Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

[Agrippa]

ANd how are you going to know if the child is going to have the mild form of Autism, or the heavy one? Looking in the beans, crystal ball?

I added above:
Thats something I already mentioned otherwise, that some genetic predispositions and dispositions might have a good and a bad side. In such cases one has to be more careful to not eliminate good potential - very hard task for the future with more research being needed.

From my mother's side my grandmother, grand-uncle and my mother were suffering from cancer. I might get the cancer too, but I might live long and healthy life and die in 100, the one can never know.

Yup, but we can work on that, so that we can know in the future and you can decide whether you protect your future family from that menace or not.

I would, you should too. It's in your interest, the interest of your family, in the interest of the group and the healthy child to come.

How do you know that his children won't end up like him, or even die in childhood after years "wasted" on breeding? Maybe it is small genome, but in his child those mutations could be bigger which could be seen after the child is born. Some environment influence could trigger the mutations and there you go.

You can only select, change, promote or eliminate what's known.

So if we know that this mutation causes his degeneration, we can test the embryo for it and if the embryo doesnt have it. In fact, in vitro you can test even before we might speak of an embryo proper, without any higher organisatsion, namely the blastocyst - just taking away one or two cells, which doesnt hurt it - test those cells, then you know and can implant or not.

There is no chance for his childen having that defect then - probably some other undetected, but since we will improve our abilities for penatal screening, this won't be an issue in the future.

So you can actually guarantee that his children won't get the same defect - but being otherwise normal children born out of his semen...

Tell me, are you totally independent in every aspect of your life?! Did you grew up by yourself, without your mother and father? In some wildness? Are you telling me that old people should be eliminated because they depend on society, family members?

First of all, humans are a social and cultural species, this means we are all dependent on each other, I write about myself being a Progressive Collectivist, so obviously I know that.

There are even good dependencies, normal human ones, other less normal, still ok. But then you have those which have such a reduced potential, that their quality is very, very low. Those might have, like some mild Autists, special abilities which balance the defect out, but most haven't.

Otherwise just imagine you have an accident and lying down in the woods. Now you are totally dependent on your medication, lets say Insuline. This means just a simple accident and a shortage of your medication for a limited time can mean your death.

This sort of dependency can be prevented, your sufferent can be prevented, by eliminating the genetic causes for the disease.

As for "the old". There are many old persons in many different conditions. Some are highly valuable for the group, others earned the respect of it, though being not as valuable any more.

I say the same thing as I did before, we live in a wealthy Techno-Civilisation, we can afford to care for them. If a desperate situation comes, obviously the young have to be saved and cared for first, because they are the future, the old ones the past. Let's just hope such a situation will never come!

Otherwise, I'm for Euthanasia, so old people should get the care they need and being able to live a life in dignity as long as THEY WANT, if they don't want to live any longer, they are free to go, which means active Euthanasia AT WILL - not forced one!

He made some of his the greatest works after he went deaf completely which only proves that they can contribute to the society in general.

Come on. He wouldn't have been able to do so if being born deaf. If he wouldnt become deaf, he would have made great works too or probably even better ones, who knows...

Additionally anyone can have a horrible accident or disease and becoming a cripple, thats fate, I hate it, but so is life. We might be able to help much more people with modern medical techniques in the future, so that the suffering and numbers of handicapped will constantly decrease.
But to enhance our populations genpool and future individual and collective potential, especially in such a situation Eugenic measures are needed to prevent negative genetic traits from spreading.

And just imagine the horror of the mother who is carryng defected embryo and is told that she should "clean" herself because it is not worth the time

Thats fate, nobody wants something like that to happen, but it happens and its still better to make a clean thing for the good of the mother, father, social environment and their future, rather from letting something even more horrible happening.

And if the mother doesn't want that, well, she might be held responsible in one way or another, but as long as the majority is reasonable and participates, individuals can decide otherwise, so they just ruin their own offspring and will be selected out that way probably, will lie further and further behind of those which participate.

One day, the children of one of those might actually sue the parents for their irresponsible behaviour, probably that will be a lesson for those which don't get it...

My point is that you could never know person could do if you don't allow to try.

In the case of someone like Hawking in the future, you know he will get the horrible disease at a certain age, will suffer horribly, might fight with himself over suicide and finally become a helpless cripple.

So thats something you know, you can't say otherwise. And show says, that the healthy child, which came up because of the second attempt of the parents, the mother getting pregnant earlier than if she would have carried on the defect, being the genius - even a healthy one!

Like you said, you can never know, you can just know who will have the horrible defect or negative traits and who's not. Simple as that, clear and simple decision.

Some months after the abortion a women can get pregnant again. Just imagine a healthy and gifted child being the result of the second attempt! A normal, functioning and good family, new group member being the result, not a defected one...

