Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Councillor compares disabled children to deformed lambs Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I'd say there's plenty of variation in healthy people to be honest, I'm not sure that argument holds much water. That said, I can see an argument for a sliding scale, Autistic people and suchlike can function just fine in society to the point of productivity, but when it comes to things like Downs, Huntingtons and a whole host of other conditions there is really no reason to bring that damaged fetus into the world as a person.



    That's a rather short-sighted viewpoint, Human Rights as an ideal stretch well beyond the ECHR.
    Yeah there is variation, but some things are caused directly. Like the example I gace about bipolar and creativity, there's a massive link, and if say, you decided bipolar wasn't acceptable, you'd lose a huge chunk of the creative people, which would cause problems. Same for Autism, many people with autism go on to do amazing work in their own fields.

    I can see to some extent what you're saying with the sliding scale, but I think that;s dangerous as where do you draw the line? The only argument I can see for it is if the fetus is so severely disabled that it will die shortly after birth, or will die very young. If it's a 'normal' fetus with a disability that's livable though, I don't see why it shouldn't have as much chance as any other one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    That's a rather short-sighted viewpoint, Human Rights as an ideal stretch well beyond the ECHR.

    So, why do Human Rights pose a problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    but you can take that further and say that one disabled life could cost as much as feeding hundreds of starving Africans. if you have finite resources who do you keep alive? utilitarianism can be cruel
    I'd probably save the 1000 but if you'd lower that to 10 I'd take care of people within my own country who I have a mandate to govern firstly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    What about them? They have a mental disability and should be cared for.
    Can't we screen for them and get rid? After all

    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    not everybody 'has a right to life' if their life will be of such low quality that it can be deemed not worth living AND if their life will impede of the quality of others..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)

    So, why do Human Rights pose a problem?
    they don't exist, they're just a social construct
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Can't we screen for them and get rid? After all
    No, I wouldn't judge their quality of life to be so low AND for it to impede on others.

    UNLESS their parents wanted and could justify aborting them, due to reasons such as financial contrasts and other reasons which there are too many to list.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    No, I wouldn't judge their quality of life to be so low AND for it to impede on others.
    Why not? How can you have a decent quality of life if you feel no empathy? And they certainly do impede on the lives of others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Why not? How can you have a decent quality of life if you feel no empathy? And they certainly do impede on the lives of others.
    It's about extent. You have to make a subjective judgement on the extent of which they will impede on the lives of others and the disminishment of their quality of life.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Odd, thought we would have at least someone here that doesn't see it as the governments responsibility to look after these children. If you can't afford kids, don't have them.

    Obviously no need to put them down, but should we really be paying for their treatment? The government does help people, but there's a limit to that help merely from a cost basis. To facilitate the ability to help oneself. Not to spoon feed you, the state can technically do everything for you and therefore you are not enticed to get some get up and go as there's no need to.

    We cannot blame politicians for inadvertently letting them die, can we?

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ah man, getting negged. Best add, the quotes.
    No idea why you've quoted me here, unless you'd like to imagine that this is something you'd imagine I'd say - in other words, baiting me with a horrendous ad hominem attack. Neverthess, I don't mind dealing with your post.

    Wasn't this the same guy who got a panning from Disability News Service for saying that 10 public toilets could remain open with the same amount of money it costs to look after one severely disabled person? With headlines screaming "Councillor says public toilets are more important than disabled people"?

    I wasn't party to the circumstances under which he said either of those, but if you are trying to criticise him for saying (in naively unguarded terms, selectively quoted by the "Disability News Service") that the immense cost of lifelong support and care for disabled people must be balanced against the state's other duties, then I don't really see the problem.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    Yeah there is variation, but some things are caused directly. Like the example I gace about bipolar and creativity, there's a massive link, and if say, you decided bipolar wasn't acceptable, you'd lose a huge chunk of the creative people, which would cause problems. Same for Autism, many people with autism go on to do amazing work in their own fields.

