Severely retarded girl undergoes surgery to keep her in childlike state

No, I honestly think that people should have their kids euthenized. There's nothing dignified about living an adult life looking like a 6 year-old and behaving 3 months. This goes beyond paternal instincts. Cavemen would've practiced infanticide.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

3-month-olds only exist to consume. You can't just breastfeed a 10 year old, this girl will eventually require adult nutrition, and at that point you're keeping somebody alive who can't even give unusually strong retard hugs.

Cattle live, and we eat them all the time. The value society places on infants is because we know that they'll eventually grow up into actual people, and there's no chance of it with this girl. Free her soul, do something, it's really up to the parents, but if they didn't have the resources to take care of her and pay for a complicated operation to stunt her growth and development, then she would be a burden of the state, and that's what I think is bullshit.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

You know, in the "good old days" this country used to practice legal eugenics. It was illegal for the mentally retarded to breed.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

In his defense, he is making the argument in the context that the girl has the mental capacity of a 3 month-old. Physical development and menstrual cycles would be impossible to comprehend for such a creature.

Still though, I say that they should kill her. It's really up to the parents.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't think you can accurately determine all the goings-on of the 3 month old psyche, but I'm certain that the one thing it would understand is pain. To be honest, I don't have enough knowlege of psychiatry to begin to even fathom the nature of the infantile brain.

Can it recognize that it is the body that is changing and not simply recognize the negative feedback involved in the pain of growth? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yeah, who knows when we'll be able to create complicated neural pathways and grey matter from nothing, completely altering mental capacity and affecting behavior in ways unimagined.

Imagine you woke up fully developed and living in a highly developed society with no knowlege of language, culture, or technology. Would you become a skilled worker or a schizophrenic?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

I would not agree with it on the grounds that the girl has not stated it is what she wants (mainly because she can't tell you) and because she cannot let you know, then we have no way of knowing if she wants to be euthanased.

The only thing she could possibly want is basic sensory feedback. Lower animals are similarly incapable of communicating a want to die, yet we euthenize them constantly. Mentally speaking, this girl is even less than an animal. She's incapable of thinking anything.


Oh boo-fucking-hoo, how could this heartless college student wish that the parents would kill this abomination? Her only worth lies in the sentimental value she provides to her parents and family. Beyond that, if she was to become a burden of the state, it would be unreasonable to demand that taxpayers must front the bills just to keep a meatsack alive.

She'll never generate wealth, never love, never contribute to the arts, she's absolutely worthless to society, and waiting for miracle treatments to come along and all-of-a-sudden give her a functioning brain. I mean, holy christ, do you not understand how complex the mind is and its unforseen effects on the human psyche? Expecting such a solution to come up within our and her lifetimes is mind-numbingly unrealistic, considering that we're already beginning to reach the limits of silicon-based semi conductors (oh yes they'll need that processing power).

FELIPE NO

Quote:

As for the whole euthanasia debate, I'm sort of surprised it even came up.

She has no intrinsic value beyond her family and a freakshow, I wonder why it came up?

Terri Schiavo, for the record, also responded to sensory input.

Quote:

Euthanizing severely retarded people sounds chillingly familiar, historically.

Only because the Nazis practiced genocide-for-eugenics, then all of a sudden it isn't ok anymore to sterilize retards so that they end up fucking other retards and making children who they can't possibly raise, and more than likely end up just like them.

Killing the severely retarded (3 Months Old) has never been chilling, because it's no different from putting down animals. This girl isn't a person she's a thing that is only valued by those that made her.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

All of the major religions also regard souls as transcendental manifestations of the self that exist beyond physical boundaries. I.E., it's impossible to "eradicate" a soul, unless there's some kind of soul devouring monster or device. Assuming this girl does have a soul, killing her would free it from being trapped in a meaningless existence.

This is an interesting assumtion, though, because unless cycles of life and death operate based on reincarnation, the soul is considered to exist eternally aside from any supernatural intervention (pissed off god). Therefore, what difference is there in forty years compared to eternity? Aside from, of course, the potential for the negative development of the soul.

Quote:

My question is, sincerely, are we judged as human beings on our worth to society?

Yes. People confuse the nature of value judgement because they consider life itself to coincide with value to society, or in other words that life is priceless. This causes consternation when they find that they still evaluate people based on their own worth to the self.

People who act as destructive agents (criminals, shit politicians) are considered lesser than the general body, because they hamper the progress of society, and in the case of murder, permanently remove an active or potential value to society.

