If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Why not?
You seem to think that having a mental age of six means that you only have a six year-olds experience, approach to life etc. That isn't so.
As Kentish pointed out, the mental age comparison is about IQ...
I thought he said kill them all if they had ANY condition. This I am not saying.
Yes, their needs to be a mesure. I am talking only about serious conditions that would SERIOUSLY, as in, well, I see you point of problem here. But if you are going to be in permanant care, you can't go and do the average things that make for a good life. Im not talking stuff that isn't that serious, im talking about the serious issues here. I class this as serious as he is living a seriously impared life. I think you can see what I mean I hope?
That the child will have an impared life to the extent that it would cause trauma mentally and maybe with some conditions physically. There is alot that you would not be able to do or grasp.
Thought i'd already expalined this... to prevent suffering?
No, not all conditions. Just some.
Yes, there needs to be measurement. Not being versed in such medical issues, I can only say as I ahve above. The serious or terminal ones.
Yes, but that isn't a practically guaranteed transfer. Its only a chance you might get it being slightly higher, or in the case of heart disease, its not terminal. It might be terminal.
It is quite far removed from a condition that is terminal and will be debilitating, for instance. Yes, I see your point of the problem of distinction. But because there is a problem, does htat mean we should try to stop such conditions spreading?
I know, but it is an incurable virus that causes much suffering. I don't think it should be allowed that children are born with it and have to suffer too.
But as such, are you in a position to decide who should have a child?
If this were to be implemented, I would want doctors to be consulted. That was it would be that they know what diseases are inherited and which ones are majourily debilitating, and so forth.
Or are you saying I am not allowed an opinion because I haven't studied it at medical school? Can we vote as we are not all versed in politics?
F U C K I N G H E L L !
Two words for you - medical advance.
Blah blah blah - genetic disease - blah blah blah - AIDS - blah blah blah - Zieg Heil!
Get a grip man, the way you are going on everyone should be drowned in a bucket.
So by limiting your scope your comments are more acceptable?
Even though you actually believe the same thing, ultimately?
But you have to be able to define what you mean by "serious". Do you believe that this man actually "suffers" as you put it?
What about cystic fibrosis (for example), does the condition mean that a child cannot live a full life?
But we all suffer some trauma to an extent. I have to ask you this, who suffers more...
The man born with two legs, who loses them both or the man who never had any legs?
You are assuming that the person "suffers"
You can be pretty sure that heart disease will run in the family (for example), but it is no coincidence that there is a bowel cancer screening programme for family members.
medically it is "isgnificantly" higher, hence the screening.
And heart disease means that you suffer greately and run a very high risk of it ultimately killing you.
Spreading?
It's not contagious.
But to answer, no we shouldn't try to stop the condition from ocurring by sterilising people.
Okay, I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I'm going to answer. You should have the right to an opinion, and you should offer it. It was wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise.
Yep. We had a client in with the same mental age. Her father was with her. Everything took a lot of explaining, counselling, repeating questions, going over all the options etc, but with the right support, she was able to make her own decisions. I haven't looked into this particular case, but it can be done.
And since someone mentioned cystic fibrosis, perhaps the 1 in 25 of us who carry that gene fault should be sterilised?
Without blowing things too out of proportion, things only have to start small to get big. I think the idea of steralisation to purify the human race is called eugenics?
There was a thread on these boards aaaaaaaages ago when a guy explained how he thought that steralising people with a low IQ or learning difficulties (like mine) would benefit society... Would it?
There are some terrible genetic illnesses and 'faults' out there that can lead somebody to have an uncomfortable life yeah, but I'm sure it must be written in the humans rights act that people have the right to have children.
Reguardless of his knowledge of sex, it's likely he will have a sex drive. Maybe he doesn't know where babies come from, but he probably knows how to pleasure himself.
And personally, I'm against the steralisation.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Me too.
You are in error.
Am I in error whatever I say? whenever I say absolutely? or just when I agree with Moonrats comments about eugenics and iq? Or other?
And I'm wrong? pls no 1word answer...
Is that for
nice one! :thumb:
You are wrong. High intelligence is needed to even think that their is a "society", dull folks like myself don't hallucinate well, but that just makes us more effective in most circumstances than "intelligent" ones.
I got this on e-mail a couple of days ago. I think it is related to this thread, so I thought I'd post it for you:
Question 1:
If you knew a woman, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she be sterilised?
Question 2 :
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:
Candidate A -
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B -
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C -
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which! of these candidates would be your Choice?
Candidate A: is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B: is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C: is Adolph Hitler.
Oh and the sterilisation?
That means you have just prevented the birth of Beethoven.
Makes you think about judging people and their value in life, doesn't it?
I suspect you'd score well on iq tests. People with IQs between 110 and 120 are highly conscious of status and social-rules. They tend to be a powerful force for social stability.
People with IQs over 130 care a lot less about status and rules. They are self-educating. They act on theor own ideas, regardless of what others think. They have far less patience with propaganda than people with IQs below 130.
The sterilisation one made me sit up and think.
The world leader one is simply select mis-information.