Retards

[Holly]

No, not a thread about psychologicalshock & Jett, maybe another time.

I was reading this article this morning about parents who have badly retarded children and how it ruins everyones lifes, and obviously they are a complete drain on society. They often become violent, and can not do even a basic chore for themselves or others.
They are a drooling lump of flesh, something went wrong in the creation.
Bad situation, I know for myself I would have no trouble doing the right thing and putting this poor creature out of its misery very early if I was unlucky enough to have one, of course this is not legal which leads to my poll question.

Should it be legal to put down infants like this, and do you think you would do it if it was yours ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why can't we face the truth? Having an autistic child wrecks your life ...

By Carol Sarler

Last updated at 8:06 AM on 15th January 2009

Thanks to a moment of everyday terror, I think I knew before anyone else. My friend's two-year-old had climbed upon a chair from which, with customary toddler clumsiness, he fell.

Like all children, he managed a second of stunned silence - then howled like a banshee. Like all adults, I rushed to pick him up, to cuddle, to soothe.

What was unexpected was his response: visibly fearful of my touch, he kicked my belly, disengaged himself and ran away.

I added that to the list I was already mentally composing: no eye contact, ever. Not even with his mum. No shred of attachment to toys, pets, people. Obsessive, repetitive behaviour. Crazed by the sight of other children. Hmm.

By his fourth birthday, still with nappies, but without speech, everyone else knew, too.

Tom was - I mean is, and always will be - autistic. I've been thinking a lot about Tom, who's now seven, as the debate rages over the possibility of a prenatal test for autism, with abortion then optional.

And, so far, most of the argument leans towards such a test being undesirable and unethical.

Brave and devoted mothers - notably Charlotte Moore, whose book, George And Sam, about her two autistic sons, is immensely powerful - have clung to the positives brought into their lives by their children.

Backing the emphasis on the positive have been those who point to the frequently high intelligence of the autistic savant, as if we are talking about phalanxes of Mozarts and Einsteins.

How much poorer we would be without, say, the astonishing brain of Dustin Hoffman's Rain Man!
Who would or could babysit this child?

Well, maybe. But not as poor as Tom's family: three generations of lives - I include his own - wrecked, for ever, by his cussed condition.

His parents, let us call them Cath and John, bear the brunt. Immediately after diagnosis, she beat herself senseless with blame; so many theories, each making it her fault.

Should she have allowed her son to have had the MMR jab? Was it, as some said, a behavioural disturbance caused by 'bad' parenting?

Once, she even convinced herself (from something she'd read) that it was mercury poisoning from eating tuna during her pregnancy.

Theories, however, were soon to defer to practicalities. They strove for a normal life: simple things, such as going shopping together.

But with the best will in the world, how many shops - or, indeed, how many customers - are going to tolerate a child who screams, bites, defecates and destroys everything within reach?

Besides, dangers lurk. Last time I bumped into them in a supermarket car park, Tom was bawling hysterically. Why? Because he had seen a bird. So, mostly, Cath and John stay at home.

Both their careers are over - not, as for many with small children, on hold for a few years. Each knows that neither will work full-time again.

There have been attempts with special schools, but none succeeded. Sanity is preserved by each parent having a hobby (fishing and tennis), so one babysits while the other takes a break.

They rarely go out together, for who else - other than one plucky grandmother - would, or even could, babysit this child?

Worst of all, the other babies, of whom Cath and John had dreamed, have been ruled out.

First, because they simply do not have the time to give to another child. And second - I admire them for thinking of this - they do not feel it would be fair to raise a child already programmed to be guilt-tripped, whether by itself or by others, into taking on the role of carer when Cath and John are no longer capable. Or dead.

This, then, is their life sentence: to worry, every hour of every day, what will happen to Tom when they are gone.

Meanwhile, Cath's parents - both exceptionally youthful at 60 - have had their own plans turn to dust.

They had looked forward to more time together in retirement; in fact, they have less.

Granny Helen spends all the time she can, maybe more than is good for her, trying to help out: a little childcare here, a spot of shopping there.

The carefully saved nest egg, intended for the small luxuries that make ageing more enjoyable, is rapidly depleting.

With Cath and John unable to hold down proper employment, it is Helen who chips in for the unexpected bill, the car repair or the TV licence.
Tom had ripped out a handful of her hair

And, please, don't ask about state benefits for carers: these are so meagre that if it were not for Helen, Cath could not even afford the mobile phone she must have with her every time she steps outside her front door.

The trouble is that Grandpa Bill is not quite as happy as Granny Helen for their money to be spent this way - so there are new tensions there, at a time in life when they need them least.

Yet of the three generations, it is Tom who suffers most. And he's getting worse. As Helen said, only last week: 'We used to have a little autistic boy who was often happy. Now we have one who never is.'

All three generations set off in a bold attempt at a holiday over Christmas. Not a resort, bustling with strangers; quite impossible. But a rented house, just the five of them, to let Tom feel the warm sun on his face. Well, it was a nice thought.