Those who can't contribute to society, such as this girl, also take on parasitic qualities when people determine their value. They act as resource drains without giving anything back either through wealth or the abstract.


Of course, the easiest way to confirm a "yes" to your question is to consider Max Weber's three-component theory of social stratification. One component of stratification is Status, which is defined by non-material factors, such as honor, prestige, and religion. According to this theory, somebody like a Police officer may have more status than a programmer, because while the Police officer may earn less his work is considered of greater import to society than the programmer.

Ultimately, what determines status is subjective. To the wealthy, for instance, status is more dependant on the amount of wealth one creates and possesses, whereas those in lower classes may place an emphasis on social impact when determining status.

The only thing which could possibly give this girl any sense of Status is the fact that she's human. People value "humanity" but they confuse the nature of humanity with being physically human, while what we consider humanity (a positive thing) embodies the more admirable traits that humans possess as social animals.

Consider this parable. A mad scientist has developed a brain-swapping device in Looney Tunes fashion and has swapped the minds of a man with that of a chicken. Which creature would people more readily refer to as "human?" The man which behaves like a chicken, or the chicken which behaves like a man?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I want to. I never said that it should be done, because as legal guardians her parents are given leeway to make decisions for her in her stead. To me, she's a possession akin to a pet. If they want to support her, and derive value from her existence, then it's out of everybody's hands. I've said it before, pretty much.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

From an ethical approach, it is a pretty complicated case. Perhaps the most convincing argument against ritual circumcision is that infants are incapable of providing consent to mutilation, and that they should be granted the freedom to decide whether or not they want to keep their foreskin at an age where they are capable of offering consent to the procedure (medical issues aside).

This girl, however, will never be capable of offering consent in any way in terms of what can or can't be done to her body. Therefore, it's presumed that the parents must be able to make decisions for her on her behalf. If the parents feel that horribly mutilating her will best serve her interests as a creature incapable of dealing with or even recognizing puberty (a decision, by the way, which makes the assumtion that she will never be able to understand it in her lifetime as you medical miracle theorists have put forth) then their decision as legal guardians is the most sound, and thus ethical one.

By the way, I wanted to mention something I noticed in the article. The parents claim that her dignity isn't being damaged, but is instead being preserved by the operation. However, how can something possess dignity if it is incapable of understanding the concept? It would seem that by purposely stunting the growth of their daughter, the only people whose dignity is being preserved by this operation is the parents, which I think may be good grounds for declaring the operation unethical.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

At that point you might as well transfer her consciousness into a cybernetic brain and give her a robot body, which we have just about as much chance of happening.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Don't some religions consider suffering as a necessary part of life and suicide as one of the worst offenses one can commit?

They do, but then what right do people have to dictate what one can or can't do with their life when the very nature of dualistic religions accepts the existence of free will? Calvanism is dead.

This also isn't a case where the girl can commit suicide. For all intents and purposes, she doesn't even understand that she exists. It's like pure instinct.

Presuming that she has a soul, wouldn't forcing her to go through suffering negatively impact the development of whatever soul she may possess? Also, as a counter to the argument of divine interventionism, wherein God would make an exception for the extenuating circumstance and "improve" the soul, wouldn't killing her now achieve the same result?

Quote:

Apparently the parents get enjoyment out of her.

Also, any argument for why we shouldn't kill all pets? They're a resource drain on society as well.

Are you trolling me? I've mentioned several times before that the girl provides value to her parents and family, my argument is that she has no intrinsic value society, and in the case that she would have to be taken care of by the state, it's unreasonable to demand that the general public keep her alive when she can never offer them anything.

Pets aren't killed because we value their company, yet we also put them down in situations where we feel that they should be killed in order to end their inevitable suffering. It's inevitable that all people must suffer, but people are also capable of dealing with it and bouncing back. This girl is incapable of dealing with suffering, and never will be. It's best to just end her life now instead of forcing her through a life where all she can know is pain or comfort.

No offense, RR, but this is the most retarded shit you've ever said.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

As far as I can tell you're saying: as long as the parents are footing the bill, it's their choice. But--if she becomes the state's care they shouldn't put money into treating her (with a very tiny likelihood of her becoming cured before she dies) because they could also use it to treat, say, a sick 3 month old girl that will actually develop into a woman if kept alive. If that's your argument then I can certainly agree with that, but correct me if I misunderstood.