    I can see to some extent what you're saying with the sliding scale, but I think that;s dangerous as where do you draw the line? The only argument I can see for it is if the fetus is so severely disabled that it will die shortly after birth, or will die very young. If it's a 'normal' fetus with a disability that's livable though, I don't see why it shouldn't have as much chance as any other one.
    Any disorder that will make the fetus a burden to society, that should be a concrete barrier enough, though I'd want it to go further.

    As for the whole creativity argument, again, I disagree. Are some Autistic people great artists or musicians? Yes, but could they easily be done without? Again, yes. Nothing of empirical value would really be lost, just some arts. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm not in the business of mincing my words. That said though, the scale could be set at first with the notion of burden on society and move from there.

    (Original post by n00)

    So, why do Human Rights pose a problem?
    You're thinking of Human Rights as law, but the issue I mean is that as a concept they are pervasive in society. The public would never accept anything that violates them in a large way. So in an ideal world Human Rights may not be an issue, but if we assume an ideal world then we may aswell assume disability doesn't exist,
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    In the 1930s, identifying toxic threats in the environment became an important feature of the Nazi project to build a master race through ‘racial hygiene’. Two researchers, Schairer and Schöniger, were working on biological theories of degenerate behaviour under Professor Karl Astel, a scientist who helped organise the vile “euthanasia” operation that murdered 200,000 mentally and physically disabled people. In 1943 his two researchers published a well conducted case-control study demonstrating a relationship between smoking and lung cancer almost a decade before any researchers elsewhere. Their paper wasn’t mentioned in the classic Doll and Bradford Hill paper of 1950, and if you check in the Science Citation Index, it was referred to only four times in the 1960s, once in the 1970s, and then not again until 1988, despite providing a valuable early warning on a killer that would cause 100 million early deaths in the 20th century. It’s not obvious what you do with evidence from untrustworthy sources, but it’s always worth appraising its untrustworthiness with the best tools available.

    http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/wh...ou-dont-trust/
    So what you're saying is, because the nazis worked out the link between smoking and lung cancer, that's the link here? Disabled people give you cancer? Of course, Im being sarcastic here, because your reply bears little resemblance to my comment

    ie: I implied that Hitler was the guy who would go and put disabled people down, and then you show me an article to do with lung cancer and the links that were found by the nazis

    The nazi's did do *some* good things, but that of course doesn't mean that they were fundamentally "good"...

    (Original post by Darth Stewie)
    Yes we should be paying for their treatment, it always amuses me when the army of middle class morons try to make out that this is their state and start deeming people "beneath" them. Do you realize how utterly replaceable you are? Do you honestly think you are some kind of superior lifeforms fit to assess who is and isn't worthy of life because you can walk your fat asses to the shop and buy food? Hell i would argue disabled people are of a lot more value to society, it gives us the ability to study illnesses and diseases in living humans while chances are whatever you end up doing is something literally billions of others could do. But this does give me an idea, lots of poor starving Africans right? Well i'm guessing they would love the opportunity to come and work here (would probably work a lot harder and for a lot less money as well) but then that leaves the problem of you, well screw the welfare system right? You can starve, just don't do it in the nicer areas, you'll stink up the place or i heard Auschwitz is really nice this time of year maybe you can go on holiday?

    Eugenics is scientifically unsound, "putting down" kids because they cost a bit more is morally abhorrent and more importantly killing disabled kids makes you a ****.
    Tbf, I'd be at ease, say if during the initial stages of a baby being formed, the baby is genetically modified, if it is known that something like downs syndrome runs in the family

    Though I wouldn't of course want that kid to be put down. Any parent would want the best for their kid
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    No idea why you've quoted me here, unless you'd like to imagine that this is something you'd imagine I'd say
    Sorry an ever so slight misquote, just wondering where you draw the line.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    in other words, a horrendous ad hominem attack.
    :rofl:

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    If you are trying to criticise him for saying (in naively unguarded terms, selectively quoted by the "Disability News Service") that the immense cost of lifelong support and care for disabled people must be balanced against the state's other duties, then I don't really see the problem.
    Seems it wasn't so much a misquote after all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Any disorder that will make the fetus a burden to society, that should be a concrete barrier enough, though I'd want it to go further.