I am not feeling sorry about them, there is nothing to sorry about.

Well, then you must live in a delusion probably...

They can think, write, talk, dance, play, joke, cry, feel sorry and happy. What is else that you want? The average IQ of people with Down syndrome is around 60 and it goes up to 90.

And they have a lot of physical defects, need oftentimes constant medical care, are unattractive, not intelligent, can't participate in various efforts of the group and might in a worst case even reproduce the defect.

Say what you want, they are nowhere even close to a higher level normal group member and thats what we have to choose from: This defect or a healthy, normal, valuable group member coming into existence just some months later!

That has nothing to do with mercy or feeling sorry, but with understanding that they are not piece of trash, but humans who have all the right to live like you and me.

Well, thats again religious or pseudoreligious talk, because you missed the reality of life and basic biological principles.

People in the past knew more about it than todays Christian and Cultural Marxist inspired people, rationality has to prevail in the future.

I agree though, that they have their right to live, but not in the same way as a group member which could achieve something great or secure our survival obviously...

Its not about them having no rights or considered trash like you say, but priorities. They are no priority as other's are, still, if we can, we should care, out of mercy and humanitarianism.

Cerebral parlays and is from her childhood in wheelchairs.

Too bad we can't cure her. Probably it will be possible in the future...

Agree here, but that is still not the reason to kill them.

Them implies existing persons with a consciousness, with all human feelings, a certain intellectual level etc. If thats present, we deal with a person with all rights for protection as long as the circumstances allow it, if not, then not.

Obviously an embryo is not a person in the same sense as the intelligent girl in the wheelchair.

There is millions and millions of children and adults who are impeded in development and a very few parents who gave up of them.

Obviously, humans are instinctive creatures, mothers being flooded with hormons, not acting rational all the time, childlike characteristics work psychologically as well etc. And of course, once a person exists, hope lives on even more desperately.

Thats a basic human problem and quality the same time, because we were biologically programmed to act that way, so we don't abandon a potential offspring or kin too easily.

Simple put, the exceptions were no issue, like it is with seriously ill, extremely suffering persons which still try to live on, though their life is over and nothing but pain and suffering can be expected. Thats the case which is not interesting for evolution, because if humans would give up too fast, they won't make it at all - whether they suffer or die in vain is no issue from the evolutionary, but just the individual and collective human perspective.

Now in a civilisation this "exceptions" can become more frequent, last but not least because of medical care, which is a blessing, but also a problem and threat, because natural selection doesn't work any more like it should.

Natural selection though doesn't work for a long term plan anyway, it means just short term oriented adaptation to the current environment. So there is always the threat of a dead end or unfavourable development in evolution.

Since humans can plan, have reason and modern techniques, they can also avoid dead ends and part of that being to stop the spread of negative and promote the spread of positive traits - nothing else is Eugenic - and Euphenic on a cultural and social level.

I'm all in favour of both. f.e. Euphenic means for the girl in a wheelchair that we care for her, give her as much help and try to better her situation as far as possible - as long as we can afford it without heavy losses.

The Eugenic would mean - if she would be able to get pregnant and give birth to a child, that we control whether her embryo has the defect too at least.

So that means we do the utmost for those which exist and those to come equally. Eugenic and Euphenic measures.

Sad thing is that there are millions of normal healthy children who are in the streets, hungry, thirsty and yet our society like don't care about them. Even if we have the meanings they are abandoned. Your ideas are not holding the water at all.

Well, obviously I care first for my kin and group, then the others.

Always in priorities.

I wouldn't help foreign elements, the more foreign the worse, especially not of a lower level, to infiltrate my population and substitute its people, genes and culture.

But seriously, I would try to change that too obviously, after all, I want to eliminate Liberalcapitalism, one sided, meaningless exploitation and superstition etc.

As long as it's not against my, my kins, group, race, species interests to help someone, but probably even on the contrary, I would fight for changing the conditions and help other people too - higher priorities and interests save = no problem.

[The Lawspeaker]

I personally believe that people with severe defects should be advised (no one should ever be forced) to undergo sterilization. This wouldn't go for someone with a mild form of Autism or the like but more severe defects. Of course sterilization has to be carried on a voluntarily basis. For those that cannot make such a decision (because of impaired mental capabilities) it should be explained and the decision should be left to his/her guardian.

No doctor or judge should ever have the power to force a person to be sterilized as it would desecrate the right of ownership over ones own body.

When it comes to abortion: when a couple is expecting a handicapped child I truly believe that a doctor should advise them on the matter and whether or not they choose to follow his/her advise is their good right.

