Is it ethical to keep the (severely) mentally disabled alive?

>Is it ethical?
No, definitely not
>Is it for the better good?
Yes, without a doubt

>contribute to the system
>remember goyim, you are merely human capital with no soul!

This is your brain on godless satanic capitalism.

youtube.com/watch?v=YvB0w4-SqUM

For art

Many inflicted with serious conditions have very short lifespans anyway, some only living to 10. I would like to think they have a place but they become burdensome on their parents, making their life hell, having them around mostly drags down those around them.

Unfortunately this
Just like killing someone for 20$ without consequences is good for you pragmatically, it's not ethical whatsoever. We have to grit our teeth and help people like this. Also, the establishment of sponsored killings is too dangerous in terms of the categorilla imperative.

"Oh yes, let's kill all severely disabled people, they don't contribute shit to society and all they do is eat, sleep and shit! *keeps collecting NEETbux*"

You are all hypocrites.

>implying 90% of neets constantly contemplating suicide don't pray for the day they can die with dignity by slowly walking into a comfy state sponsored gas chamber

>the idea of contributing to a system that lets you live in the first place is jew magic
w e w

this x10

Absolutely. They contribute to the psychological well-being of those that love them by remaining alive and in good health. They are ultimately being paid and sustained for this service.

>projecting this hard

Not everyone is a /pol/cuck that espouses ideologies completely go against their way of life.

really worried about the future if this is what most people think these days

Denizens of Veeky Forums aren't people.

You are on Veeky Forums, one of the most reddit boards, full of atheists utterly devoide of any appreciation of beauty or the metaphysical. What did you expect?

This. We have enough dead weights on society without funding retards

>killing off the weak is reddit tier
Just lol

>I don't want to share my welfare money with other useless people
Really makes you think.

>he hates wasting tax money so he must be not pay any taxes
Not following your logic, family

>I don't need God, I can be a good person and create my own set of moral values!
2 mins later
>Gas all disabled people, remove them from the genepool!

You people are fucking sick in the head

>remove them from the genepool
Virgin neckbeards are just jealous because even retards can breed.

>Is it ethical to keep the (severely) mentally disabled alive?
yes, especially one ordained by divine right

Everyone wants to save themselves/people they know though. It's easy to say kill disabled people and I personally agree, and i mean the really bad cases constant seizures and self harm etc. But if it came to my own kid idk. Not like I have children but im sure there is some biological attachment involved even if it is deformed. And what about people you know and love? My girlfriend was arguing about this with a really intelligent guy whose going to harvard and he believes they should die, people shouldnt be kept alive etc. But my gf is his only friend im sure if she damaged her brain and lived as a disabled person he wouldn't be so quick to say that she should just die.

It takes a lot more time and money to support a severely disabled person as well and their life is going to be constant fucking hell.

It's still a human being with a will of it's own, desires and emotions. You can't endorse killing people off for the reason they're a burden. That is a slippery slope you never want to go down. Once you decide that killing people because they will be a burden is ethical then what about old people who need carers? What about the unemployed?

I feel for the mother, it's a terrible situation and I wouldn't wish that life on anyone but you can't start weighing up the value of human life differently without opening a Pandora's box that inevitably leads to pogroms.

If her life is absolutely miserable and she literally cannot do anything then she should die.

People who begot disabled children should be also gassed.

yes, they have no control over how they were born just like you

>devoid of any appreciation of beauty

Ah yes, a fat autistic kid screaming like a banshee while trying to punch his mother in the face is beautiful.

Truly god made him perfect :)

Say what you want but Spain was better run under him then modern day Spaniards.

Edgelord

Franco did nothing wrong.

He's the edgelord? Not the unironic euginicists?

No. They are an emotional and financial drain on the family and will never be able to continue your bloodline or contribute to the country. They are potatoes who will spend their entire lives drooling and gurgling and pissing themselves and needing constant care.
The ones who have already been born need to be euthanized and the ones who aren't yet born need to be aborted. Consider it a mercy killing.

t. grew up with a low-functioning autistic sister

I'm just gonna say, think of the effect on the sisiter, she obviously has social/mental issues now.

