Mentally disabled woman tortured to death, while pregnant

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

really though whats the difference? someone with physical disabilities might require help raising a child, might have a child born disabled, costing taxpayers money providing equipment and services...AISH etc.

where do you draw the line? smokers, alcoholics, drug users all have increased risk of producing disabled children..

I'd start with stupid message board posters, but that's just me.

(triple entendre intentional)

[dj_patm]

I draw the line at where there decision making abilities are hampered by their condition.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

No. I ment what I just posted.

You're saying that now yet everyone seemed to know exactly the issue I was arguing about.

I didn't read the full article but my first question is why did someone let a mentally disabled person get pregnant?

Thats just stupid.

If there is one thing that shouldn't be allowed its having kids if you have a serious genetic disability.

I'm sorry, what?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'd start with stupid message board posters, but that's just me.

(triple entendre intentional)

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

I draw the line at where there decision making abilities are hampered by their condition.

Must be nice to live in a world where things are still black and white.

As I mentioned, there is no possible way to judge that. Not to mention, lots of other people make dumb decisions anyway.

Plus it's a program that is bound to be abused and make mistakes. Mistakes that will cause more suffering than that you will save even if you are in it purely for 'altruistic' ideals. (Which if you've thought it through, like you want others to do, you'll see cannot possibly be).

It's elitest, foolish, arrogant, short sighted, prejudiced, and borderline evil.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

I draw the line at where there decision making abilities are hampered by their condition.

like when you are drunk walking around NYC? your hampered decision making skills led you to papa johns..

[transplant99]

Curious...do you agree that those born with Cystic Fibrosis as an example, and have a possibility of passing it on to their children, should not be allowed to?

They are of sound mind but flawed body, and if the child acquires the wrong chromozones then it will as well, so should we "draw the line" there because of what may happen? If the parent dies from their condition, would that not (using your argument) mean that someone would have to help to raise said child?


this is really your argument in another light...so how does it look now?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Plus it's a program that is bound to be abused and make mistakes. Mistakes that will cause more suffering than that you will save even if you are in it purely for 'altruistic' ideals. (Which if you've thought it through, like you want others to do, you'll see cannot possibly be).

It's elitest, foolish, arrogant, short sighted, prejudiced, and borderline evil.

You're absolutely correct.

However, why speak in hypotheticals when we have a perfect example from history to point at. Alberta history at that.

The popularity of the eugenics movement peaked during the Depression when sterilization was widely seen as a way of relieving society of the financial burdens imposed by defective individuals.[93] Although the eugenics excesses of Nazi Germany diminished the popularity of the eugenics movement, the Sexual Sterilization Acts of Alberta and British Columbia were not repealed until 1972.[94]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Canada

[dj_patm]

You know what you're right. It is a very difficult issue.

However I honestly believe that the loss of the ability to have kids is not as great as the suffering the kids will most likely go through.

Thats my stance on the issue.

You outlaw having sex when your HIV positive without proper consent by the partner.

Is too unfair to outlaw having kids when there is a very good chance that they will have a crippling life degrading condition?

Both are basic human rights. Both play a huge role in a person life. Both are not guaranteed to be passed on.

Sorry if this offends anyone but that is my stance.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Curious...do you agree that those born with Cystic Fibrosis as an example, and have a possibility of passing it on to their children, should not be allowed to?

They are of sound mind but flawed body, and if the child acquires the wrong chromozones then it will as well, so should we "draw the line" there because of what may happen? If the parent dies from their condition, would that not (using your argument) mean that someone would have to help to raise said child?


this is really your argument in another light...so how does it look now?

Great point. My mother has MS, I found out 5 years ago I did as well. So even though I am fully functional at this point in my life, should I abstain from having children knowing that in 20 years I may or may not be in a wheelchair, and I may also pass it to my children when there may or may not be a cure at that point in time?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

You know what you're right. It is a very difficult issue.

However I honestly believe that the loss of the ability to have kids is not as great as the suffering the kids will most likely go through.

Thats my stance on the issue.

You outlaw having sex when your HIV positive without proper consent by the partner.

Is too unfair to outlaw having kids when there is a very good chance that they will have a crippling life degrading condition?

Both are basic human rights. Both play a huge role in a person life. Both are not guaranteed to be passed on.

Sorry if this offends anyone but that is my stance.

