lesser than others and not worthy of life.

I wonder if you would agree with a law which was in effect many years ago? It read:

Paragraph 1
(1) Whoever is afflicted with a hereditary disease can be sterilized by a surgical operation, if--according to the experience of medical science--there is a great probability that his descendants will suffer from serious bodily or mental defects.
(2) Hereditary diseases under this law are 1. Hereditary feeblemindedness, 2. Schizophrenia, 3. Manic-depressive insanity, 4. Hereditary epilepsy, 5. Huntington's Chorea, 6. Hereditary blindness, 7. Hereditary deafness, 8. Serious hereditary bodily deformities.
(3) Furthermore those suffering from Alcoholism can be sterilized.

Sure, it's not about killing people, but it's about preventing the need for killing people. Does that sound peachy to you?

I am not Christian, nor am I religious. I am an irreligious theist, and have no connection to any Biblical figures.

@Kris: The funny thing is, I am actually nearsighted. Oddly enough by choice.(It's a long story) If you wear a certain percription above what you should wear, you can actually see better than the average human. But at any rate, poor eyesight can be permenently corrected with lazer eye surgery. So that story is pretty much moot.

But there are many deturmining factors in who is superior to who. Like said glasses incident, indeed you would be better than me in that particular category until I got lasic surgery. But say I was a genius and you were a person of average intelligence, I would most definitely be superior to you.

I also have a general opinion that supid people shouldn't breed, so the people with the lower IQs shouldn't have children either.

Perhaps if people who carried these diseases and whatnot would sterelize themselves, we wouldn't have a problem. It is a better idea. Down syndrome is primarily caused by older women having children, so have a cut off. Let tem adopt children if they want more.

@PhantomLolita: It depends on which kind of autism. Some forms actually make people incredible smart and invaluable to society.

Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth

Have you had children Pkero?

-other stuff-

Are you saying that I should have died twice over and not been able to find my husband and given birth to my completely normal daughter?

No, I haven't had children. I'm 16.
And no, I'm not saying you should have died. I'm talking about in the now, not in the past. And as for having Leukemia, that's not a life-threatening condition you were BORN with. I had Pneumonia when I was three, and I should have died then, but I didn't thanks to modern medicine. And I would have died otherwise. And no, I'm not saying you shouldn't have had your daughter.

My stance is that people who aren't perfect shouldn't have kids. No one is perfect and everyone has their faults. If a baby is born with something that will kill them within 24 hours, the baby should die. That's my stance.

Originally Posted by PhantomLolita

In your opinion, Pkero, should people have their genes checked for possible defects before they're allowed to conceive?

No. See above.

Originally Posted by Pkero

No, I haven't had children. I'm 16.
And no, I'm not saying you should have died. I'm talking about in the now, not in the past. And as for having Leukemia, that's not a life-threatening condition you were BORN with. I had Pneumonia when I was three, and I should have died then, but I didn't thanks to modern medicine. And I would have died otherwise. And no, I'm not saying you shouldn't have had your daughter.

My stance is that people who aren't perfect shouldn't have kids. No one is perfect and everyone has their faults. If a baby is born with something that will kill them within 24 hours, the baby should die. That's my stance.


No. See above.

This part doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like you're pretty much saying noone should have kids because noone is perfect. I know that can't be what you mean. Can you please explain what you do mean?


I just have another thing to add. My uncle was born at 6 months gestation and his lungs were not fully developed. If nature had taken it's course, he would have died within hours. He was hooked up to equipment and had to undergo many things. Now, he's 30 years old and the most successful person in my family. He's a professional photographer and an amazing person. I think that it's worth trying to save your child. If you had a baby, you would want to do everything you could to save it. I say this as a mother. If you do ever have children, I think you'll understand the emotional aspect of it better.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

@Kris: The funny thing is, I am actually nearsighted. Oddly enough by choice.(It's a long story) If you wear a certain percription above what you should wear, you can actually see better than the average human. But at any rate, poor eyesight can be permenently corrected with lazer eye surgery. So that story is pretty much moot.

But there are many deturmining factors in who is superior to who. Like said glasses incident, indeed you would be better than me in that particular category until I got lasic surgery. But say I was a genius and you were a person of average intelligence, I would most definitely be superior to you.

I also have a general opinion that supid people shouldn't breed, so the people with the lower IQs shouldn't have children either.

Perhaps if people who carried these diseases and whatnot would sterelize themselves, we wouldn't have a problem. It is a better idea. Down syndrome is primarily caused by older women having children, so have a cut off. Let tem adopt children if they want more.

@PhantomLolita: It depends on which kind of autism. Some forms actually make people incredible smart and invaluable to society.

Does lasic eye surgery correct genes?

