what do you think?

Thorn Bird said:
interesting points. and for the record, my friend has neither decided for or against even seriously pursuing this. she and i were just talking about what is going to come about in the near future and considering different things.

and i have an interesting thought regarding the abortion of handicapped children and tying that in with the vaccination thread: it seems odd that someone would fight to save the population for one topic and turn around and have no problems killing off the population for another topic. i just can't figure that one out yet.
Click to expand...

Well I think that if you can keep the people that are alive healthy then yay. But if you could save pain and heartache then maybe you should.

Edit: I should not you should. I can't speak for others on this one.
 
April23 said:
I'm confused by your second paragraph.
Click to expand...

i'm sitting here trying to figure out how people place validation on others' lives, myself included. this thread and the hpv thread just really made me think of how people can support issues completely different when the bottom line pertains to a common subject. for example, aborting a fetus because you know it will have special needs and others' insurances will go up. it's a population control thing, in a manner of speaking...but yet supporting a mandatory vaccination to keep the population healthy and thriving. i am in NO WAY attacking ANYONE here...it was just a thought that occured to me. in what ways do people form their opinions about mankind? what are the factors that persuade someone to place value on life? i'm trying to figure out how even *i* do it.
 
BadMojo said:
What about putting the child on birth control? The have birth control pills that regulate a woman's cycle to once a year. I would think that would be preferential to a hysterectomy.
Click to expand...

that's an excellent option that i never thought about. :clap:
 
Thorn Bird said:
i'm sitting here trying to figure out how people place validation on others' lives, myself included. this thread and the hpv thread just really made me think of how people can support issues completely different when the bottom line pertains to a common subject. for example, aborting a fetus because you know it will have special needs and others' insurances will go up. it's a population control thing, in a manner of speaking...but yet supporting a mandatory vaccination to keep the population healthy and thriving. i am in NO WAY attacking ANYONE here...it was just a thought that occured to me. in what ways do people form their opinions about mankind? what are the factors that persuade someone to place value on life? i'm trying to figure out how even *i* do it.
Click to expand...

Less pain = better.

Special needs can = pain.

HPV = pain.
 
Thorn Bird said:
i'm sitting here trying to figure out how people place validation on others' lives, myself included. this thread and the hpv thread just really made me think of how people can support issues completely different when the bottom line pertains to a common subject. for example, aborting a fetus because you know it will have special needs and others' insurances will go up. it's a population control thing, in a manner of speaking...but yet supporting a mandatory vaccination to keep the population healthy and thriving. i am in NO WAY attacking ANYONE here...it was just a thought that occured to me. in what ways do people form their opinions about mankind? what are the factors that persuade someone to place value on life? i'm trying to figure out how even *i* do it.
Click to expand...

I think the value of life is closely tied to the quality of life that can be led...what kind of quality of life is a mentally disabled person going to have? not a very good one so it's somewhat excusable to take a life if that life is going to be sub par, imo

edit: as far as the vaccine, this is to insure the further quality of life for those that already have it
 
Last edited:
Thorn Bird said:
i'm sitting here trying to figure out how people place validation on others' lives, myself included. this thread and the hpv thread just really made me think of how people can support issues completely different when the bottom line pertains to a common subject. for example, aborting a fetus because you know it will have special needs and others' insurances will go up. it's a population control thing, in a manner of speaking...but yet supporting a mandatory vaccination to keep the population healthy and thriving. i am in NO WAY attacking ANYONE here...it was just a thought that occured to me. in what ways do people form their opinions about mankind? what are the factors that persuade someone to place value on life? i'm trying to figure out how even *i* do it.
Click to expand...
this is getting touchy, so i wanna be clear that I don't own this opinion, but both seem to be the same. i.e. in both cases the action seeks to attain a healthy and whole population, and groups having 'special needs' with being sick.

thread drift alert.
 
w_a_w said:
I think the value of life is closely tied to the quality of life that can be led...what kind of quality of life is a mentally disabled person going to have? not a very good one so it's somewhat excusable to take a life if that life is going to be sub par, imo
Click to expand...

ok, but IMHO that's all subjective. "quality of life" is an extremely broad term, and you're putting "normal" lives up against "special needs" lives. to me, it's not comprable and quality of life applies to each life. based on your suggestion you should be eliminating homeless people, low IQ people...quality of life really has no one point of reference.
my friend would argue vehemently with you about her child's quality of life. it's pretty damn good and her child is very happy, regardless of her ablities or lack of.
 
