| Subject: My opinion (this one's for my homies at the "society") |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/ 5/03 6:53pm
In reply to:
CRYSTALLINE
's message, "Ben...REPLY!!!" on 04/30/03 8:31pm
>Ben,
>I have tried to send this message to you several
>times, and it appears to be continuously deleted. I
>only wish to discuss this matter with you, not to make
>you feel defiant. Please reply ... I am extremely
>interested in your opinion.
Er... I don't remember deleting any message like this one. If you just came on and cut-and-pasted some stuff, then yeah, I might have deleted it, but I don't delete messages from people who are genuinely interested in meaningful discussions. If that happened, I do apologize, but I don't feel defiant in the least, so you have nothing to worry about there.
First of all, it's interesting that you single me out. Perhaps you did that because this is my message board, but there are many people here who could respond to you in many different ways, as you have no doubt already discovered. My views are not necessarily the views of anyone else on this board, but I will tell you what they are. I don't have much time to write on the board anymore, sadly, which is why I haven't been doing much around here.
>>>since animals are capable of walking away from a
>dying, deformed baby of their own species, why aren't
>we?
>
>Well, first, let's start off with the fact that that's
>a part of life. Only the strong survive in the wild.
>Carrying a deformed baby around would only yield more
>risk to the mother and other babies. This does not
>relate to human beings. Carrying deformed babies does
>not put our lives in danger...and we have the
>technology nowadays to keep these babies alive. Plus,
>the whole purpose of animals is to reproduce young,
>healthy, and strong babies so that their population
>grows bigger and definitely stronger. They have up to
>5 babies at a time whereas we only have about one
>every year. Most women treasure these little bundles
>of joy; no matter how deformed, ugly, or mentally ill.
Indeed. And if there is a mother to treasure a given child, then that’s fine. But when they are put in homes and it costs more to care for them than for a normal human being, I think it becomes a different story. Since you are arguing from the standpoint of evolutionary benefit, I think it’s important to add that it’s not just how much danger one’s life is put in… other factors include using valuable resources on a being that isn’t going to produce anything useful (I’m referring to animals in the wild here). Evolution doesn’t prefer animals that spend all their resources on offspring that can’t produce more viable offspring themselves.
Also, going along with your argument, I assume you’d advocate sterilizing such mentally ill humans, keeping them from passing on these harmful genes to future generations. Surely you would agree that to pass on genes in this way would not be ethical.
Again, if there is a mother with the desire and resources to care for one of these children, I say more power to her. But let’s focus on the cases of the many mentally ill humans who are put in homes and basically kept alive as long as possible, no matter what the expense. And let’s also discuss the issue of whether or not it’s worth sending people like this to a school where much more money is spent on them than others, and very little is ever given back to society.
>You state that we should be able to go up to a
>deformed child and say that they should not be able to
>add their genes to the gene pool. Who said that all
>deformities were genetic? Cerebral Palsy and Mental
>Illness can be acquired through diseases(such as
>Scarlet Fever which damages the brain) and severe
>injuries(Christopher Reeves who fell off a horse and
>was paralyzed(cerebral palsy) for life.
I don’t think I said every deformity or mental illness was genetic. I agree that is isn’t. My point is that when the quality of life reaches a certain low point, coupled with the cost of living reaching a certain high point, I think euthanasia might be a good solution, and I would say this even if I were someone who became a person like this.
Also, we may be on different wavelengths here, because to me, it’s clear that Christopher Reeve can still make useful contributions to society. I am speaking more of severely handicapped people who take up more resources than the average person, and give nothing back.
>There are several grand examples of people who had the
>most difficult lives and yet overcame their
>difficulties. Have you ever heard of Joseph Carrey
>Merrick (1862-1890)? He was also known as the Elephant
>Man because of the tumors he had all over his face and
>hands. Underneath all of this, even though he was
>part of the poor class, he was one of the smartest
>people in London at the time that he lived. No one
>paid attention to him, though, because of his low
>status and looks. Few people helped him, but to those
>he wrote thank you notes every time they did. He
>always ended his notes with this:
>
>"Tis true my form is something odd, but blaming me is
>blaming God;
>Could I create myself anew, I would not fail in
>pleasing you;
>If I could reach from pole to pole, or grasp the ocean
>with a span;
>I would be measured by the soul;
>The mind's the standard measure of man."