I phoned with New Year good wishes. Helen answered, in tears. Her head hurt, she said; Tom had ripped out a handful of her hair by the roots. Bit her, too. But I couldn't hear what she was saying for the insistent shrieking in the background.

Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Goodness, I said. How long has he been doing that? Since they left home, two weeks earlier: through the airport, on the plane and 18 solid hours a day.

They had to have him sedated just to get him home again, which Cath hates doing. So that's it for holidays, breaks, respites or breathers. Again, for ever.
Autistic children are not all the same

And the question they are starting to ask is too terrifying for words. If this amazingly beautiful child (they often are), possessed by misery and rage that no amount of expertise has relieved, is this destructive and violent at seven, then how much worse will he be at 17, when he's that much stronger?

Last year, I gave them Charlotte Moore's book, thinking, foolishly, that it might afford comfort.

It actually meant nothing; they simply could not see Tom in George and Sam. Autistic children, like any other children, presumably reserve the right not all to be the same.

But if there's a chance of a Tom, and a chance of a test to indicate his condition, then - with the obvious proviso that it never be mandatory - I would urge its opponents to think less of Mozart and Einstein and more of otherwise everyday people: Cath, John, Helen, Bill. And Tom.

I would not be impertinent enough to ask Cath if she wishes she'd had such a chance.

In any case, that is a difficult question after the event: it is hard for a mother retrospectively to wish away a living child who, come what may, she loves.

But looking on, as a relatively dispassionate observer; looking at the damage done, the absence of hope and the anguish of the poor child himself, do I think that everyone concerned would have been better off if Tom's had been a life unlived?

http://tinyurl.com/8n6f8c

[Maxine Grey]

I would hate to make the choice, but yes I would. Its not life for them what so ever.

[Holly]

Oh by the way I do not mean that you would bash in its head or strangle it with a sock, but like they do it for poor dogs you know, in a clinic.

[RabbitNoMore]

I gotta side with the Man himself here. He knew that severe mental or even physical retardation was no kind of quality or happy life for anyone involved, and that such a thing was in fact a burden upon the rest of society, especially when coddled in large numbers. Euthanasia is the only humane choice.

What's the difference weather or not you are aborting your unborn child?

Many women seem to have no moral compunction at all about doing exactly that to a healthy fetus, due to their own poor choices, so it should be doubly effortless should the fetus be defective in this way.

It saddens me to think just how much long term pain and misery could be avoided, had the mobs of liberal douche bags clogging this land, the critical thinking skills and the intestinal fortitude to even consider the alternative to raising a retarded child.

Sadly, they aren't interested in anything but wanting to feel good right now, about themselves first and foremost, and so jewy Jerry Lewis lives high on the hog, telethoning it, every now and again, when the funds get low.


Sick.

**

[Nick Succorso]

You want us to look like heartless monsters?

Define retarded.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

Ideally all severely retarded babies would be aborted early, but failing that there's nothing more to do except let them live out their life, no matter how poor its quality is.

Life should be respected.

[Holly]

Originally Posted by Nick Succorso

You want us to look like heartless monsters?

Define retarded.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

Ideally all severely retarded babies would be aborted early, but failing that there's nothing more to do except let them live out their life, no matter how poor its quality is.

Life should be respected.

Well for the purpose of a forum debate I am not sure it needs to define, let us just say a mental or physical condition which prevents the glob of life from ever caring for itself, from ever doing anything productive and to be a complete drain on its family and society.
Is it harsh yes, and we find ourselfs in a bad condition precisely because whites have turned their backs on harsh measures that are needed to insure a healthy productive white society.
Where does your logic stop ? Should those with AIDS, many of them just gay scum and still passing on their disease, be cuddled also ?

As for a senile adult, that is different because they were once very productive people, the fact that we are even here shows our grandparents did their natural duty, I think they should be cared for in their old age of course, as they once cared for their children and grandchildren - The same can not be said of a drooling mental case whos biggest accomplishment was shitting all over the TV and slaughtering a hamster.

That said, the - quality of life for some old folks gets so bad that they themselves wish to end it, I think that should be considered, yes.

[The Barrenness]

[quote][QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Nick Succorso

Define retarded.

Someone who has little self awareness. I realize that is difficult to measure. In defining retarded I would just go by the standard definition of an IQ below a certain level, but you can't measure that in babies. The only thing we are left with for a defintion that fits in this case would be someone who is surely or likely going to be unable to care for themselves.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

If my grandparents asked me to assist them in death because of a certain condition I would consider it. Otherwise I would care for them, myself if need be and allow them to live out the remainder of their natural life as comfortable as possible. These people at one time cared for one of your parents in a similar manner.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Starr

If my grandparents asked me to assist them in death because of a certain condition I would consider it. Otherwise I would care for them, myself if need be and allow them to live out the remainder of their natural life as comfortable as possible. These people at one time cared for one of your parents in a similar manner.

The thing is you cannot treat elderly like that, nobody wants to live knowing once they're old they'll be killed. That's an inhumane way of rewarding someone for decades of hard work, the elderly need to be treated well even if they are not well. Its one thing to take out those who cannot live, it's another when it's those who have lived. Its principally not comparable .

