Angry mom sends letter to family of autistic child telling them to have him euthanized.

[rutger5000]

Can these people even survive if they aren't consistently given handouts or special treatment?

Really, is it so unreasonable to expect people to live entirely off of their work? Like, they work, they get paid, they survive that way.

Hell, it's even easy to get behind programs to help people get to a point where they can contribute like everyone else. Like foodstamps and the like.

But if they're never going to get to that point because they simply cannot function on a high enough level, then what good are they?

If they can get to the point where they can live completely independent of special treatment or programs (if they need living assistance, then they can pay for it themselves), then just ignore me.

I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, killing people off because they can't function at a high enough level is a very dangerous thing to do, for one more selfish reason in particular:
What defines high enough?
Someone - someone in power - could very easily come round with that idea, and say that your contribution wasn't high enough, and suddenly, you're on the list for death.
Never mind the inherent selfishness for killing people for something against their control just because it causes you - or even you and some other people - a mild inconvenience at best.

It's simple really

Can they survive independently?

If yes, they're fine. It's easy to filter out without an executive action.

Three major problems with this reasoning.
1. Most members of western society can't survive independently. The idea of a society is that you really on one an other.
2. What about people who need some help temporally, say they've broken a limb or something. Extrapolate this and you'll get another question. What about people who show promise to become independent if they're first supported for a while.
3. How will you "Get rid" of the people who can't be independent? Who would you put to the torture of "Getting rid" of those people, or what sick mind will you allow to have his/her way?

 

[rutger5000]

I kind of sympathise. I doubt they literally believe that the disabled should be euthanized; they're frustrated because they have to deal with that shit in their homes and have probably been dealing with it for some time.

People say a lot of shit when they're frustrated. Besides, what kind of parent lets their low functioning autistic child run the street, acting up? At least she took it out on them instead of the kid.

I actually sort of agree. Obviously she could have worded this not ... so abusively; but I've lived with careless neighbours who were noisy ALL the time. They would party to 3am next door and one of them would be up at like 7am slamming doors and shit. It was actually scary how much the lack of sleep affected my health. My blood pressure went up about 30 points, and I was diagnosed with hypertension. I couldn't focus on anything, I felt sick and tired all the time, my university marks plummeted. In the end I had to get the landlords to evict them.

No no no no no. That's not what happened here. This wasn't some kid yelling out loud the entire time, and some frustrated adult yelling back "SHUT UP!". The later is wrong, but humane and can be understood/forgiven. No this is a person who consciously wrote a letter, being aware of the child's handicap, and delivering the letter without leaving contact information. She didn't leave contact information because she was a coward and knew that what she did was something to be ashamed of. That's being morally wrong with intent, in my book that translate to being evil.
There were hundred different ways to have handled it, and this mother choice to pick one of the most hateful ways to do it.
She was totally in her right to speak up against the kid's parents, and she was also entitled to be angry. But she lost all legitimacy when she "hit and run", by delivering the letter, while avoiding discussion by committing contact information.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I'm sure that the punctuation in the letter violates NATO provisions of some Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties that are still active.

Her abject hysteria is well conveyed.

238U

 

[TAGM]

It's simple really

Can they survive independently?

If yes, they're fine. It's easy to filter out without an executive action.

Well, putting the ethics aside, just from a purely logical standpoint, you're never going to be able to really do that.
There's very few people in the world that aren't cared for (Not in the helping them eat sense so much as the emotional sense), and when you care about people, you'll end up making the occasional sacrifice. If we didn't have the want to care about people in our groups, we would have been eaten up by tigers eons ago. So the people who can't survive independently may still survive on the backs of others - which seems to be exactly the thing you're trying to avoid.

And that's going, inevitably, to be a large majority. And if a large majority of people are going to escape the wrath - for lack of a better word - for a "No non-independents allowed" policy, is it really worth the trouble and money to set it up?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I agree with whoever wrote the letter.

We're not in a situation in our society where we absolutely need everyone to survive. If someone is harboring a child like that at the cost of everyone else and being a drain on society, then it is better to have the kid euthanized.

For everyone's sake.

