KBG29 said:
KungKras said:
KBG29 said:
Why stop with abortion, if I have a kid that becomes crippled or retarded at any point in time I would like the option to end it. The same goes with me, or anyone else, if you are incapable of taking care of yourself then it is over. Dragging these incapable people around is a waste of resources. I can not bare the thought of all the animals, plants, and even other humans that are lost in an effort to keep these people living.
This is not inhumane, or a loss of morals. Keeping them around in the first place is only possible due to our desire to defy nature, and the technology of the 21st century. I see someone needing multiple major surgery's every year just to survive to be 20 - 25 years old, as even more disturbing than genetic mutation.
Moving on to the major cost of having people like this around is even more disgusting. It becomes even more heartbreaking when people have other perfectly healthy kids that end up missing out on so many things due to the attention always having to be focused on the sick child. Then beyond that, the burden stretches to the extended family, and eventually the tax payers. The sick, and the dying are a cancer to humanity, and will be our downfall, but that's just my opinion. |
If I read that right, those thoughts are immoral to me. Nature is cruel and immoral, of course we should defy it, and we have sucessfully defied it since the invention of penicilin and mabye even earlier.
They are humans, they have conciousnesses. Destroying a working conciousness is unacceptable, because it can never be recovered. If they want to do it to themselves, fine. But are you actually implying we should ditch our sick and dying?
|
That is exactly what I am saying. Sick and dying beings are a burden on society, humanity, and nature. They soak up resources, and give back very little if anything. They leave their families in debt, and drive up costs effectivly hurting everyone. We place much to great of a value on individual life, to the point of that we are damaging the majority to save the minority. It is not up to me who lives or dies, and I would never make that decision for another. However, I would cut all ties with anyone that is going to be a burden on the rest of my family. If someone else wants to take care of them they can have at it.
That is were I stand, but of course there are no right awnsers, just our individual morals.
|
Maybe in your country they leave their family in debt.
It is sort of up to you who lives and dies. If people voted for a country to stop doing healthcare for people, then they would have those people's blood on their hands.
Individual life is the only thing I would value as priceless. It is the only thing in the world that is irreplacable.
I agree with Sam Harris about morality. If we define morality as actions that reduce suffering and death and increase happiness and well-being, and if we were somehow able to plot them on a 3D graph, then suddenly we have a landscape of right and wrong actions were some lead to peaks (maximum well being for as many as possible) and others lead to valleys (the opposite).
