this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
145 points (96.8% liked)
[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation
6601 readers
1 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It bothers me that in the U.S., we extend that courtesy to pets who are suffering from terminal issues. But we expect loved ones to hang on and suffer for no real reason other then the vague notion that the imaginary sky man would disapprove.
My grandma passed away 2 months shy of her 101st birthday. I visited her a few weeks before she passed, she was gaunt, skeletal, couldn't see us and was reacting to hallucination caused by their body slowly shutting down. She didn't even know my Mom and I were even there, and when we told her her daughter was there to see her, she said "No, I don't believe it" while staring blanking into the corner of the room. She wasn't suffering from dementia, it was cancer that came back which was killing her. What reason would we not allow a loved pet to suffer though that, but a blood relative, hell yeah, let them lay and suffer for weeks, months, years.
I don't have any grand ideas on how to prevent abuse, I just think it's humane to not let a thinking being suffer needlessly.
It's the same for the young end of the spectrum, I've seen lots of kids and adults who were born with a bad disability to be permanently wheelchair bound unable to care for themselves or even communicate. But "they were breathing on their own when they came out, so we can't do anything about it now" because sky daddie might be mad
And then ofc the whole stress added onto the parents who will have to primarily care for the child for the rest. Of. Their. Lives.
I think a legitimate concern for that one is what do you define as a disability worth terminating the baby's life for. Some would likely abuse it for eugenics.
Good investment and R&D for better early pregnancy testing would be a good start, if we can accurately predict disabilities early enough for an abortion it would head off a lot of issues later on
But for post birth disabilities, yea, but it's hard to even have that conversation because many would just shut the conversation down entirely with "life is life" or some BS like that
If life is life... why do I have to pay a monthly tribute to a labded lord? I thought my life is sacred!
That literally already is eugenics.
And the fact that you consider people advocating that disabled lives have just as much value as abled lives as "BS" tells me you really don't care, because even if you won't admit it, you are a eugenicist.
^ see, found one already lmao
Yea no, to cross the line into eugenics the state or other authority needs to mandate that X or Y disabilities need to be aborted even over the objections of the parents
Simply giving the parents and their doctors the tools and legalities to detect and come to their own decisions, is not
Agreed!
Not being able to live without any assistance and no hope of improving seems like a reasonable criteria. In fact, with that criteria they can remove the assistance and let the child (or adults) suffocate and die right now, but they can't use drugs to ease the suffering and speed up the process or it is 'murder'.
There are many things we can put in place to mitigate the concerns about eugenics, like requiring two doctor's to agree that it is appropriate in addition to consent of family/guardians/other legally responsible persons.
None of us could live without any assistance.
With minimal reading comprehension you could have inferred that the assistance in the example was breathing for the person since they would suffocate without the assistance.
Im the hopes of avoiding a similar stupid post, that does not mean I think anyone who need needs a machine should die. That was an example of a situation where doctors can currently let a patient die through 'inaction' by removing the assistance that is taking care of vital functions like breathing. Think brain dead people or someone whose cancer is so bad that they refuse care that could keep them alive, but have no option to end the suffering faster.