LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Should deformed and/or disabled newborns be euthanized at birth?

Should disabled children be euthanized at birth?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • No

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • No comment

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Doom_Guy

Doom_Guy

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Posts
653
Should severely deformed and/or disabled newborn infants be euthanized at birth?
 
In my experience people who ask questions like this are scumbags. No decent human being would bother with it because they already know the correct answer.
I was sort of liking you until now. Kind of entertaining in a weird sort of way. Not anymore.
 
Doom_Guy said:
Their hearts could be injected with the chemical benzene, or they could simply be gassed.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__achzrqWjHM/TLncgnt79lI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/bj5BWtEoP18/s1600/HypodermicNeedle.jpg
Click to expand...

I sincerely don't mean to be insulting here, but you do realize that you are almost certainly disabled, right?

You almost certainly a little slow, and I'm not trying to be a total asshole here, but you definitely have some mental issues.

So under your own plan, you'd very likely be murdered at birth.
 
Oh_That_Guy said:
In my experience people who ask questions like this are scumbags. No decent human being would bother with it because they already know the correct answer.
I was sort of liking you until now. Kind of entertaining in a weird sort of way. Not anymore.
Click to expand...

You are sparing them from an entire lifetime (~75 years) worth of struggle, misery, and hardship.

This is an act of kindness, and not an act of evil.
 
Last edited:
Seems highly unnecessary. Nature will take care of those who cannot survive, and medical science tends to pick up where nature leaves off. Furthermore, lots of disabled people tend to go on to great things, so I'd favor giving everyone a fighting chance.
 
MrRandyWatson said:
Seems highly unnecessary. Nature will take care of those who cannot survive, and medical science tends to pick up where nature leaves off. Furthermore, lots of disabled people tend to go on to great things, so I'd favor giving everyone a fighting chance.
Click to expand...

The welfare system circumvents this.

People who would otherwise have starved to death by natural selection are instead indefinitely cared for by the state.
 
Last edited:
The general consensus is that if you fucked up so bad that you allowed a baby to be born deformed or disabled you have to suffer the results of your inaction. That being stated I'm rather ambivalient. It depends heavily on how much the state is willing to pick up but it should be up to the parents.
 
Sean Renaud said:
The general consensus is that if you fucked up so bad that you allowed a baby to be born deformed or disabled you have to suffer the results of your inaction. That being stated I'm rather ambivalient. It depends heavily on how much the state is willing to pick up but it should be up to the parents.
Click to expand...

So being unable to kill your child because you know it won't be perfect is fucking up? Deformed or disabled babies are as capable of love and being loved as any other baby and it takes a special person to raise and love that child.

A far more special person than you proved yourself to be with that callous remark.

As for the OP... he is a perfect example of how Laurel is a cruel goddess who will not use her mighty ban hammer on people with nothing to offer but ignorance and stupidity, when they're not stalking a third tier celebrity.
 
richard_daily said:
I sincerely don't mean to be insulting here, but you do realize that you are almost certainly disabled, right?

You almost certainly a little slow, and I'm not trying to be a total asshole here, but you definitely have some mental issues.

So under your own plan, you'd very likely be murdered at birth.
Click to expand...

Mild cognitive impairments/mental delays are undetectable until much later in life. I was told that I had an IQ of 89 and was put into special education classes in high school.

The only mental disabilities that are immediately apparent at birth are down syndrome and severe/profound mental retardation.

Unless a genetic screening test is developed to positively identify these defects prior to birth, I doubt that it will ever be morally or legally acceptable to euthanize older children.

The Nazis did exactly that, but it was done in secret and not publicized to the German people.
 
Last edited:
lovecraft68 said:
So being unable to kill your child because you know it won't be perfect is fucking up? Deformed or disabled babies are as capable of love and being loved as any other baby and it takes a special person to raise and love that child.

A far more special person than you proved yourself to be with that callous remark.

As for the OP... he is a perfect example of how Laurel is a cruel goddess who will not use her mighty ban hammer on people with nothing to offer but ignorance and stupidity, when they're not stalking a third tier celebrity.
Click to expand...

You aren't unable you are unwilling (for the most part. We could debate on what constitutes able geographically with regards to limiting access to PP but I don't think that is actually your point.

While I'd be willing to debate they are as capable of love as any other baby I'll simply allow you to have that one. If it takes a special person to raise and love that child then it is simply poor planning to force it on average people no? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, or at least the likely. Which is that these people may not be in a position emotionally, mentally or economically to care for a special needs child. Which is why I specifically stated that it does depend at least in part on how much the state is willing and able to pitch in. Because frankly the reality in America is not the same as the reality in Somalia.
 