What lead to this sudden realization?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

You know what you're right. It is a very difficult issue.

However I honestly believe that the loss of the ability to have kids is not as great as the suffering the kids will most likely go through.

Thats my stance on the issue.

You outlaw having sex when your HIV positive without proper consent by the partner.

Is too unfair to outlaw having kids when there is a very good chance that they will have a crippling life degrading condition?

Both are basic human rights. Both play a huge role in a person life. Both are not guaranteed to be passed on.

Sorry if this offends anyone but that is my stance.

Now thats a much better post. If you had just started like that, well, I guess we wouldn't of had such a heated thread.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

I didn't read the full article but my first question is why did someone let a mentally disabled person get pregnant?

Thats just stupid.

If there is one thing that shouldn't be allowed its having kids if you have a serious genetic disability.

I'm surprised you make it out the door every day as it appears you can't see anything beyond the tip of your own nose.

[dj_patm]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

What lead to this sudden realization?

Perogies calmed me down.

[SteveToms]

dj, you are such a idiot.

That is all.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

You know what you're right. It is a very difficult issue.

However I honestly believe that the loss of the ability to have kids is not as great as the suffering the kids will most likely go through.

Thats my stance on the issue.

You outlaw having sex when your HIV positive without proper consent by the partner.

Is too unfair to outlaw having kids when there is a very good chance that they will have a crippling life degrading condition?

Both are basic human rights. Both play a huge role in a person life. Both are not guaranteed to be passed on.

Sorry if this offends anyone but that is my stance.

That's what I thought you were getting at when I made my first post. Which is why I said, if you are talking about a parents moral responsibility then that is a worthy discussion.

However, it's impossible to legislate this in any way that can be good for society or people on an individual basis. It's impossible to judge fairly (if the proposal itself is even fair, but going with the good aspects of it anyway) and impossible to keep under control.

Not to mention it's unfair because non handicapped people make poor choices with their reproductive rights and families too.

People are not animals you can spay or neuter. You have to trust everyone to make the best decisions for their specific situations.

Would we like to make life better for all the potentially born? Of course.

But this is not only a illogical way to go about it, it's an immoral one too. It's immoral because no one person, and therefore society, can deem to know exactly what is fit and what isn't. Moreover, we don't know each individual situation, or what the future holds for all parties.

Lastly, every person, be they healthy or sick, has a right to life if they want it. Maybe that kid who you thought would be miserable, would actually be loving life.

Maybe they make a huge contribution to society.

You never know.

EDIT: This was supposed to be calmed down too, as my first post was. I knew what you were getting at in the beginning and that's why my first post started the way it did. The underlying feeling is not wrong. (I don't think) People should be aware of what they are doing when they have a child. But this as a solution is just wrong on so many levels. Besides the moral arguments, it just would not work and would only make things worse.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

Perogies calmed me down.

Is that your pet name for the mod that got drunk and let you back in?

[Muta]

I do have to commend dj_patm, however, for boldly sharing his viewpoint whether people care about what he believes or not. Kudos to him; lots of people would just go with the popular opinion of everybody else, or not say anything at all. This guy openly states his opinions, which is, in a way, refreshing to see.

That said, I don't agree with his belief, either. I think mentally-handicapped people, or anybody for that matter, should be able to re-produce until the cows come home, if they choose to. It's their choice.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Muta

I do have to commend dj_patm, however, for boldly sharing his viewpoint whether people care about what he believes or not. Kudos to him; lots of people would just go with the popular opinion of everybody else, or not say anything at all. This guy openly states his opinions, which is, in a way, refreshing to see.

That said, I don't agree with his belief, either. I think mentally-handicapped people, or anybody for that matter, should be able to re-produce until the cows come home, if they choose to. It's their choice.

His presentation needs serious work.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Muta

I do have to commend dj_patm, however, for boldly sharing his viewpoint whether people care about what he believes or not. Kudos to him; lots of people would just go with the popular opinion of everybody else, or not say anything at all. This guy openly states his opinions, which is, in a way, refreshing to see.

That said, I don't agree with his belief, either. I think mentally-handicapped people, or anybody for that matter, should be able to re-produce until the cows come home, if they choose to. It's their choice.

I'm sharing my viewpoint as well. It isn't my fault that I conform to social convention.