If it's what you want, then you better be prepared to get your hands dirty and I mean really dirty: prepared to commit massacres. If you tried to enter my home with the intention of taking away one of my children with the intent of murdering them, I would kill you and display your body on a pike as a warning to others. If you meant to deprive people of food through state controls, I would steal it from you. Society as a whole has seen what the application of mass Eugenics led to; it was the darkest chapter of the 20th century and the civilised world is not going to let you resurrect that insanity because an autistic child making a lot of noise bothers you.

 

[Captain Anon]

I agree with whoever wrote the letter.

We're not in a situation in our society where we absolutely need everyone to survive. If someone is harboring a child like that at the cost of everyone else and being a drain on society, then it is better to have the kid euthanized.

For everyone's sake.

for Everyone's sake? you have no fucking idea how many of us do not only not agree with your statements but will fight against, Fucking Billions and Billions around the World and there is no court of law on this earth that would have the balls to pass this as a law so you can shut the fuck up about that otherwise this is going to happen you are the policemen, the football fans are us and the guy the police beat up is the disabled kid you want euthanized.

so you wanna euthanize my children do you hm? well if you so much as go near my children, I will cut from the top of your chest to the bottom of your stomach, then nail you to the side of my house and watch as your blood and guts drips down the side of my house, you are in no need position what so ever to say "we should euthanize children for being disabled" and it seems you have no conscious and a very sick mind, you should go look in the window for a hour and think about the sick and disgusting things you've said.

 

[willsham45]

some people are just too kind.

 

[Someone Depressing]

As a mildly austistic person, I have to say, I hope this ***** rots in hell. So, you don't like the kid? Then don't tell his grandmother to kill him, and call him an incapable retard.

Humans trully are horrible things.

 

[Sean951]

Well... The reaction of the letter-writer being as horrific as it was, I can't help but sympathize, depending on how loud the kid is.

I support the use of eugenics in order to end genetic diseases. If you get pregnant, and the child's genetics show that they will suffer from a genetic disorder, then either science needs to find a way to fix that or the prospective mother should be given the mifepristone (the abortion pill). It is not fair to the child to be brought in to the world with such an inherent and un-fixable disadvantage or to society, which now has to dedicate resources to an individual who could not contribute to society instead of, say, buying new books for schools or fixing infrastructure.

Autism would be difficult, as there seem to be many different degrees and I am unsure if they can tell how bad it will be until the child is born. It's a difficult situation, but I know that I would rather be dead than unable to function at a higher level. I also never believed that human life is inherently sacred, murder is wrong because it violates the rules that society needs to function and other random death is horrific because despite what people may think, I do have empathy for people losing loved ones.

Well, since we're on the Eugenics trail... again... let's play this shit to conclusion - I've got a Kidney Disease which will eventually cause my kidneys to fail when I'm much older, requiring either Dialysis or a transplant. Thus, to keep me alive will require the sacrifice of someone else or the dedication or resources and people in regards to having the infrastructure to support Dialysis. It's also genetic, so there's a good chance my kids will have it as well. By your flawless and impeccable logic, I should have been killed at birth due to being a drain on society and having a genetic disease, despite the fact that I'm a functioning and contributing member of society.
But hey, what about people who only carry the gene but don't have it? Do those assholes get off scot-free? There's a chance their kids could have it, so... guess they can't have kids anymore, just in case. You know, instead of trying to actually cure the genetic disease, let's just be COMPLETE ASSHOLES and murder the fuck out of everyone 'cause they weren't born with the perfect, healthy genes, right?

Eugenics man, not even once.

Well, since you apparently didn't bother to read my post... Everyone who has the disease or the genetic markers to have the disease would be affected. And not at birth, but within a month of conception, or whenever they can test for that sort of stuff. I would also prefer if they could just go in and fix the faulty genes, and it is entirely possible that they could fix that in the future. But in the meantime, why should vast amounts of resources be spent on individuals who literally contribute nothing to society? It would be cool if waivers could be done for people who had manageable diseases, but at that point the entire system fails because it is meant to weed those things out of the human gene pool. Is it pretty? No. But it's not Nazi-style either. It recognizes that certain failings of the human body are bad and seeks to address the issue and has nothing at all to do with trying to kill off ethnic groups.

 

[Doclector]

Well... The reaction of the letter-writer being as horrific as it was, I can't help but sympathize, depending on how loud the kid is.

