Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts
Local Blogs
Miscellaneous


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > General Discussion
Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Should it be legal to put down retard infants and would you do it to your child ?
Yes, it should be legal and I would use it if I had to 37 61.67%
Yes, it should be legal but I doubt if I would have the heart to kill it 7 11.67%
No, neither 16 26.67%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old January 15th, 2009 #1
Holly
Self Bannned
 
Holly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Right now MI USA
Posts: 2,297
Blog Entries: 15
Holly
Default Retards

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
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #2
Maxine Grey
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 552
Blog Entries: 3
Default

I would hate to make the choice, but yes I would. Its not life for them what so ever.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #3
Holly
Self Bannned
 
Holly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Right now MI USA
Posts: 2,297
Blog Entries: 15
Holly
Default

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.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #4
RabbitNoMore
Made Billions that day
 
RabbitNoMore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wherever there's a sucker being born
Posts: 1,241
RabbitNoMore
Default

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.

**
__________________
"Which will you believe White Man, the trustworthy, innocent, upright, noble jew, or your own lying eyes and ears?"
-anonymous-
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #5
Nick Succorso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,396
Nick Succorso
Default

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.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #6
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly View Post
No, not a thread about psychologicalshock & Jett, maybe another time.
Hey that's a low blow, don't associate me with Jett.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by psychologicalshock; January 15th, 2009 at 08:44 AM.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #7
RabbitNoMore
Made Billions that day
 
RabbitNoMore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wherever there's a sucker being born
Posts: 1,241
RabbitNoMore
Default

Quote:
You want us to look like heartless monsters?
Come on now Nick, haven't you been paying attention?
We already are monsters with a capital "racist".
That you can thank the jew for.
As far as those of a differing opinion than ours are concerned we practically are Hitler himself.
Might as well embrace some of His better ideas, and this was certainly one of his best.

Quote:
Define retarded.
Obviously a predetermined set of conditions would apply for the definition of "retarded" to apply to one's fetus, as would conditions gauging the severity of the defective fetus in question. In plain English; all kinds of fucked up would be the general criteria for termination of pregnancy.

Quote:
Would you also kill your grandparents because they're senile?
You may be surprised how many here would answer that in the affirmative, my friend.

Quote:
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.
Exactly, and with today's medical and technological advances, it should be a small and easy affair to detect such things early on. The only thing preventing this, are the liberal douche bags I mentioned earlier, feeling good about their own 'morality', and literally and figuratively, blocking the way.

Quote:
Life should be respected.
Define both 'life' and 'respect'.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but I'm still gonna eat beef, and I'm still gonna harvest my garden, and compost the left overs when it's all done. And best of all, I'm going to enjoy every minute of it. Does that mean I don't respect the cow that died so I could eat? Or the living tomatoes that I 'murdered'? Of course not.

When a human is retarded to the point where he really is no more than a living vegetable, wouldn't he be happier on the compost heap? Wouldn't the rest of his group be happier that way?

I admit that it is in fact a seemingly heartless stance, but then again, ain't life enough of a bitch anyway? It must suck to be all kinds of fucked up, to boot.

**
__________________
"Which will you believe White Man, the trustworthy, innocent, upright, noble jew, or your own lying eyes and ears?"
-anonymous-
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #8
Nick Succorso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,396
Nick Succorso
Default

Off topic but how do you go about making multiple quotes of the same post like that?
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #9
Elizabeth Fragale
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,611
Blog Entries: 3
Elizabeth Fragale
Default

Holly, you say you'd have no trouble killing your retarded infant, but I think you're underestimating your maternal instinct. From what I've been told, once you have a child the urge to protect the child is so strong nothing can lessen it. That would explain why white mothers still love the abominations they create through racemixing. Your eugenic ideals will take a backseat if you were ever placed in that situation, I'm almost certain.

I'm not sure how I feel about the situation myself.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #10
Nick Succorso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,396
Nick Succorso
Default

Eugenics isn't an issue here, retards don't get laid very often.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #11
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Succorso View Post
Off topic but how do you go about making multiple quotes of the same post like that?
Highlight a portion of the text you want to quote then press the "Quote tags" which looks like a text scribble next to "insert image" which is the yellow square with two triangles...lol.

