Category: Let's talk
Earlier today, my siblings and I engaged in a discussion about the pros, cons, opinions, and expectations of marriage and having and raising a child or children. My sister says that she wouldn't mind having many children, while my brother and I are not a big fan of children and see that there are more cons than pros to having them. Now before you think I'm deviating from the topic, these are the words that wer exchanged and compelled me to start it.
My brother was joking and said, "I want one and a half children at most."
And my sister responded, "What! You want a retarded child?"
So I asked if she really thought retarded people weren't whole people. And she informed me that she did and said that they're not mentally intune entirely, thus causing them to be a fraction of a person. I told her that they may not be capable of carrying out all thought processes as most people are able to do, but that doesn't make them half or any other kind of fraction of a person.
So what do you guys think? Do you think retarded people are and/or should be counted as an entire person?
Wow, bad topic, I mean offensivly bad.
I understand it to just be a topic of discussion, but perhaps better phrasing could be used to explain the question.
I'll answer then.
Give me an idea of how to explain the question better, please. I do see why this is offensive, but as to why you refuse to answer it is beyond me. I am very straightforward; I really don't see how else this question could be phrased.
I think he means illiminating the word retarded.
I think it was phraised fine. I hate pussy footing and political correctness. People should just say what's on their minds. That said, no. I do not consider mentally retarded or otherwise physically handicapped people to be fractions of people. Now keep in mind that I do support things like euthanasia for those who are completely uncapable of thinking for themselves and abortions to prevent such children from being born. But once a child is born, I don't consider them a fraction of anything. I might say that their lives are harder, or that I think it's wrong/not good for the people in question to keep the truly severely mentally handicapped people here with no one to take care of them but that's different. as for the people who can think, including mildly retarded ones and certainly ones who may just be slower and/or who may have other physical ailments, there's no question in my mind that they can lead decent lives and should be treated equally. They may have different ways of doing things but they still get most, and sometimes all, of them done on their own or with little help and they can still appreciate life.
Hi,
Imagine a question like: Should deaf people be counted as half a person or as a whole person?
Or: Should blind people be counted has one person or as half a person?
My refusal to answer the question is in hope that by doing so, you could think of a different way to perceive the situation.
Something like: at which point does a difference in mental ability, create a situation in which a human being is no longer considered an individual?
Another way to ask might be:
Would a severe mental difference cause you to judge a human as no longer being an individual?
I didn’t have an easy time coming up with those two questions, the topic is quite slippery from a moral and ethical perspective, not to mention legal and medical as well.
How offensive... If I had a retarded child, I would not say he/she was a fraction of a person, just because of a mental disability. That is just so wrong... I mean its not their fault and its not like they choose to be born that way. Also there are different levels of mental retarded. I have been around enough people like that to know. I mean, it can go from a learning disability to not being able to take care of themselves at all, but that doesn't make them a fraction or half a person. They still have feelings... They can still laugh, cry, and get angry and its so unfair to them when people make fun of them or think they are less of a person.
I hope your sister never has a child with a mental disability, if she really does think that way or he/she is going to have a horrible life with her.
Ok, get off your high horse and answer the stupid question. Its a board post, not the front page of the new york times or anything. Besides, the word retarded means slow, if you were to throw fire retardent on a fire, you would not scoff at that, because it would slow the fire. That is the definition of the word. Only when we can accpet that things are the way they are and stop being offended by everything that is said or thaught can we move forward as a society.
And as for rephrasing a questions so that it sounds more verbose, you know that white speck on top of chicken shit, its still chicken shit too. You can take a piece of shit, coat it in chocolate, and frost it with butter cream frosting, but guess what, its still a piece of shit. Stop trying to make everything sound good and just live with it, answer the question.
Now, to answer the question. No, I don't bbelieve that mentally retarded people are any fraction of a person. by that logic, we would have to call midgets half a person, or a quadroplegic as half a person. We would have to give fractions to everyone whose body or mind does not bbehave perfectly, and that is just stupid. By that same logic, any blind person on this site would be a fraction of a child.
End of rant.
Hugs to you. *smile* and I thought I was blunt! lol Glad to see we think alike.