I wasn't going to make the link between it and another person, but yes, if the state was supporting this girl, then it would be using taxpayer money (people who cannot value this girl) to allocate a limited amount of resources away from other people (such as your example) that may provide or are providing value to society.

The same thing was essentially happening during the Schiavo case. So long as Terri Schiavo was alive, the American public was poorer one more hospital bed, as were other terminally or severely ill patients. This was why evangelical interests who wanted to keep Schiavo alive even with their own money acted poorly, because they were artificially witholding resources dedicated to keeping Schiavo alive from actual "people" who needed it.

This girl, of course, doesn't need complicated machinery in order to live, and so long as the parents keep her alive, she's only a drain on them and her siblings (who may or may not be living on their own I dunno).

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

I can't really see where there's room to argue mercy killing is something the religion would endorse.

I guess they'd have to think about it, and that would be the problem. When I'm talking about souls and crap, I'm trying to pre-empt metaphysical arguments.

Quote:

If she provides value to her parents then isn't she providing value to society? Why shouldn't the happiness of her parents matter to the rest of society if they aren't affecting it in a negative way (Hell, you could probably argue she's benefiting society because of all the exotic treatments and products she requires. How many jobs is she providing that wouldn't be there otherwise?)?

Now you're sounding like the onlookers in the Broken Mirror parable. Her value to the parents is negligible, and if the parents are still a factor, but the state had to take care of their child, then the girl would still be a drain on society, because the amount of wealth her parents generate do not exceed the cost of keeping the girl alive. Any "happiness" that the parents have because of their daughter isn't worth it, when there are people who can actually interact with others on a social level that would need the services and resources this girl soaked up.

Ultimately, however, it's up to the body public. If "society" thinks that the girl should be kept alive, then it would be politicized to the point where all nay-saying is cowed into submission by police power (taxation).

Quote:

So keeping pets for company is alright because we put them down when it becomes too expensive to keep them alive? There's lots of medical techniques out there that could keep animals alive longer and in an alright condition, but since we obviously don't value a cat or dog as much as we value a human, we aren't willing to go to these extremes for them.

Hell, think about the level of money we're willing to put out on pets. Which animal do you think would be more likely to get an expensive treatment from an owner: Goldie the fish or Scrappy the puppy? Even within non-humans there's an obvious hierarchy.

That's not what I said at all. I said we put down pets because we feel that mercy killings are ok when we're talking about lower animals and not humans, which I think muddies the water concerning what people really think of as "human." To me, this girl is even less than an animal, but consider this if you have issue with my argument concerning her care by the state: would people agree to the state keeping a dog alive? Not an important dog, or a war veteran, just some guy down the street owns a dog that he can't take care of and wants taxpayers to help him front the bill for it.

FELIPE NO

Around here we have something called the SPCA which as far as I know is a non-profit organization that essentially does the same thing. How much government funding they receive, I couldn't possibly tell you. Also, if the Animal Planet channel is to be believed, some states and municipalities have "animal police" that respond to reports of animal cruelty, or the negligent treatment of exotic animals. I don't really watch Animal Planet that much, so I couldn't even tell you if they have any actual police power.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Animal_Police
Miami Animal Police is a television reality show that debuted in 2004 on Animal Planet. It takes place in Miami, Florida and the surrounding Miami-Dade County, an area of more than 2,000 square miles. It depicts the everyday duties of Miami-Dade Police Department Animal Services Unit, focusing on the work of twenty ACOs (animal control officers), five civilian animal cruelty investigators, six Miami-Dade Police Department administrators, and a pitbull investigator.

The show also highlights the work of various private companies that remove wild animals from places they shouldn't be. The most frequently featured of these private contractors is Todd Hardwick of Pesky Critters Wildlife Control.

Kevin Hefner directs the show, which is the fourth of Animal Planet's top-rated shows and is part of an "umbrella rotation" of shows known collectively as "Animal Planet Heroes", along with shows set in New York, New York (Animal Precinct), Detroit, Michigan (Animal Cops Detroit), Houston, Texas (Animal Cops Houston), San Francisco, California (Animal Cops San Francisco), and Phoenix, Arizona (Animal Planet Heroes: Phoenix).

So there you have it, I guess they do have police power. I also like how they have a dedicated "pitbull investigator." I hope they don't bring Ashley to Miami.

I'd also like to point out that animal cruelty isn't really what I was talking about, but it is pretty poignant.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?