[cillian]

If we didn't have to pay to house all those niggers and spics on welfare or the prison system there would be enough money to have long term care facilities for these tards, and the ones that are not drastically disabled could be used for, bagging groceries, sorting garbage at the dump, other such menial work.

[Kind Lampshade Maker]

Originally Posted by Nick Succorso

...Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?...

It's been known that children have decided for an old folks home to allow the natural process to speed up a bit, so that the costs of convalescent care doesn't eat up the entire heredity

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Nick Succorso

You want us to look like heartless monsters?

I don't want us to be heartless monsters.

Only a heartless monster would force parents to be enslaved to some severely retarded creature with no hope of anything even resembling a normal life.

Only a heartless monster would "save" a severely brain damaged person, only to see that person live the next several years or decades with a severe degrading disability.

Define retarded.

A being that is so brain damaged that speech, mobility and intellect are severely impaired.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

Becoming senile or disabled is common and can sometimes be expected with the progression of old age. On the other hand, being retarded or severely disabled from cradle to grave is not natural at all and can only do harm to the family and society as a whole.

Ideally all severely retarded babies would be aborted early, but failing that there's nothing more to do except let them live out their life, no matter how poor its quality is.

At what price? To have retards live out their lives at all costs doesn't make sense from a practical, moral or financial point of view.

Life should be respected

I agree. When a person suffers severe brain damage that significantly effects speech mobility and intellect, you respect that life by ending it! Not prolonging the suffering of that person and their family.

[Troy Alexander]

if we are to look after retards we must put some effort andthought into it.

we must see their care as a mission and a serious effort and not a burden.

giving a retard a meaningful life should be seen as a matter of glory for the aryan race like sending a person to the moon.

There is nothing left to explore on this earth. there is little avenue for tradtional heroics.

if we managed to come up with a programme which would allow even the greatest turnip to be happy before his last breath, that would be an achievment as great as limbing everest.

Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans/ non-whites will look at as superhuman angels of mercy.

[Anne]

Originally Posted by Troy Alexander

Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans/ non-whites will look at as superhuman angels of mercy.

Very true, Troy. Aryans have the burden of bringing light to the world. We also have the capability of bringing death and must be prudent with this power.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Troy Alexander

Bla bla

Glorifying suffering is sickening.

[Karl Von Clausewitz!]

Originally Posted by Troy Alexander

Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans

Spartans rejected their tards.

[Sándor Petőfi]

Originally Posted by Troy Alexander

if we managed to come up with a programme which would allow even the greatest turnip to be happy before his last breath, that would be an achievment as great as limbing everest.

Non-aryans will look upon us with fear and jealousy: just like the athenians to the war like spartans/ non-whites will look at as superhuman angels of mercy.

Greeks? They detested ugliness. They decried it as evil.







That is horrific. It is a blasphemy to humanity.



Corrupted by Christianity.

The doctor told us that we needed to make a decision as to whether or not we were going to continue the pregnancy. Thom and I looked at each other, then quickly back at the doctor. We both said there was no decision to be made. This is our child no matter what ...

They decided to bring this creature into the world. Tami and Thom Wetmore, child abusers.



Does their daughter Kendra, and example healthy, abundant life, get a website? No, they want to show off what good do-gooders they are to the world.

http://www.julianawetmore.net/index.php

[IMG][/IMG]

Your were so blessed when Juliana was born. She has touched the hearts of people all over the world, you must be the proudest of all parents.

See, they weren't blessed when Kendra was born. Christianity. Kendra Wetmore, neglected daughter. Neglected because she is beautiful.

If you look long enough into the void the void begins to look back through you. Nietzsche. The damage done to the soul of this girl by having to look at that thing every day of her little life must be unimaginable.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Nick Succorso

Define retarded.

.

This picture defines retard better than words.

[Ovidio C.]

Not only should it be illegal, it should be the second law of the land. The first being non permittance of jews, blacks, and other undesirables into the nations.

Whenever a child is born, it might be directly and physically yours, but the interests of the state, however little or big, kick in. The distribution of resources should not be wasted on it and this is one thing we do not need eating at the trough. Not only that, but a mothers physical and mental time could be used in raising her healthier children and turning them into productive citizens instead of cleaning drool and playing catch after he is 30.

For those of you who want to save it, I suggest buying an island and living happily ever after with retardo.

[A.S.]

Euthanasia is the most compassionate thing to do. Retards, the severely deformed, primordial dwarfs, etc. That people allow these poor creatures to live and suffer horribly is the true crime. Add to this list the huge lard asses that get up to 700+ pounds and become bedridden and can no longer take care of themselves... they end up feeding off the public dole. Sick. Truly sick.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Holly

No, not a thread about psychologicalshock & Jett, maybe another time.

Hey that's a low blow, don't associate me with Jett.

Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?

Typical argument but the thing is they have already lived fulfilling and quality lives, there's a difference between one who has and one who can't, a huge difference.