“Only when we can accpet that things are the way they are and stop being offended by everything that is said or thaught can we move forward as a society.”
That’s a curious way of thinking. So I suppose revolutions are useless? There should never be any change? How does a society move forward if not by the thinking and change of its members?
“And as for rephrasing a questions so that it sounds more verbose, you know that white speck on top of chicken shit, its still chicken shit too.”
I specifically said that by not answering the question, I hoped that the original poster would find a new way to perceive the situation. I didn’t say make the question politically correct, or as mentioned “verbose.” There is a major difference here.
Yes, but Alex, I do believe you basically wanted me to dress up the question-- phrase it so that it sounds less offensive. I was using the words my sister used. She didn't say she'd hate having a retarded child depending on the degree of its retardation, she simply said she doesn't want and refuses to deal with a retarded child.
I really don't see retarded as being at the top of the list of offensive words, not that it wouldn't be on the list, but my point is that you can phrase it any way you like, but it still expresses the same thing.
A revolution and making changes in society is so irrelevant. This is not life changing or threatening. This topic is nowhere near as extreme.
Political correctness, how can you call us blind, we are visually challenged or have a visual acuity sensory oddities, or something, one has got to come up with a good politically correct phrase y'all.
And the original comment was a joke, may be some find it offensive but I've seen more offensive things on the joke board, it wasn't particularly funny to me but I laugh at equally insensitive things all the time and feel no shame at all about it.
I often shared a room with the mentally handicapped people when travelling with our national disabled swim team and even chose to hang out with them outside of practice sometimes. It was a blast and I really enjoyed the trips. AS for a retarded person as a kid, they'd count more than a child because they need much more caring and I think it's much harder to reap an emotional reward since they're probably less cute and less interactive and that's what you feel is the emotional reward of a child, I'd raise kids whatever their disability, but I'd look seriously at an abortion with my wife if we found out we were to have a child with serious mental retardation, I don't know what we'd decide since we'd have to agree and feel it was the right thing to do and I just have too many real life things to create difficult mental exercises about a moral choice I hopefully never have to make, I'll have the guts to face it if I have to and I would not leave out an abortion as an option.
As for the migit, we should just define a person by weight or physical attributes, then we can have an obese or very big person count as more than one person and your brother could just make sure he overfed his child or had a very tall one and his dream of a child and a half be achieved, voila. I am clearly in a problem solving mode today, any other issues?
this was not a joke. there are people who actually believe what raven's sister expressed. My daughter's former boyfriend's step brother has cp and severe mental retardation. His dad told my daughter that he had three and a half children. My daughter about exploded. she said I'm blind so does your older son have half a girlfriend? Which half is he dating? What makes a human a human is a soul. Compassion and empathy are what separate us from many lesser members of the animal world. TSorry Raven, but yor sister oughta look for hers. Maybe they left it out. At least she has the intelligence and honesty to say what she won't put up with.
Guide dogs and service animals are ahead of your sister. They care without criticism.
Do you think the retarded child would have asked to live that way? Grrrrrrr!!!!! I need to get a different life on another planet.
Oh as for alex. Honey pie, if you stick a fish under your couch, eventually it will start to stink. covering up something because it makes you uncomfortable is just the same thing. don't leet reality ruin your day. i'd hate to see you expand your world and maybe prove one of your politically correctconceptions incorrect.
arrgh/!!!!! I need more caffeine.
Hi,
I never said that what offended me was the word retarded. I never mentioned the word in the first place.
And again, the point of not answering the question for me is to have the original poster perceive the situation differently. It’s not to make anything politically correct. This is the third time I am stating this.
“Yes, but Alex, I do believe you basically wanted me to dress up the question-- phrase it so that it sounds less offensive. I was using the words my sister used.”
You used your sister’s words to ask the question. These words could of simply been used to explain where the question came from. Your question was:
“So what do you guys think? Do you think retarded people are and/or should be counted as an entire person? “
How something is phrased will affect the outcome of someone’s interpretation of those words. Just think of the Pro-Life movement .We all know they are talking about abortion, but things change when we say Pro-life: who can honestly say that they are against life?