Quote:
do you
And presto.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #12
Nick Succorso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,396
Nick Succorso
Default

Quote:
Highlight a portion of the text you want to quote then press the "Quote tags" which looks like a text scribble next to "insert image" which is the yellow square with two triangles...lol.
I think the two triangles are supposed to be mountains.


Quote:
And presto.
Thanks! You learn something every day.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #13
Troy Alexander
Nice shot Troy you got him
 
Troy Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2,332
Blog Entries: 1
Troy Alexander
Default

yes. but the family has to do it themselves and not be pussies and leave it to the gov. same goes to mothers who want a non-interracial abortion.

if this was the law, necessary measures can take place but at the same time society won't easily become heartless.

Last edited by Troy Alexander; January 15th, 2009 at 10:24 AM.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #14
BryanVP
Seņor Member
 
BryanVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,183
Blog Entries: 1
BryanVP
Default

Yes. I'd take it a step further, not just people who are legally retarded, but act retarded as well. Too many stupid people are procreating.

Retards, Mongrels, Elderly, and everyone on death row should be euthanized.

People in prisons for violent crimes should be as well. Hospitals are full of people on life support that have no chance of recovery. Pull the plug already.
__________________
This lot over at VNN... We're not right-wing extremists. We're extremely right about everything.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #15
Bob R.
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 462
Bob R.
Default

Quote:
Should it be legal to put down infants like this, and do you think you would do it if it was yours ?
To not do so is just a sort of cowardice, blind enforcement of the traditional laws of civilization against homicide, without any sense of spirit to it. It's like letting a horse live with it's legs broken, to let them live is unbelievable, silly, cruel, stupid, passive. People stupid enough to not put the horse out it's misery are probably candidates themselves for euthanasia.

If Everything in nature tends to demonstrate the nature of God, God himself creates life which destroys the weak, immediately. Nature ends the suffering of the weak, while civilized people let the weak live , out of mercy, only to despise them everyday and make them wish they were dead everyday.
__________________

 
Old January 15th, 2009 #16
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,118
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanVP View Post
Yes. I'd take it a step further, not just people who are legally retarded, but act retarded as well.
I can't stand people who tell retarded jokes. euthanasia is too good for these people.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #17
Bob R.
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 462
Bob R.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
I can't stand people who tell retarded jokes. euthanasia is too good for these people.
It's obvious why you take it so personally.

People make a pretense of morality for the sake of status, it gives them a higher status within a group. Status is vitally important because a person's place in the pecking order has for millenia determined breeding rights within the group, also feeding rights on kills.

When crazy bitches squeal and scream at white racists, it's because they believe they can edge them out in the pecking order, and get more food and gain sexual rights.
__________________

 
Old January 15th, 2009 #18
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,118
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob R. View Post
It's obvious why you take it so personally.

People make a pretense of morality for the sake of status, it gives them a higher status within a group. Status is vitally important because a person's place in the pecking order has for millenia determined breeding rights within the group, also feeding rights on kills.

people who believe they are possessed need to be executed at once.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old January 15th, 2009 #19
Bob R.
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 462
Bob R.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
people who believe they are possessed need to be executed at once.
You are possessed you just don't know it because you are retarded. It's easy to possess retards like you. I'll prove it.

This is, indeed, one very, ,very strong argument for eugenics, the proneness of stupid people to the influence of demonic alien life forms.
__________________

 
Old January 15th, 2009 #20
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,704
Horseman
Default

I am fascinated to understand what autism is exactly. It's sad that, like the article says, the many of these kids are unusually beautiful and/or gifted. I've heard that it could be a form of extreme ADD, a condition associated with higher than average intelligence. If you correlate better looks and higher intelligence, than this makes this theory seem more likely. In that case, these autistic kids are not "Retards" but in fact have higher potential than average, but cannot develop it because of the disabilities of their condition. All that makes the idea of euthanasia hard to do I suppose. It also triggers the paranoid side of me that knows that an enemy would target the most beautiful and talented (the whole vaccine thing, and who knows what else).
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:45 PM.
Page generated in 0.15296 seconds.

VNN on Twitter