I support the use of eugenics in order to end genetic diseases. If you get pregnant, and the child's genetics show that they will suffer from a genetic disorder, then either science needs to find a way to fix that or the prospective mother should be given the mifepristone (the abortion pill). It is not fair to the child to be brought in to the world with such an inherent and un-fixable disadvantage or to society, which now has to dedicate resources to an individual who could not contribute to society instead of, say, buying new books for schools or fixing infrastructure.

Autism would be difficult, as there seem to be many different degrees and I am unsure if they can tell how bad it will be until the child is born. It's a difficult situation, but I know that I would rather be dead than unable to function at a higher level. I also never believed that human life is inherently sacred, murder is wrong because it violates the rules that society needs to function and other random death is horrific because despite what people may think, I do have empathy for people losing loved ones.

Well, since we're on the Eugenics trail... again... let's play this shit to conclusion - I've got a Kidney Disease which will eventually cause my kidneys to fail when I'm much older, requiring either Dialysis or a transplant. Thus, to keep me alive will require the sacrifice of someone else or the dedication or resources and people in regards to having the infrastructure to support Dialysis. It's also genetic, so there's a good chance my kids will have it as well. By your flawless and impeccable logic, I should have been killed at birth due to being a drain on society and having a genetic disease, despite the fact that I'm a functioning and contributing member of society.
But hey, what about people who only carry the gene but don't have it? Do those assholes get off scot-free? There's a chance their kids could have it, so... guess they can't have kids anymore, just in case. You know, instead of trying to actually cure the genetic disease, let's just be COMPLETE ASSHOLES and murder the fuck out of everyone 'cause they weren't born with the perfect, healthy genes, right?

Eugenics man, not even once.

Well, since you apparently didn't bother to read my post... Everyone who has the disease or the genetic markers to have the disease would be affected. And not at birth, but within a month of conception, or whenever they can test for that sort of stuff. I would also prefer if they could just go in and fix the faulty genes, and it is entirely possible that they could fix that in the future. But in the meantime, why should vast amounts of resources be spent on individuals who literally contribute nothing to society? It would be cool if waivers could be done for people who had manageable diseases, but at that point the entire system fails because it is meant to weed those things out of the human gene pool. Is it pretty? No. But it's not Nazi-style either. It recognizes that certain failings of the human body are bad and seeks to address the issue and has nothing at all to do with trying to kill off ethnic groups.

Just because you're not a damn nazi doesn't mean what you're suggesting isn't absolutely disgusting.

Jesus christ. Really? We're really getting people who think that eugenics is in any way excusable? Yes, it makes sense LOGICALLY. But last time I checked, we're not fucking robots. What is the point of us even existing if we act like we are? If we forsake all that makes humanity special?

It's a paradox. Because if we're prepared to do such things to survive as a species, then we don't fucking deserve to survive.

 

[RickyChinese]

What really pisses me off isn't the fact that this utter **** said 'YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR CHILDREN EUTHANISED1!111!' I mean I see that shit everyday on the internet it's the fact that this vacuous cum dumpster is part of the very same problem she is complaining about. She has children, those very same children are probably going to grow up and pollute just as much as that tardy kid is, to put it bluntly, it's like shitting everywhere and then complaining when other people shit everywhere because their shit has sweetcorn lumps in it when your shit is just regular shit.
YOU'RE STILL SHITTING EVERYWHERE and then their children will shit everywhere and what happens at the end of it? We got our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.

Actually she was complaining about noise the kid was making as part of his disability, not that they would use up precious earth resources. Although I figure you knew that and just wanted to recycle a Doug Stanhope routine on somebody no one would defend. So yeah, congratulations on your misogyny.

 

[DerangedHobo]

What really pisses me off isn't the fact that this utter **** said 'YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR CHILDREN EUTHANISED1!111!' I mean I see that shit everyday on the internet it's the fact that this vacuous cum dumpster is part of the very same problem she is complaining about. She has children, those very same children are probably going to grow up and pollute just as much as that tardy kid is, to put it bluntly, it's like shitting everywhere and then complaining when other people shit everywhere because their shit has sweetcorn lumps in it when your shit is just regular shit.
YOU'RE STILL SHITTING EVERYWHERE and then their children will shit everywhere and what happens at the end of it? We got our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.

Actually she was complaining about noise the kid was making as part of his disability, not that they would use up precious earth resources. Although I figure you knew that and just wanted to recycle a Doug Stanhope routine on somebody no one would defend. So yeah, congratulations on your misogyny.