Jonny_B said:
this is getting touchy, so i wanna be clear that I don't own this opinion, but both seem to be the same. i.e. in both cases the action seeks to attain a healthy and whole population, and groups having 'special needs' with being sick.

thread drift alert.
Click to expand...

another good perspective.
 
BadMojo said:
What about putting the child on birth control? The have birth control pills that regulate a woman's cycle to once a year. I would think that would be preferential to a hysterectomy.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good idea.



What pill is this? I'm on one that's seasonal.
 
Thorn Bird said:
ok, but IMHO that's all subjective. "quality of life" is an extremely broad term, and you're putting "normal" lives up against "special needs" lives. to me, it's not comprable and quality of life applies to each life. based on your suggestion you should be eliminating homeless people, low IQ people...quality of life really has no one point of reference.
my friend would argue vehemently with you about her child's quality of life. it's pretty damn good and her child is very happy, regardless of her ablities or lack of.
Click to expand...
taken to the extreme, yes, you should also eliminate homeless people, dumb people, ugly people etc. it's called eugenics and was actually popular (even in the US) until the Germans took things a bit too far.
 
Im not seeing the HPV thing. You can choose not to have sex. You cant choose not to be retarded. In either case; most states let you have elective procedures performed on retarded (and dont get all on my case for saying retarded, it is the technical term) persons under your care. If you look on pubmed it seems to be pretty common. Though hysterectomy seems to be losing favour, because it is such an invasive procedure, to various 'heat' treatments.

All that googling this did was make me damn sure I dont want to be an Ob/Gyn.
 
Jonny_B said:
taken to the extreme, yes, you should also eliminate homeless people, dumb people, ugly people etc. it's called eugenics and was actually popular (even in the US) until the Germans took things a bit too far.
Click to expand...

It was never mandatory in the US. Wards of the state were sterilized, but since the state was their guardian it isnt the same. Forced sterilization is still technically legal for wards of the state and criminals.
 
Thorn Bird said:
interesting points. and for the record, my friend has neither decided for or against even seriously pursuing this. she and i were just talking about what is going to come about in the near future and considering different things.

and i have an interesting thought regarding the abortion of handicapped children and tying that in with the vaccination thread: it seems odd that someone would fight to save the population for one topic and turn around and have no problems killing off the population for another topic. i just can't figure that one out yet.
Click to expand...

Why would you abort a handicapped child?

The person who revolutionized the cattle slaughter industry is autistic. There are "perfectly healthy" pepole who are utterly useless, why does their lack of handicap entitle them to life moreso than anyone else?

I don't understand people.
 
zengirl said:
Why would you abort a handicapped child?

The person who revolutionized the cattle slaughter industry is autistic. There are "perfectly healthy" pepole who are utterly useless, why does their lack of handicap entitle them to life moreso than anyone else?

I don't understand people.
Click to expand...

Autistic isnt retarded. Need clearer definition to argue these points. The mother's wish is also the last word, if she wants to abort because the planets arent aligned correctly she can.
 
FlamingGlory said:
Autistic isnt retarded. Need clearer definition to argue these points. The mother's wish is also the last word, if she wants to abort because the planets arent aligned correctly she can.
Click to expand...

I'm not condemning abortion, I believe that is every woman's right. What I don't agree with is frivolous use of an extreme measure.
 
Thorn Bird said:
ok, but IMHO that's all subjective. "quality of life" is an extremely broad term, and you're putting "normal" lives up against "special needs" lives. to me, it's not comprable and quality of life applies to each life. based on your suggestion you should be eliminating homeless people, low IQ people...quality of life really has no one point of reference.
my friend would argue vehemently with you about her child's quality of life. it's pretty damn good and her child is very happy, regardless of her ablities or lack of.
Click to expand...

I was talking about aborting before the child was born...guess I didn't really make that clear...it's somewhat equivalent to taking someone off life support that's in a coma or brain dead imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back