When you posed the question, did you pose the question to the people who should actually have a say in it: “retarded people?”
Alex, wouldn't it make more sense to get pissed at the people who believe things like Raven's sister does, insteadof being so, at a teenager for not asking the question in the manner you feel would be more suitable?
I think it's a dangerous game offering people the chance to abort children who are certain to be born with a disability of any form. the more disabilities that will in future be diagnosable pre-birth, the more people will be offered the option of abortion. That could mean that one day people like us won't exist, because society will decide it's better to have what they perceive as the perfect child.
i sometimes wonder if science isn't working towards a peaceful version of what Hitler was trying to achieve with his race of blonde haired blue eyed people.
I know I went a little off-topic there, but to me it's all part of the same thing. I agree that some people are being honest by saying they couldn't cope with parenting a disabled child, and that's fine, and somewhat shows strength, but it also doesn't mean that such a child isn't a worthwhile member of the human race, and so shouldn't have an equal chance at life.
I've never expressed being upset at the Original poster. I've never made this a personal attack. I said I would not answer if she did not phrase the question differently. This would have been done this if the question had been posed anywhere else, and it's something to be done when one thinks that a question is geared toward leading people to a preconceived answer. For example: Do you think Hispanics are trustworthy? Do you feel black people are hostile?
Being a teenager does not excuse one from thinking a bit more about the consequences of asking questions like these. And personally, whether the question is reconsidered or not, I feel that she as an individual can take the critique.
To post 15, the question you pose is not off topic, it falls right along with it. We are moving toward eradicating illnesses, what people consider disabilities, anything that is not "normal with science. So, we do have to reconsider a phrase like normal, if we live in a society in which most people feel that every individual should count. The good thing about this is, that individuals who are different, who are not "normal" have a bigger voice and purchasing power. People pay attention when you yell and have money to back you up. But also, society seems to be becoming more in touch with the notion that people are different and products and services which are mainstream are now being tuned to include those who require a different approach. We might see a future in which not only science fights to eradicate illness, but also fights to include those who are different.
This is so rediculous, turning this into a logical/grammar debate instead of focussing on the issue at hand. The question is asked, we all get the meaning. Not everyone is analytical and most of us don't think of things in lawyer's or logician's terms, i.e. leading the witness, asking loaded questions etc. Sure, there are different ways of asking it, but given that the story was given before the question, it's quite obvious what was meant here.
In any case, I like the idea of science fighting to include everyone and of course, of products being made to include people with differences. It's not as if we want to be this way or refuse to change. So while I don't agree with catering to certain people who refuse to learn the country's native language, I definitely agree with putting braille on things or providing wheelchair accessible places or interpretors for the deaf at important events.
i find this subject profoundly disturbing and concerning. what is perfection? who is to judge what lives are worth saving and which individuals must be eliminated? Ultimately, it is the family who must decide what they consider as important. Can you imagine what a dull world it would be if everyone was healthy wealthy and wise? What makes each of us human is concern for others. If the world were filled with perfect people with great bodies and low cholesterol levels, something would definitely be missing. I have learned more about loving from thos so called half people as described by raven's sister then from many other individuals. With more and more emphasis on connectivity and techonology, I fear that we are forgetting the fundamental truth that alll people, that means every one of us is important. Each of us is unique and irreplaceable.
"This is so rediculous, turning this into a logical/grammar debate instead of focussing on the issue at hand. The question is asked, we all get the meaning."
That’s precisely the problem. How you ask a question not only determines your answer, but the way in which you will think about that answer. The question in this case, has created the issue:
People can be considered a fraction of an individual if (fill in the blank).
I know what the question is getting at, but it is not the topic at hand. We already know the answer, and the answer is, if A person is A, B, and c, then they can be considered less than a individual.
Either way you answer the original question, Yes or no, you are creating an area in which someone can be considered less than a person if they fall under those characteristics.
To state it plainly, I do not agree with the question. It’s not a matter of grammar or logic.
Alex sweetie, the only answer any of us knows is our own. So the answer to the question is either yes, insert why here, or no, insert why here.