    As for the whole creativity argument, again, I disagree. Are some Autistic people great artists or musicians? Yes, but could they easily be done without? Again, yes. Nothing of empirical value would really be lost, just some arts. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm not in the business of mincing my words. That said though, the scale could be set at first with the notion of burden on society and move from there.



    You're thinking of Human Rights as law, but the issue I mean is that as a concept they are pervasive in society. The public would never accept anything that violates them in a large way. So in an ideal world Human Rights may not be an issue, but if we assume an ideal world then we may aswell assume disability doesn't exist,
    Actually there's evidence some of these things couldn't be achieved without disabilities. Monet's famous style of painting they now think was caused by him being unable to see properly, and he actually saw it like that.

    I guess it depends how much value you place on the arts. I put a lot on it, some others I guess don't. There are other fields it would affect too, I just am an art nerd hence why I mentioned art
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skyscraper15)
    Yes I am very anti-abortion. I may not believe in God but I do believe that we begin in life in our mothers stomach. I see your point there but in my mind, everyone is equal and deserves a chance at living.
    You meant womb. Please tell me you meant womb...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    but you can take that further and say that one disabled life could cost as much as feeding hundreds of starving Africans. if you have finite resources who do you keep alive? utilitarianism can be cruel
    But how exactly do those now not so starving Africans benefit me? Them being here and working hard results in me paying less tax and companies turning over greater profit, just like paying for the disabled kid allows for us to understand their afflictions a little more and in turn gain a greater understanding of the human anatomy.

    If i wanted to be purely utilitarian in my approach i would probably look into slavery, paying one guy with a gun and whip is probably a lot more cost effective than paying 100 workers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Any disorder that will make the fetus a burden to society, that should be a concrete barrier enough, though I'd want it to go further.

    As for the whole creativity argument, again, I disagree. Are some Autistic people great artists or musicians? Yes, but could they easily be done without? Again, yes. Nothing of empirical value would really be lost, just some arts. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm not in the business of mincing my words. That said though, the scale could be set at first with the notion of burden on society and move from there.



    You're thinking of Human Rights as law, but the issue I mean is that as a concept they are pervasive in society. The public would never accept anything that violates them in a large way. So in an ideal world Human Rights may not be an issue, but if we assume an ideal world then we may aswell assume disability doesn't exist,
    So in an ideal world no one would care about human rights?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    It's about extent. You have to make a subjective judgement on the extent of which they will impede on the lives of others and the disminishment of their quality of life.
    So wheres the line between a disabled child and a psychopathic child?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    Actually there's evidence some of these things couldn't be achieved without disabilities. Monet's famous style of painting they now think was caused by him being unable to see properly, and he actually saw it like that.

    I guess it depends how much value you place on the arts. I put a lot on it, some others I guess don't. There are other fields it would affect too, I just am an art nerd hence why I mentioned art
    Which is fair enough, but imagine if the thousands of people born blind in this country weren't born blind, the quality of life they would have. Is that worth an interesting art style?


    (Original post by n00)
    So in an ideal world no one would care about human rights?
    No, I'm saying that in an ideal world Human Rights wouldn't be a barrier to such things, just as religious thinking or emotion wouldn't be a barrier to logical and rational thinking.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    No, I'm saying that in an ideal world Human Rights wouldn't be a barrier to such things, just as religious thinking or emotion wouldn't be a barrier to logical and rational thinking.
    So just disability discrimination you have a problem with?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    Tbf, I'd be at ease, say if during the initial stages of a baby being formed, the baby is genetically modified, if it is known that something like downs syndrome runs in the family

    Though I wouldn't of course want that kid to be put down. Any parent would want the best for their kid
    It depends, if we are talking about an undeveloped fetus before any conscious form of life has developed then i don't really see any issue with that from a moral perspective but i would like to point out that the concept of some genes being bad and some being good is a vastly oversimplified version of genetics and the idea of simply removing a condition like downs syndrome from a fetus like it was a jenga game is virtually impossible if our current understanding of genetics is anything to go on.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 17, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.