Originally Posted by Miach

i'm not saying ask the kid if they want to die. i'm saying ask them if they want their next surgery or their next round of chemo.

It's the same. If they said no they would die, and if they receive such treatment I'm assuming they know the consequences of not following the treatment.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

It's the same. If they said no they would die, and if they receive such treatment I'm assuming they know the consequences of not following the treatment.

you're not understanding at all. :) i was responding to someone who said they shouldn't suffer their whole lives. if they don't want to suffer, they can say so when they're older, whether or not it's a very logical answer. when they're babies, they should just have a chance, even though they can't voice their thoughts about it.

parent's can already say they don't want their kids to be treated, that they just want nature to take its course. but if it's forced away, nobody gets a choice.

i can rephrase this 20 different times in 10 different languages, i have a feeling you're not going to get it.

Hell, I did get the point this time. Why didn't you say the same thing before? xP

About the second paragraph though, I read a notice some parents were put on trial for negligence after refusing to let their kid receive medical treatment, so I'm not sure if that really is true or what.

i don't think so, because it's your right as a parent or legal guardian to not sign the consent papers. it's the same as taking your family member off of life support.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Well, that would be your decision. You feel you can stand it. But not all can. Nobody plans to have a kid with cancer for example. That's why they have to make the decision, whether they can give them a full life or they would only be giving the kid more time to suffer.

You're right, not everyone can deal with those things and some people choose not to. Many life saving surgeries are voluntary, not mandatory. You can choose to say no and just end it there.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Of course they're different. With Euthanasia they don't feel any pain.

That all really depends on the condition and what sort of treatments there are. Some are painful and others are not. I don't really have a particular position on voluntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia, to me, is murder. Albeit a hospital monitored one, but still. It's killing people, even if they signed consent papers or what not. Assisted Suicide.

But then again, I kind of feel the same way with animals >.<" I have no love for vets. They threw my first ever cat into a cage and just let her die with no pain meds or anything. She could have been saved, she was only 4 years old, and the xray said she only had a broken leg...>.>
I know that was a little off-topic :sweat:

Originally Posted by Miach

the point i'm trying to get across is that there is no parent that would ask for their child to die. you would have to forcibly take the treatment away. and obviously the infant doesn't get to choose, nor does the parent. i'm not saying ask the kid if they want to die. i'm saying ask them if they want their next surgery or their next round of chemo.

Actually, there have been parents that have wanted to let their child die because the pain and suffering the child goes through is finally too much for them to bear. To watch your child suffer endlessly and horribly I imagine can be worse than their death.

Originally Posted by Miach

you're not understanding at all. :) i was responding to someone who said they shouldn't suffer their whole lives. if they don't want to suffer, they can say so when they're older, whether or not it's a very logical answer. when they're babies, they should just have a chance, even though they can't voice their thoughts about it.

parent's can already say they don't want their kids to be treated, that they just want nature to take its course. but if it's forced away, nobody gets a choice.

i can rephrase this 20 different times in 10 different languages, i have a feeling you're not going to get it.

There have been cases where the courts have intervened when a parent doesn't get treatment for their child, so yes, treatment CAN be forced onto a child without the parents consent.

I am pro eugenics, eugenics needs to balance human rights with the need to improve our gene-pool. Eugenics should be about birth control, rather then killing.
I feel the genetically unfit should have a quality life and ideally not reproduce.

That said, no I do not think this baby should be left to die if the condition is treatable and the baby can go on to live an acceptable life. I don't think someone should die just because they have bad genes, just they shouldn't have biological children if they care about their well being.

Originally Posted by Pkero

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?

oo pick me pick me!

Did that baby hold a gun to your head? No you say. Well then who the fuck are you to decide that child should have died.
Oh my god! I must be concerned about my public appearance! If I have a handicapped child I must kill it before anyone else finds out.

So, what you are saying is. If you know you have a high-rate in the family of causing cancer. You should go cut your wrist then jump off a bridge. That way you are more than 100% sure you will kill yourself. If the fall doesnt kill you, the bleeding out will.

My opinion on these matters are all the same. Who the fuck is anyone to decide whos life is worth more. The only time it should ever cross anyones mind is when it comes down to a "You or Me" situation. In which you must respond because your own life is at risk. Anything other than that is selfish and ignorant.

I understand what you are saying however "Survival of the Fittest" is not decided on who s the strongest. Many times it is who could survive in that land and climate at the time with the resources provided. These traits are then passed to the next generation and so on and so on. Thank you Anthropology! :3

Part of our "survival of the fittest" is the fact humans could come up with modern medicine and ways to help our species survive. That way children that might have not survived did. Many children for instance are pre-mature. I was and my brother was. Without modern medicine my brother wouldn't have survived and I would have. Now, he is healthy and a driven individual. Who knows? Maybe we can find a cure in the future for even more illnesses and deformities. People are people and I think that if they weren't meant to survive they wouldn't. Did your mother have you without the aid of doctor's or medicine?

You could not be here either. Let's take the knowledge and use it to save lives and create quality of life. Yama out. :3

Let me put another viewpoint out there...

I am for eugenics to a certain degree. I have epilepsy. It's nothing life-threatening so long as I'm careful, but it's certainly...inconvenient, to say the least. The cause seems to be genetic, worsened by environmental causes (I might never have had a problem at all if not for other conditions arising, though the same conditions cause no problems in "normal" people). I also have a sinus arrhythmia which would ordinarily cause no problems, but may lead me to need a pacemaker because it's been causing me complications with the epilepsy. I was born premature. I also have a family history of cancer, hypertension, mental instability, alcoholism, and a million and a half other equally lovely things.