Exactly. If I say no, there is no such thing as a fraction of a person, I've answered the question entirely without leaving any blanks. Also, I agree that it should be the family's decision. I don't think any of us have said that it should necessarily be left up to anyone else or made law etc.
Ok, if we accept that the decision should be left up to the family, how should said family gater as much information as possible about the situation, so they can make the best decision possible for them? I ask because I believe that any doctor involved will weight the information given at least slightly in the direction he/she feels the family should be thinking, and thus be slowly persuading them. I know they aren't supposed to, and would say they wouldn't, but in my view, the medics involved have their own views on what's right and wrong in such a situation, and it would take a special indevidual to not weight the information given in the direction they themselves believe.
That's fairly simple in the case of a known disease etc. Look it up online or go to the library. See what the psymptoms are, see if there are any treatments and if it's curable etc. If it's a case of trusting whether the child will survive birth or whether he/she might have these ailments once he/she is born, then it's best to seek a second and even a third opinion.
One would wonder if one could use the excuse, "I disagree with the question" on a test and get away with it. Its a question, just becuase you bauk at the word retarded in it, does not make it a bad question. As I've said before retarded is a medically accepted term, wether you want it to be or not. Besides, Raven asked a simple question, how hard is it to say or no?
Personally I would say that science is trying to erraticate illnesses, not soully through the use of obortions, but also through the creations of technologies and procedures that can heal them. So I suppose, in a way, we are trying to create the perfect race, but I don't think that it would be the same as the blonde haired blue eyed race. We haven't gotten to the point where we will obort a child because its going to have red or brown hair. If we do get to that point, its time for a change of some kind.
Personally, I think that adoption is a better choice then obhortion, but it is also not my decision to make as of now. I hope I never have to make that decision, but it is still not my place, nor anyone elses', to tell someone else what they should and shouldn't do.
“One would wonder if one could use the excuse, "I disagree with the question" on a test and get away with it. Its a question, just becuase you bauk at the word retarded in it, does not make it a bad question.”
Where in any post have I mentioned having a problem with the word retarded? If I have put the word in quotes, it is only to point out that I am not the one using it, but am referring to the word as used by others in the thread. If you feel that a question has been asked, which is full of rhetoric, you have ever right to question it.
It’s not simple to answer a question with a yes or no, when you don’t believe the question is valid in the first place. This point is being greatly overlooked.
“So what do you guys think? Do you think retarded people are and/or should be counted as an entire person?”
If you answer no, then you have given president for what you feel are reasons why someone should be counted as an entire person. This means that those who don’t meet the criteria for “whole” person are automatically a fraction of a person.
So if I say: Andy should be counted as a whole person because he leads a happy life, he can fend for himself and he lives up to his full potential; I’m also saying that if Andy did not have a happy life, if he could not fend for himself, then he is not a whole person.
No matter how you answer this question, you are led to have the same result: There is a point at which someone’s humanity should be taken away, and at this point they should not be considered a “whole” person.
Alex, you didn't straight up say that you had a problem with the word retarded, but you did suggest that I rephrase the question. I asked you how. And these are the two suggestions you gave:
"at which point does a difference in mental ability, create a situation in which a human being is no longer considered an individual?
...
Would a severe mental difference cause you to judge a human as no longer being an individual?"
My point is that these rephrasings do not include the word retarded. And since they were from you, this proves that you are offended by the word retarded.
Raven, buttercup of buttercups, it certainly proves only that I decided to use a diferent term and nothing else.
Oh Alex, it proves something else as well. It proves that you wanted me to paraphrase the question so that it did not include the word retarded. You may not be offended by the word retarded, but your suggested paraphrases depict that you certainly don't approve of its use.
My intention is not to drag this out, but to get you to understand why I think you've a problem with the question.
Besides that, why can't I say that every human being who is alive at this moment in time is a person? Because personally, if I have a dead body or something, I don't exactly include them in a sensis. thus, they would not be a person, they would be a corpse. I use the word they merely because I cannot think of another way to put it. I suppose I could say it is not counted as a person, it is a corpse. but to say that, by answering no, you are setting limits on what constitutes a person is just not true. by answering yes, you would be setting limits on it, but only by defining exactly what you count as retarded would you set limits on what constitutes a person. I believe you are confusing the two issues.
i'm going to address this issue in two posts. there are two main threads to this conversation and I'm not a good enough writer to figure out how to transition from one to the other.
someone here said that a medical person can skew the information they give a family to lead them to make the decision they want made. Besides being immoral and illegal, I think that a doctor is trained in the scientific method so should be taught to give both sides of any issue.
