The Mentally Retarded?

I'll present my question before I present my reasons for both sides. Should those with severe or profound mentally retardation be murdered in a peaceful manner at the point of diagnosis?

Yes- Those who are severe or profound will not contribute to society and are only a burden on their peers. Surely if you were to face an injury you wouldn't want your family having to give up time to care for you? Since they can not contribute in society therefore not benefiting in life they serve no purpose and should be put out of misery.

No- Those who are severe or profound are humans with human emotions. Surely you would not murder your own child for something they can't control? Though they do not contribute to society the care of them provides jobs for others.

My own opinion: Though it would be beneficial to remove their population I could never feel right with my selves for such a thing. When you have a child I'm sure you'll love them no matter what.

What do you think?

Let me end by saying that this wasn't meant to offend or insult anyone. If I did offend you feel free to pm me letting me know why and I'll be glad to apologize.

I feel that it would be only right to put to sleep those who suffer and WANT to be put out of their misery.
I do believe that the mentally retarded serve no purpose in life (I also have two retarded cousins). In all honesty I feel that they need more care and more attention than regular children, and they will only pull down on your success/time.


This is a great topic choice, and I don't want to see any flaming.

Thank you for your response. I also have a mentally retarded relative he is between moderate and severe. Now I do agree that those who are in misery should be put out of it but who are we to know that they are in misery or pain. In reality I don't think they understand. Though its tempting for me to say clean the world of them as someone who could be a future parent it would kill me to see my child taken away

There is no right or wrong answer to your question because some people are religious and believe that God, their almighty creator, is the only one that should be permitted to procreate as well as condemn someone. I personally am not religious but I still feel strongly that any life is worth living unless the person living it is in extreme agony. But I'm not going to get into that because euthanasia is a whole new topic.

+ad.Vanquish said:

I feel that it would be only right to put to sleep those who suffer and WANT to be put out of their misery.
I do believe that the mentally retarded serve no purpose in life (I also have two retarded cousins). In all honesty I feel that they need more care and more attention than regular children, and they will only pull down on your success/time.


This is a great topic choice, and I don't want to see any flaming.

Click to expand...

I totally agree there, I have a friend who's 2 brothers are mentally retarded and I've hung out with one of them before (just to be nice).
Although I'm choosing not to vote on the pole due to it's specific nature,"Terminate or Not Terminate?".

By terminate I'm saying end their lives (the means by which undefined) and leave them be would be leave the situation alone.

No: The gift of life is a precious thing given to you by god and you only get it once. It does not matter what state of being you are in, you are always able to live your life to the fullest extent & enjoy it while you have it. If anyone attempts to take your life for physical/mental deformities they are WRONG. I know you are entitled to you are opinion, but I can't resist but mention: why are you referring to retarded people as a whole different race of humans " Though it would be beneficial to remove their population " ? They are the same as you and I.

Coke your either just trying to take a shot at me or don't understand that the term population isn't being applied to biology right now. "Populations are often defined in terms of demography, geography, occupation, time, care requirements, diagnosis, or some combination of the above".

Coke said:

\
They are the same as you and I.

Click to expand...

I agreed with your statement Coke, life is invaluable because it can't be sold (figuratively speaking) to others.


But whenever I saw the last line "They are the same as you and I.", I beg to differ.
If they are the same as the rest of us, why are they labeled different? Retarded, slow, challenged, etc.
They aren't the same as us, their IQ separates them from the rest of society.

+ad.Vanquish said:

Coke said:

\
They are the same as you and I.

Click to expand...

I agreed with your statement Coke, life is invaluable because it can't be sold (figuratively speaking) to others.


But whenever I saw the last line "They are the same as you and I.", I beg to differ.
If they are the same as the rest of us, why are they labeled different? Retarded, slow, challenged, etc.
They aren't the same as us, their IQ separates them from the rest of society.

Click to expand...

I realize mentally & physically they may be the same as us however when you get down to it, we are all humans of this earth we just have different characteristics.

At not point did I say they are not humans. I simple called the population since its usage was fit, ""Populations are often defined in terms of demography, geography, occupation, time, care requirements, diagnosis, or some combination of the above". ""

Coke said:

No: The gift of life is a precious thing given to you by god and you only get it once.

Click to expand...

Here is the biggest problem about debate topics. I hate the way people aren't able to justify their case without bringing their personal beliefs, morals and values into question. The more unbiased your argument is, the more convincing it will be. Here's another way I'll make you understand it. If you're trying to make a Catholic Christian feel the same way about you about this topic by saying that God gives us life only once, sure, they may believe you. But what about the rest of the population that isn't Christian and doesn't believe is such a God? Having said that, what I'm trying to stress is that the more realistic the terms of your argument are, the more people it can apply to. That is why in the court of law, there is no referencing to anyone's particular belief system. If we can make this debate section function that way, I can guarantee that the debate arguments will be much more provocative.

@ the people who say they shouldn't be living, would you kill your son or daughter if, god forbid, this happened to them?

Should they be "Murdered"? No.
You are simply making it sound worse.
The choice should be made by the parents and family.
It is just like when someone is surviving on life support or is in a coma.
They may still be a burden, but it is still their child and is their decision.

---

I am Christian, but I did set aside my aspect of religion so that I could provide a somewhat valid argument.

I'll be the devils advocate here. Their decision to keep the child is unfair to the rest of society. Their children will take so much from society yet give nothing back.

How would the child do such a thing if the parents are soley responsible for it until adulthood?
Did you know it costs on average about $1,014,000 to provide a mentally disabled person an entire lifetime? If a family were to be able to do such a thing, with some government assistance, then the child should be able to live. Besides, the person may not have it as bad as one may think and could work.
Also it would be breaking the U.S. Constitution, because these people have legal and civil rights just as all other citizens do. P.L. (Public Law) 94-103, the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (1975). (The Mentally Retarded: Recognizing Their Rights - Emil Brisson)
I actually do see people with Retardation give stuff back to the community. Such as a woman working in a soup kitchen in my local community.
She was given her own time on the news about a year ago.

That comes out of my head? Okay Picasso lets start with my principle. Had you understand the stages of retardation I stated "severe or profound". Just incase you don't know the levels heres a chart (http://www.education.com/reference/article/mental-retardation-supports-required/). At severe levels "extensive supports are provided... daily basis" while at the profound level "constant assistance". At severe and profound levels they can not actively live their lives or contribute back to society. The women in your soup kitchen is most likely at the mild level. Now you cite the U.S. Constitution but if you understand american politics thats a living document. They could amend it and allow it. But thats not the point, we're not talking about the US for sure or any other country. We're simply discussing a philosophical idea. Now that figure you took off wikipedia if even right is based on mild retardation. It also doesn't take into factor the government costs and the time the parents take off to care for the child.

OT: When debating with me, please read the post. Not just stuff that comes out of your head. Proper Citations would be nice as well. KThnx

P.S: take this as a mockery of your post not an insult directed at you

Actually, I agree with you. That's what I get for skimming the topic. Thanks.

On the contrary your ending "When debating with me, please provide some sort of beef. Not just stuff that comes out of your head. Citations would be nice as well. KThnx" was a direct attack on me. I simply responded by showing your lack of understanding on the subject. GL on your exam tomorrow, the lit exam is nothing compared to the class itself

wale said:

I'll be the devils advocate here. Their decision to keep the child is unfair to the rest of society. Their children will take so much from society yet give nothing back.

Click to expand...

So it's unfair to the society that a parent wants to keep his or her child?
I think it's just you being selfish.
If you have a son/daughter that has something wrong with her/him, i want you to kill him/her with your bare-hands.