Because of this, I have decided that if I ever want kids (which is unlikely anyway), they will be adopted. As soon as I'm old enough (25) I intend to have a minor operation that will permanently and irreversibly prevent me from becoming pregnant.

The decision not to have kids because of my medical problems was mine and mine alone; I don't believe it to be feasible (or really that reasonable) to force it on someone, though I do believe that people in this kind of position should be strongly encouraged to adopt instead of having kids of their own...but to let someone die just because they have a weak gene, when someone with a comparable problem due to an accident or what-have-you is allowed to live, is just unfair. I have some of the weakest genes of anyone I know, but I quite like living, thank you very much. There's more than one way to stop a weak gene from spreading.

I have a bit of a question. What qualifies as "life-threatening"? Relatively minor diseases and conditions were once lethal. If your idea is correct, and saving those who would have, without treatment, died is making our species less fit, we've already screwed up our species beyond repair. Every time medicine made an advancement, another group of people was given the opportunity to survive and pass on their "faulty" genes. And yet, oddly enough, we've flourished. We're doing far better as a species than we were long ago. The infant mortality rate has dropped, the number of women dying in childbirth has dropped, and the average life expectancy has shot through the roof. And this is a trend that seems to be continuing into the forseeable future. Sure, we could be more fit; more body hair, better eyesight, and more ways of defending ourselves with our body alone would probably help. But those things wouldn't be improved by killing off all the defective offspring.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I have a bit of a question. What qualifies as "life-threatening"? Relatively minor diseases and conditions were once lethal. If your idea is correct, and saving those who would have, without treatment, died is making our species less fit, we've already screwed up our species beyond repair. Every time medicine made an advancement, another group of people was given the opportunity to survive and pass on their "faulty" genes. And yet, oddly enough, we've flourished. We're doing far better as a species than we were long ago. The infant mortality rate has dropped, the number of women dying in childbirth has dropped, and the average life expectancy has shot through the roof. And this is a trend that seems to be continuing into the forseeable future. Sure, we could be more fit; more body hair, better eyesight, and more ways of defending ourselves with our body alone would probably help. But those things wouldn't be improved by killing off all the defective offspring.

read a few pages back, that answers your question. i agree with you, though. there's not really THAT MANY kids born with these horrible, rare diseases the OP and a few others brought up. at least not enough to make a huge impact on society and the already-shitty economy.

which brings up something else i thought about recently! someone brought up the argument that they're not going to reproduce. does that mean we should kill off men and women who are infertile? lots of people with these diseases DO have kids and DO take care of them, even if they're high risk themselves.

Oh, my apologies ._. Ignore my post, then.

Originally Posted by Miach

there's not really THAT MANY kids born with these horrible, rare diseases the OP and a few others brought up. at least not enough to make a huge impact on society and the already-shitty economy.

Just because there aren't that many doesn't mean it doesn't happen and that people don't have to take decisions when it happens. That's why it's in the Debates forum, to decide what would be the [general] best stance in these situations :)

Originally Posted by Miach

someone brought up the argument that they're not going to reproduce. does that mean we should kill off men and women who are infertile?

Amani never said anything about suiciding, just about not wanting to have offsprings which would most likely have a health as fragile as hers. It certainly seems inconvenient to her, judging by her thread in the LI.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Just because there aren't that many doesn't mean it doesn't happen and that people don't have to take decisions when it happens. That's why it's in the Debates forum, to decide what would be the [general] best stance in these situations :)



Amani never said anything about suiciding, just about not wanting to have offsprings which would most likely have a health as fragile as hers. It certainly seems inconvenient to her, judging by her thread in the LI.

decisions. decisions that are the parent's. this should not be a law, things should stay how they are. we're fine, aren't we? we're alive. be grateful.

A law? I didn't see a law promoted by Pkero, just a questioning on morals. He already screamed he isn't some Nazi or something like that.

I'm grateful, yes, but that hasn't got to do with the problem. I can't use myself as an example because I was born big and healthy, in fact I was born when I had spent almost 10 months in the womb xP

Going back to the questioning of morals I had interpreted from his post: What if he had a kid so severely deformed it would need a lot of medical help, painkillers, and die earlier, all that requires the money he can't get from anywhere, would it be totally wrong/inmoral/against being human that it's not acceptable to follow that path?

You've never read "The Giver", have you?

I don't have much else to say that hasn't been said by someone else.

Ok, I understand everyone's "life is life and must be respected"...

But seriously folks, come ON.
We are all being so hypocritical. If I had been born with my legs and arms in the opposite of where they should have been, (legs in arm place, arms in leg place) then there'd have been media coverage, surgeries, medication, and a million things to keep me 'normal'.
If a chimpanzee in the zoo were born with the same condition, you know what they would do?
They would probably euthanize it.

So, despite the whole "It's a baby, we have to save it" issue, think about this.
50, no, even 20 years ago... a baby born with a severe defect would have, on it's own, DIED.
Why? Because medical science could not save it.
When we get down to the point where we can save lives that would have expired on their own if left to live how nature intended, with parental love and care... isn't that playing God a little?
I know honestly, if I had been born with a severe defect, and my parents had saved me, but I required constant healthcare, if I still had the personality I had today, I would yell at them. "Why did you keep me alive?!" I'd demand. "I'll never be a benefit to society! I might as well be comatose and on life support!"

That's me ranting, in that last part... But seriously, I think, either we go "fix the defect" with EVERYTHING, or we go "nature's course" with humans too.