If we feel he is skewing the information we have the duty no the right to ask. If he feels uncomfortable answering our probing questions, then we have the answer.
We can intellectualize any issue from half a person to death. In a momentous life changing situation, None of us knows how we will really act. Reality is often far different then what we imagine it to be.
Recently, my dad had a massive stroke. He was 91 years old. Until the event, he was a vital, alive, physically and mentally fit man. The day before the onset of his illness we were arguing heatedly about the state of the world.
Two days after the stroke his doctor called me and honestly discussed what she perceived as his options. Even after rehabilitation, because of the massiveness of the illness, he would never be able to speak. He could not swallow. his vision would be severely impaired, and most importantly, he would not be able to move his left side. He had an advanced directive which stated that no extreme measures were to be taken. Please if you ever make a will determine what you see as unacceptable resussitation and write it down. It will save your family a whole lot of unnecessary pain and heartache. Is a feeding tube necessary? How about liquids? what about rehabilitation? what about on and on and on. I know that by letting him die that I fulfilled his wishes. I know that he was incompetent to make up his mind.
I also wonder if my step mom just didn't feel capable of dealing with him and just washed her hands of the whole situation. She certainly appeared to be enjoying her status as weeping widow. All her friends were clustered around his bed talking and he was lying there being ignored. Well i held his hand and washed his face and put oils on his skin.
By withholding all nutrition and giving him meds to be comfortable I addressed his vague directive as I felt fit. However, I am still at night in the wee dark hours haunted with "was I a murderer."
I guess what I am trying to poorly say is that no one knows if we gave birth to a child who is disabled how we would act. My daughter was blind at birth. It was obvious and apparent. I was grieving and disturbed. Stupid people who said "well this is nothing to you. you are blind already." were totally clueless.
I gotta quit I'm maundering on far too much. What do you all think?
here goes my seccond par. i promise this will be far shorter.
all of us are human. every one of us. we were created by god in his image. therefore, we do not have the right to determine that we know more about his job then he does.
even if you don't believe in a creator, you have to admit that we are poorly equipped to decide.
you can split hairs and argue semantics until the cows come and the moon falls from the sky.
Raven, again, I chose not to use the word retarded, I however have no problem with the word. Some people that I have met have expressed a dislike for it, people in the rehab counceling field, people who have what I chose to refer to as a difference in mental abilities.
I admit that this question would be invalid for me as well: "at which point does a difference in mental ability, create a situation in which a human being is no longer considered an individual?"
This should read: Do you agree that there is a point at which a person's difference in mental abilities create a situation in which that person is no longer considered an individual or a "whole" person?
l
To post 31, It sounds as if you have made a very complex choice. You did respect the choice made by your father before his condition.
turricane, my heart goes out to you. That must've been one of the most challenging and heartbreaking decisions you ever made. Rest assured, you did the right thing by following his wishes. As much as you loved him, he sounds like the kind of man who, if he knew what was going on, could never endure or would never want to endure, a life like that. He was also 91, so had a very long life.
I will not say whether you made the right choice, I do not know you or your father, and I would not insult you by making such an assumption. but I am sorry you lost your father, it is a heart breaking inevitability at best.
Considering that he had a living will which specifically said what he wanted in such a case, I could hardly consider this the wrong choice.
expressing your opinion is not insulting. thanks for your sensitivity silver lightning but it's misplaced. by the way I love your name.
anyway, thanks tifanitza, hope i spelled it correctly for your support.
My dad was a tough rough complex guy who endured a lot. He was a pineapple person. prickly on the outside and sweet on the inside. Few people made it through the external but those who did were and are glad they made the effort.
Especially for girls, I think dad relationships can be the most complex and challenging at times. Does this make sense?
since it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, I'll quit my maunderings and sign off. Again, thanks guys.