Severely mentally disabled folk.

[TheYoungCommie]

So the mentally disabled, those who must be taken care of 24/7 who not for a single minute of their lives contribute to the betterment of society in my opinion they are good people but scientifically speaking without our help they would be dead. so I'm asking You all what you think they would be better of dead?


*This is not my opinion this is science I do not believe this this is just me thinking about life so don't hate don't flame this is for serious conversation about the plight of the disabled

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whether someone "would be better off" dead is not a factual question but an evaluative one, science does not answer such pseudoquestions, and you should stop hiding your opinion behind "science".

[BIXX]

I normally disagree with Semendyaev, but he's right in this case. Opinion=/= science.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So the mentally disabled, those who must be taken care of 24/7 who not for a single minute of their lives contribute to the betterment of society

Why should "contributing to society" (whatever that means at the end of the day) be a factor in deciding whether someone should live or die?


in my opinion they are good people but scientifically speaking without our help they would be dead. so I'm asking You all what you think they would be better of dead?

They wouldn't be "better off". They would be dead.


*This is not my opinion this is science I do not believe this this is just me thinking about life so don't hate don't flame this is for serious conversation about the plight of the disabled

Why not do what we can to give those with disabilities the means to live as independently as possible?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

who not for a single minute of their lives contribute to the betterment of society
What kind of argument is that for a communist to make?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

An inadmissible one. But a depressing number of self-proclaimed "communists" think that humans should behave as eusocial insects, apparently.

[TheYoungCommie]

I do not mean digging trenches and filling them with the handicapped I'm saying let them die off with a happy life and then abort the new one's.

[Akshay!]

who not for a single minute of their lives contribute to the betterment of society in my opinion ...... they would be better of dead?

What am I reading??? O_O

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do not mean digging trenches and filling them with the handicapped I'm saying let them die off with a happy life and then abort the new one's.

Shouldn't the decision to abort be the sole domain of the mother-to-be?

[Brutus]

I'm saying let them die off with a happy life and then abort the new one's.

Die off? What do you mean by this?

Abort the new ones? Your incorrect use of the apostrophe aside, why shouldn't the mother decide? You'd probably fit in better at scum front with reactionary views like that.

[TheYoungCommie]

Yes this is but. here is a fact search it you self 90% of fetuses with down syndrome are aborted so yes it is the mothers desision (because basically 90% will do what we want so who cares about the other 10%) but still you must bring in an expert to explain what it would be like to have to raise a disabled child and what It would be like to be a parent enjoyable if your That way.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hopefully in communism getting pregnant with a disabled child wouldn't be a big deal because, well, it's communism. There'd be no economic stress and an adoption option. Abortion would probably drop dramatically (hence why pro-lifers should be communist).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Those with disabilities are normally prevented from participating in society due to outdated beliefs held by those without disabilities. Disabled people are still treated as second class citizens by the state and a large portion of the population still view those with disabilities as sub-human. The choice to continue living or not is up to them, and a just society should facilitate both options, there should never be a default.

[TheYoungCommie]

Perfect answer, just perfect.

[Buzzard]

Yes this is but. here is a fact search it you self 90% of fetuses with down syndrome are aborted so yes it is the mothers desision (because basically 90% will do what we want so who cares about the other 10%) but still you must bring in an expert to explain what it would be like to have to raise a disabled child and what It would be like to be a parent enjoyable if your That way.

What? so because the majority would choose to have an abortion the minority should not have the option? wow. :confused:

[BIXX]

Yes this is but. here is a fact search it you self 90% of fetuses with down syndrome are aborted so yes it is the mothers desision (because basically 90% will do what we want so who cares about the other 10%) but still you must bring in an expert to explain what it would be like to have to raise a disabled child and what It would be like to be a parent enjoyable if your That way.

Who cares? Are you fucking kidding me? Who cares are the approximately 140,000 (out of 3,999,384 births) mothers who give birth to a child or children with sever disabilities. In other words, approximately 3.5 percent. That's in the US alone. If we put that on the worldwide scale, with 133,201,704 births, we get 4,662,060 mothers who will care.

In other words, fucking stop.

You cannot say "we have to ignore what the other ten percent want to do with their bodies because we are the 90%".

And don't get me wrong, in no way am I anti abortion. I'm just opposed to the idea of making someone get an abortion.

[Sea]

TheYoungCommie, you're appalling. You're essentially saying that the only purpose of severely disabled folk is to suck up the benefits given to them by others. Wait... where have I heard that before?


Die off? What do you mean by this?<br />
<br />
Abort the new ones? Your incorrect use of the apostrophe aside, why shouldn't the mother decide? You'd probably fit in better at scum front with reactionary views like that.At least he wants them to "die off with a happy life", whatever the fuck that means! :laugh:

[Rural Comrade]

Guys I think he is referring to human vegetables. So what would happen to them under communism?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Okay, after all that's already been said here i'd like to add that disabled people are still someones son, daughter, brother, sister or whatever. They (most probably) will be loved by someone.

From another point, i consider any ending of life from brith on (not getting into when is abortion still abortion) as murder. You are murdering a human being.
Of course that is unless the person has seriously considered and chose for euthanesia. Danger in that is that when people with mental disabilities are urged to choose for the end-of-life-option they might not have the ability to choose what they would actually want.