I'm pretty sure it's a valid point, Doug Stanhope just puts it more eloquently. And misogyny? What the fuck? How was I being misogynistic? Misanthropic maybe but I wasn't hating on the women because they were women but because they were fucking retarded and that retardation is a human universal. And she was complaining about how 'he'll never get a job and be a waste on resources'. Don't label me something I'm not.

 

[RickyChinese]

What really pisses me off isn't the fact that this utter **** said 'YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR CHILDREN EUTHANISED1!111!' I mean I see that shit everyday on the internet it's the fact that this vacuous cum dumpster is part of the very same problem she is complaining about. She has children, those very same children are probably going to grow up and pollute just as much as that tardy kid is, to put it bluntly, it's like shitting everywhere and then complaining when other people shit everywhere because their shit has sweetcorn lumps in it when your shit is just regular shit.
YOU'RE STILL SHITTING EVERYWHERE and then their children will shit everywhere and what happens at the end of it? We got our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.

Actually she was complaining about noise the kid was making as part of his disability, not that they would use up precious earth resources. Although I figure you knew that and just wanted to recycle a Doug Stanhope routine on somebody no one would defend. So yeah, congratulations on your misogyny.

I'm pretty sure it's a valid point, Doug Stanhope just puts it more eloquently. And misogyny? What the fuck? How was I being misogynistic? Misanthropic maybe but I wasn't hating on the women because they were women but because they were fucking retarded and that retardation is a human universal. And she was complaining about how 'he'll never get a job and be a waste on resources'. Don't label me something I'm not.

The difference being that her able children have the potential to redirect more resources than they consume. This woman is mad about the noise this disabled kid is making so she's trying to hurt the parents by bringing up the downsides of their kid's condition, unvarnished. It's a shitty thing to do, but there is no hypocrisy, just callousness.

When you call someone an 'utter ****' or a 'vacuous cum dumpster' it sounds pretty misogynistic. If you don't want to come off as a misogynist then maybe use insults relevant to your beef with the woman. Or at the very least don't use gendered/slutshaming insults.

 

[DerangedHobo]

What really pisses me off isn't the fact that this utter **** said 'YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR CHILDREN EUTHANISED1!111!' I mean I see that shit everyday on the internet it's the fact that this vacuous cum dumpster is part of the very same problem she is complaining about. She has children, those very same children are probably going to grow up and pollute just as much as that tardy kid is, to put it bluntly, it's like shitting everywhere and then complaining when other people shit everywhere because their shit has sweetcorn lumps in it when your shit is just regular shit.
YOU'RE STILL SHITTING EVERYWHERE and then their children will shit everywhere and what happens at the end of it? We got our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.

Actually she was complaining about noise the kid was making as part of his disability, not that they would use up precious earth resources. Although I figure you knew that and just wanted to recycle a Doug Stanhope routine on somebody no one would defend. So yeah, congratulations on your misogyny.

I'm pretty sure it's a valid point, Doug Stanhope just puts it more eloquently. And misogyny? What the fuck? How was I being misogynistic? Misanthropic maybe but I wasn't hating on the women because they were women but because they were fucking retarded and that retardation is a human universal. And she was complaining about how 'he'll never get a job and be a waste on resources'. Don't label me something I'm not.

The difference being that her able children have the potential to redirect more resources than they consume. This woman is mad about the noise this disabled kid is making so she's trying to hurt the parents by bringing up the downsides of their kid's condition, unvarnished. It's a shitty thing to do, but there is no hypocrisy, just callousness.

When you call someone an 'utter ****' or a 'vacuous cum dumpster' it sounds pretty misogynistic. If you don't want to come off as a misogynist then maybe use insults relevant to your beef with the woman. Or at the very least don't use gendered/slutshaming insults.

Those are just gender specific insults, just you like you would call a man a small dicked shit head, I like to be equal in my hatred.

And she is a vacuous cum dumpster harlot, she is just mad about the noise but at the same time she is bringing up how the kid is going to be a leech on the community when her retard little kids are going to pollute as much as he is and she is calling for him to be 'euthanized', which last time I checked is pretty fucked up. So I will call this utter air headed bimbo waste of space full of herself strumpet whatever I like because she well and truly deserves it, she is a bully. She is selfish and willingly oblivious to the plight of others.