The mass compulsory sterilization of people with hereditary illnesses and faulty gene pools is a much more ethical way of minimizing the number of children born with diseases and disabilities inherited from their parents.

But some deformities/diseases/disabilities are caused by random genetic mutations that occur during different stages of fetal development, and even if two perfectly fit and healthy parents conceive a child, it is still possible that they could have a dimwit, a retard, or a flipper baby.
 
Last edited:
Doom_Guy said:
Mild cognitive impairments/mental delays are undetectable until much later in life. I was told that I had an IQ of 89 and was put into special education classes in high school.

The only mental disabilities that are immediately apparent at birth are down syndrome and severe/profound mental retardation.

Unless a genetic screening test is developed to positively identify these defects prior to birth, I doubt that it will ever be morally or legally acceptable to euthanize older children.

The Nazis did exactly that, but it was done in secret and not publicized to the German people.
Click to expand...

You're making my point for me.

Do you see that?
 
Doom_Guy said:
The mass compulsory sterilization of people with hereditary illnesses and faulty gene pools is a much more ethical way of minimizing the number of children born with diseases and disabilities inherited from their parents.

But some deformities/diseases/disabilities are caused by random genetic mutations that occur during different stages of fetal development, and even if two perfectly fit and healthy parents conceive a child, it is still possible that they could have a dimwit, a retard, or a flipper baby.
Click to expand...

No, that is monstrous. People get a choice. Besides you never know when that shit might prove useful.
 
I'm mentally disabled and I'm nothing short of awesome.
 
Who decides?

Who defines deformed and/or disabled? What are the criteria? How deformed? How disabled?

Is a missing hand enough? Webbed feet - a common benign abnormality? Club-foot - usually easy to correct? Cleft palate - ditto?

When is the decision made? At birth? Before birth? At three months? Six months?

One of my children had a note on the birth report "Possible Brain Damage - monitor closely" after a very fast delivery. She is now an MD. The 'possible brain damage' was bruising to the head from being delivered before my wife was fully dilated.
 
oggbashan said:
Who decides?

Who defines deformed and/or disabled? What are the criteria? How deformed? How disabled?

Is a missing hand enough? Webbed feet - a common benign abnormality? Club-foot - usually easy to correct? Cleft palate - ditto?

When is the decision made? At birth? Before birth? At three months? Six months?

One of my children had a note on the birth report "Possible Brain Damage - monitor closely" after a very fast delivery. She is now an MD. The 'possible brain damage' was bruising to the head from being delivered before my wife was fully dilated.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what deformed really has to do with anything. Most deformities don't affect cognition. They are just unpleasant to look at. I'm going to go out on a limb and side with those who don't want to kill someone just because they're ugly.
Disabilities are so varied I'd wonder if it's all disabilities or just ones that require 24/7 care in order for the person to survive and they have no real chance of leading any kind of life. Lots and lots of disabled peope are very productive members of society. Some way better than anyone on this site.
Pitiful responses to this thread. Disgusting even.
 
oggbashan said:
Who decides?

Who defines deformed and/or disabled? What are the criteria? How deformed? How disabled?

Is a missing hand enough? Webbed feet - a common benign abnormality? Club-foot - usually easy to correct? Cleft palate - ditto?

When is the decision made? At birth? Before birth? At three months? Six months?

One of my children had a note on the birth report "Possible Brain Damage - monitor closely" after a very fast delivery. She is now an MD. The 'possible brain damage' was bruising to the head from being delivered before my wife was fully dilated.
Click to expand...

It's a medical condition and is decided by the family and their doctors. Ultimately what's enough is clearly a personal issue.

The decision as defined by the OP can only happen at birth, or shortly before. As it stands lots of people abort babies that they know will be unlikely to have full and complete lives and nobody seems to honestly question that.
 
clearly, the obama kind must be banned from becoming breeders. after all, why burden tax payers with more of them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Feature request or at least request for better understanding of site functionality
Replies
0
Views
182
ninjanoodles
N
Rotadom
Babies’ Brains Are Primed for Their Native Language Before Birth
Replies
3
Views
289
patient1
patient1
BaherOlwy
I think a woman can have two boyfriends at the same time and can be able to make them agree to this situation but I don't think a guy can do the same
Replies
24
Views
1K
scottstone7
S
Rightguide
Wray's Posse Told To Resign, Retire, Or Be Fired by Monday
2
Replies
39
Views
859
Politruk
P
B
Let's discuss policies and issues
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
3K
Deleted member 1215945
D
Back
Top