And when it comes to euthanasia. I believe that those that are now wasting away in (mental) institutions should be given the chance to step out of this life with dignity. Such a step should be voluntary and if a person has no family nor the mental capacity to understand it then perhaps then his/her guardian will decide. I truly believe that euthanasia or "voluntarily termination of life" should be conducted by means of administering a gas that causes hypoxia. Which is painless and renders a person unconscious in 10 to 15 seconds. (killing the person in less then a minute).

Of course that final step should be taken in the full company of those that wish to bid the person farewell and in relatively pleasant surroundings.

[Agrippa]

I personally believe that people with severe defects should be advised to undergo sterilization. This wouldn't go for someone with a mild form of Autism or the like but more severe defects. Of course sterilization has to be carried on a voluntarily basis. For those that cannot make such a decision it should be explained and the decision should be left to his/her guardian.

No doctor or judge should ever have the power to force a person to be sterilized as it would desecrate the right of ownership over ones own body.

When it comes to abortion: when a couple is expecting a handicapped child I truly believe that a doctor should advise them on the matter and whether or not they choose to follow his/her advise is their good right.

In general I can largely agree with that, though I dont think we can generalise that, especially because of the more "dramatic cases".

I know of cases in which really asocial families with regular child abuse, living from welfare and having various defects don't stop to get chidren. 4 live already in state institutions and they still go on with producing more...

That are really extreme cases, but they appear and I doubt all of them are reasonable enough.

What I can imagine is to pay them a bonus for sterilisation, especially in those cases with clear genetic deficits which can't be eliminated easily by prenatal selection and/or the full inability to raise children properly. Many of those don't really plan children, they just produce them with their sexually promiscuitive behaviour, so they don't really care that much about whether they get more children or not.

Actually I can imagine a bonus system in both ways:
+ Bonus for positive variants to get more children
+ Bonus for negative variants to get less children/sterilised.
- Higher taxes/malus for positive variants which decide to stay childless
- Malus for those which get more children, though those they have are (more than one) problem cases and they can't care for those children properly EVEN with the help of the state and group

Goal is not primarily to punish, but balance things out, especially for the positive variants too, which now have no real advantage from founding a family for their social status and financial position, but just costs. Even more so in an Individualised environment in which the children don't really belong to them and the group is just a mass - an egoistic and greedy one even - too. That must be reverted, so that those which found a family gain a higher status without financial losses in comparison to childless persons and couples.

On the other hand, the spread of asocial and defective individuals and families is nothing desirable, so they should be encouraged to have a strict family planning and being rewarded for accepting that they f.e. stop to get more children, especially if those existing show serious problems and defects, the parents are not able to care for them in an acceptable manner etc.

F.e. they get their welfare cheque + something regularly for agreeing on being sterilised.

Thats nothing for people which are "normal social cases" or slightly problematic, but really the asocial subjects which have nothing desirable or serious defects.

As long as their numbers can be kept low otherwise, they shouldn't be forced neither, unless they are really cases like I described - I know personally of such, really dumb, ugly, sick people which produced 6+ children with various partners, often child abuse involved, the children usually lower level and they just don't stop and don't care.
If the state takes away the children because the parent(s) are a threat to their well being, they just "make the next one..." - and of course, the collective has to pay and care everything for them, sometimes for many generations, because they socially and biologically reproduce "their cases".

One has to look at such in detail and use all medical and Euphenic measures, as well as the bonus-malus system to get them on line and only in drastic cases in which they show absolutely no realisation and cooperation, one has to consider coercive measurements, at least as long as they live in the group area.

Because if I would have a state, I would organise a real community in networks and the people should cooperate and participate - a real Gemeinschaft (collective) not just Gesellschaft (society).

But people which don't want to participate, for whatever reason, might live in communities of their own. F.e. I would care little about people like the Amish, which pose no threat and can live in their way if they want.

As long as you live in the networks, profit from the group, you have to follow its rules or accept the consequences.

This means, I would probably organise independent areas for communities which want to live in another way, its up to them. They just have to pose no threat and stick largely to their own, especially if its ideological, so that they can't influence the main group in a negative way.

In my opinion, what really matters is the greater whole and therefore what the majority does - as long as they do the right thing, a minority can do something else if not interfering with longer term plans.

But if you want the benefits of our group, social organisation and network, you have to conform to it too, which means participation in Eugenic and Euphenic programs, at least for the more drastic cases, on the longer run too. Hard to imagine a healthy group social network unit with a family which thinks its good to get defect children and raise them in a Cultural Marxist/Neochristian way among good and valuable group members with real virtues...

Thats a long term vision though, today society is no community or collective - no Gemeinschaft but just a bunch of individuals which have no values and goals in a sick society in which no good, but just bad competition in the Liberalcapitalist structures determines people's behaviour.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Crazy.