So, in conclusion: should we end disabled lives because they do not contribute to society? No!

[BIXX]

Also, with the case of someone who is a "vegetable" that should be left up to the family. I may disagree with the family, but it's still their choice.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Also, with the case of someone who is a "vegetable" that should be left up to the family. I may disagree with the family, but it's still their choice.

Would community care, in the absence of wills and so on, not be preferable to relying on the bourgeois family unit?

[BIXX]

Would community care, in the absence of wills and so on, not be preferable to relying on the bourgeois family unit?

Actually yes. This. I like this.

The community would be the final decision makers.

[Rural Comrade]

Also, with the case of someone who is a "vegetable" that should be left up to the family. I may disagree with the family, but it's still their choice.

I always thought the person should make a testament what they want done with themselves in this case. If they dint then family would make the most sense.

[Quail]

I don't think that how much someone can contribute is a valid way of deciding who should be alive! What's that famous communist quote? Oh yeah - "From each according to ability, to each according to need." So regardless of the amount a person can contribute, they deserve to have their needs met. That is the communist viewpoint.

Also, I think it's discriminatory to claim that all people with severe mental disabilities are unable to contribute anything whatsoever to society, because it's untrue. I volunteered on a playscheme for children with disabilities a while ago, and they were mostly just really nice kids, and I think being a kind, loving person and a part of a community is a contribution to society in itself. (That's not to say people with disabilities can't contribute in other ways. I just wanted to make the point that productive labour is not the only way human beings can contribute to society.)

[TheYoungCommie]

What? so because the majority would choose to have an abortion the minority should not have the option? wow. :confused:

I never said the minority would not have an option I said "who cares" they can keep their children if they want but not without training and "counseling".

[BIXX]

I never said the minority would not have an option I said "who cares" they can keep their children if they want but not without training and "counseling".

"Counseling"? Based on the quotations that could mean basically anything, including bullying the family into aborting.

[TheYoungCommie]

"Counseling"? Based on the quotations that could mean basically anything, including bullying the family into aborting.

You never know it could be good counseling or the family could go in one day and never be seen again.

[TheYoungCommie]

Or We could give them incentives.

[BIXX]

You never know it could be good counseling or the family could go in one day and never be seen again.


Or We could give them incentives.

Holy shot dude no. Leave the family alone.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Would community care, in the absence of wills and so on, not be preferable to relying on the bourgeois family unit?


Actually yes. This. I like this.

The community would be the final decision makers.

No! Nononono! As much as i'd like to see the patriarchic family-hierarchy go, giving that decision to the community is not right.
(btw, there is much more to family and relatives than patriarchy and hierarchy)

Alienation from the subject or the lack of an emotional band at hand easily turns into bad decision-making. We don't care so it's better to "let him/her go".
That turns into whatever TheYoungCommie was explaining as "science" in the first place.

I say, leave the decision to the ones close to the people actually close to them. Those who interact with them on a frequent basis are more competent to make that call.
Even still, i already said how i think about the ending of life.

[cyu]

So the mentally disabled, those who must be taken care of 24/7 who not for a single minute of their lives contribute to the betterment of society


For a second there, I thought you were talking about capitalists :grin:

[Forward Union]

Yes they should all be euthanized in giant camps. :cool:

[BIXX]

No! Nononono! As much as i'd like to see the patriarchic family-hierarchy go, giving that decision to the community is not right.
(btw, there is much more to family and relatives than patriarchy and hierarchy)

Alienation from the subject or the lack of an emotional band at hand easily turns into bad decision-making. We don't care so it's better to "let him/her go".
That turns into whatever TheYoungCommie was explaining as "science" in the first place.

I say, leave the decision to the ones close to the people actually close to them. Those who interact with them on a frequent basis are more competent to make that call.
Even still, i already said how i think about the ending of life.

Honestly I'm still on the fence on the issue, because my mind keeps changing with every argument I hear.

Ok, what about a hybrid? The family first tries to make a decision, and then if they decide they'd rather avoid being the ones that do that, they defer to the community at large?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No! Nononono! As much as i'd like to see the patriarchic family-hierarchy go, giving that decision to the community is not right.
(btw, there is much more to family and relatives than patriarchy and hierarchy)

Alienation from the subject or the lack of an emotional band at hand easily turns into bad decision-making. We don't care so it's better to "let him/her go".
That turns into whatever TheYoungCommie was explaining as "science" in the first place.

I say, leave the decision to the ones close to the people actually close to them. Those who interact with them on a frequent basis are more competent to make that call.
Even still, i already said how i think about the ending of life.

In the bourgeois family unit, the "emotional bond" is often petty hatred and so on, unfortunately. At the very least, the partners and friends of the person in question should be consulted just as much as the family. I think the community would have no real reason to act like the Young Eugenicist suggests, in any case, given that there would be no significant scarcity in the communist society.

[JPSartre12]

... those who must be taken care of 24/7 who not for a single minute of their lives contribute to the betterment of society ...

This ableism disturbs me. Honestly, it sounds downright bourgeois, wherein the "value" of a person and his/her justification for living is directly corollated with their productive and contributive capacity?

Productive contribution does not make one any more or less valuable. This sounds profoundly non-socialist to me.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Nevermind people, dude got banned.