No, and your bad eyesight is something we need to annihilate, and therefore you should die, since you can't fix your genes. Right? For a more superior race.

Now, answer my question about the law. Do you, or do you not, agree with it?

Originally Posted by Miach

take the time to READ and UNDERSTAND what we're trying to say.



how do they even effect you? you've obviously never met one, never gotten to know one.

Sorry this is majorly late but I had to sleep then go to school.

I do understand where you're coming from. I said that before. But do you understand where I'm coming from? Are you reading what I'm saying?

And yes, I have met one. Several, actually. They're in my FAMILY. I see them at least 3 times a month. You don't even know me so you shouldn't say that I haven't done this, I haven't done that.

I'm not trying to act superior, or anything like that. I'm not being hypocritcal, or anything at all. You're attacking me, miss. I just stated my honest opinion, and you directly went after me. I'm sorry if I sound angry, I kind of am. I've had an awful day today. I'm not trying to take it out on a stranger on the internet.

either way, I don't argue on the internet. You and I are both entitled to our opinions. By the way, I'm borderline blind. And I will more than likely have to have a surgery to correct my eyesight before I actually do to blind.

Originally Posted by Xrabbite

Sorry this is majorly late but I had to sleep then go to school.

I do understand where you're coming from. I said that before. But do you understand where I'm coming from? Are you reading what I'm saying?

And yes, I have met one. Several, actually. They're in my FAMILY. I see them at least 3 times a month. You don't even know me so you shouldn't say that I haven't done this, I haven't done that.

I'm not trying to act superior, or anything like that. I'm not being hypocritcal, or anything at all. You're attacking me, miss. I just stated my honest opinion, and you directly went after me. I'm sorry if I sound angry, I kind of am. I've had an awful day today. I'm not trying to take it out on a stranger on the internet.

either way, I don't argue on the internet. You and I are both entitled to our opinions. By the way, I'm borderline blind. And I will more than likely have to have a surgery to correct my eyesight before I actually do to blind.

Then, obviously, you are inferior to those with 20/20 vision and should be done away with.

Like people with disabilities.

Originally Posted by Xrabbite

Sorry this is majorly late but I had to sleep then go to school.

I do understand where you're coming from. I said that before. But do you understand where I'm coming from? Are you reading what I'm saying?

And yes, I have met one. Several, actually. They're in my FAMILY. I see them at least 3 times a month. You don't even know me so you shouldn't say that I haven't done this, I haven't done that.

I'm not trying to act superior, or anything like that. I'm not being hypocritcal, or anything at all. You're attacking me, miss. I just stated my honest opinion, and you directly went after me. I'm sorry if I sound angry, I kind of am. I've had an awful day today. I'm not trying to take it out on a stranger on the internet.

either way, I don't argue on the internet. You and I are both entitled to our opinions. By the way, I'm borderline blind. And I will more than likely have to have a surgery to correct my eyesight before I actually do to blind.

i understand where you're coming from.

it's okay that you're angry, because i'm angry too. why would you want your own family to be dead? i'm not trying to attack you at all, i'm trying to better understand what your reasoning behind this is other than "they shouldn't be alive, they should've died when they were born!"

sorry that i assumed you didn't know one, the way you were talking seemed like they were just aliens to you and you thought they should all die at birth. i'm wondering if you would kill these people in your family if you had a chance, because that's what it sounds like.

all of kris's posts are exactly what i'm trying to say. to me, you sound pretty contradicting and you say that's not what you meant when i make a rebuttal against you. so i reword said rebuttal and you explain it to me again.... well, that's what i just rebutted against. then you change your views entirely and say you were talking about something else entirely!

you're in the debate forum. i'm debating, not arguing. i'm not attacking. i'm not flaming. i'm defending my side of the argument. if you don't want to DEBATE, don't post in the DEBATE forum.

My family matters are not the business of strangers.. but let's just say it's a living hell.

And I can SEE, thank you very much. I would not die if I were blind (unless I messed up and didnt know where i was and ran into something that could kill me). Blindess, and deafness, and being mute do not keep you from being a valued member of the society. If you were supposed to die at BIRTH, you were supposed to die. Not suffer for a large portion/all your life to stay alive.

kthx

i was born three months premature, i was supposed to die. i'm not suffering. not suffering at all.

kthx

You suffered until you were fully developed, I'm sure. Just because you aren't now doesn't mean you never did.

Can we just stop doing this? This isn't adding to the conversation.

Originally Posted by Xrabbite

You suffered until you were fully developed, I'm sure. Just because you aren't now doesn't mean you never did.

Can we just stop doing this? This isn't adding to the conversation.

Sure it is. You say that if a baby won't make it on its own, let it die. As though the disabled do nothing for the world and never have, because obviously people like Stephen Hawking haven't done anything for the world. At all.