If someone is capable of writing a thank-you note, he or she is not at the level of severity that I have in mind when I speak of euthanasia.
>That he should have to write something describing
>mankind in the way he did, is terrible. It gives us
>the view of how many deformed people must look at us;
>their thoughts are probably,"Why should you look at me
>like that? I am a human being."
I definitely agree. They are human beings, and they have value, just as a deformed animal has value. But that doesn’t mean that at some point, it may not be best to consider allowing nature to take its course. Bear in mind, I’m not advocating taking people’s lives who are otherwise healthy. I mean people who can’t live without expensive medical care. In other words, nature would have them die anyway. We are basically just allowing nature to take its natural course.
>You also state that thousands of dollars are being
>WASTED on taking care of these children whom will
>never be able to contribute to society. This is not
>true. Our country's taxes do not all go to such
>foundations for these children. In fact, only a small
>percent goes to said foundations. From this small
>percentage, great advances are being made that allow
>severely deformed people to survive, develop, and
>ultimately contribute to society as they live
>meaningful lives. This statement that you make is
>basically saying that deformed children are a burden
>to society; which is definitely not true.
Well, if that’s the case, then I suppose that’s fine. People certainly have the right to give their money to any cause they feel is worthy. Since you seem to be in the know, can you give us a dollar amount that comes from our taxes for things like this each year?
>>>Interestingly, students with special needs get far
>more money than average or above-average students, and
>which students are more likely to give something back
>to the world? Is it so far from our minds to gently
>take the lives of people whose lives may be very low
>quality anyway?
>
>The only reason that students with special needs get
>far more money than regular or above average students
>is that we are trying to teach them where they need
>help SO THAT THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY!
How is learning to hold a ball in your hands contributing to society? Again, if people genuinely are able to contribute to society, I am all for keeping them alive, provided it doesn’t take extreme resources.
> Above
>average students - hmm...well...if they're above
>average...why do we need to give them extra equipment
>when they are already capable of learning without
>extra stuff?
Well… it seems clear that we should spend the bulk of our money on our most promising students, enabling them to do even more. By your theory, if you have a gifted student in the classroom, you should just say, “Well, he’s fine. He’s getting it. I’ll leave him alone,” rather than maximizing his potential.
>>>We have people with six thousand dollar chairs who
>go to special tax-funded schools where their main goal
>for the year is to learn to hold a ball in their hands.
>
>You like to say that they can't contribute to society.
>WELL...the whole idea of spending a small percentage
>of tax money is so that they CAN contribute to
>society!!!
Please explain how someone at this level of handicapped…ness… can contribute to society. I want to understand specifically what you mean here.
>>>We should not be after white Anglo-saxon offspring,
>but we should be after increasingly intelligent,
>physically fit offspring.
>
>Where's the fun in that???
It doesn’t matter to me if it’s fun. I certainly wouldn’t want to see anyone die. I have compassion. But in issues like these, I try to think beyond my natural desire not to let life end.
>I'm not physically fit but I
>would say that I am pretty intelligent....would you
>kill me because of that?
Would you naturally die without expensive health care? Are you being kept alive by large amounts of tax money? If not, then you’re fine, as far as I’m concerned.
>Crystalline (just dare to write me back!!! there's
>more, MUCH more, where that came from. but seriously,
>write me back. besides, the society is interested in
>your reply.)
Okay, I dared. And now let me ask you a question which I’ve posed on here before:
Which is more useful to society: a severely handicapped person, handicapped to the point that he can do nothing, and is kept alive by machines, or a very intelligent seeing-eye dog? Which has more value? If a choice must be made, which should be kept alive?
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 