So, I used to look at people with physical disabilities and think, "Surely, I can come up with a way to fix their deficiencies and bring them up to a functioning member of society," so I started to go to college again for biotechnology, advanced prosthesis allowing near human capabilities such as arms with full ranges of movement and hands that could grasp objects.

But then I got to thinking, why not go further? Is mental retardation not simply just another disability to be overcome? Perhaps with advanced MMI, we will be able to implant those with such crippling disabilities with a computer chip that can enhance specific functions of their brain, and perhaps force a sort of specific instruction set they can carry out to function within society. The chip would allow them to follow simple tasks in a rote fashion, giving them the ability to hold jobs like an assembly line worker or janitor or what have you. It's even possible as advances in technology happen, entire personalities could be programmed to give the illusion of higher level social functions to the individual, even if the person in question doesn't fully understand the situation himself.

Some would say this is cruel because we are essentially forcing the programmed will of a machine on a weak mind, creating a sort of slave, or worse, a human consciousness trapped in a machine that controls their functions. But would a person be aware of their predicament and feel revulsion to it, or would they be grateful they can contribute to society and function with others without being jeered at, feared, or entirely dismissed? I think if I were an alzheimer's patient, I would choose to undergo such a procedure to maintain as much function as I could towards my loved ones, but I'm not sure if everyone would feel that way.

>everyone I don't like is from reddit and an atheist

Sounds like the average virgin NEET.

It's unethical to make someone live through that kind of painful life for our own ego.

Genocide is one of the most conspicuous examples of altruism, you are literally murdering someone for the "common good", a "common good" that conveniently excludes the sacrificial lamb.

Veeky Forums is full of moral-nihilists that don't believe in anything until you mention eugenics.

I'm not the best at making arguments but I'll try stay unbiased. I believe the goodness of a person can me measured by how much they help someone that can do them no good in return. To view things in such black and white terms, the carers for some of these people gain great pleasure in their work and they are loved in return.

Granted some of the low functioning folk will not achieve great things like you all will but loving and being loved, this simplest mutual expression is all that counts.

The standard on usefulness and intelligence is askew too. Some low functioning people on the spectrum make up for their shortcomings with other areas of intelligence and caring. Everyone has their own strength and their own role to play and bit to contribute, who are any of us to judge in such linear terms?

>"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
>― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Keeping the mentally disabled alive is an aspect of human nature which, if removed, would lead to far greater evil than the residual goodness it does to the genetic line, as most of these less desirables do a fine enough job on their own not breeding, and indeed most of them can be made into productive members of society with the right training. And even if they don't, people who voluntarily raise their mentally handicapped children often say it's twice the work for twice the pay-off: your autistic child may pitch bitchfits but you don't have to worry about them running off and getting into trouble with Tyrone.

If we eliminate human empathy from the equation, we allow the most monstrous evils to justify themselves,

/his is a huge catholic circle jerk, bro.

If someone asks for death, then they should be allowed in the suicide booth, if not it's unethical.

>Spain was better run under him then modern day Spaniards.

youtube.com/watch?v=BZabjNlrOEo

This is ultimately the best answer. Allowing any form of governing body the power to decide certain citizens are "undesirable" is a really slippery slope. Mentally handicapped already do a decent job of not reproducing. There's no need to go out of your way to cease their existence.

At most, if it's detectable the option to abort the fetus should remain open to the parents as an act of mercy on all involved.

Stay mad Sancho.

I do think that its best to have an abortion if the child will have serious disabilities. But like others have said once its born killing it would be unethical, its still a human being and likley doesn't want to die.

But say we consider it ethical, who makes the decision tokill them and then do the deed? Parents are obviously not going to weigh the situation objectively, Doctors have the Hippocratic Oath to mantain so actively ending a life wont sit well and giving the Government the power to kill innocent people within a certain criteria has obviouss problems.

This

>BECAUSE ITS NEBULOUS AND HARD IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE BECAUSE WHOOO KNOOWS WAAAH

Hey, here's a nifty solution.
If they hurt themselves and cannot in any way exist in peace at the moment and foreseable future, in constant pain, seizures, and so on with tens of thousands of dollars only keeping them breathing, kill them.

If not, don't.

If someone attempts to radically change criteria, stop them.

If abortion was legal nationwide then there wouldn't be nearly as many of them

I bet those of you saying "kill the retards!" are the same ones that voted for Trump

Ahh yes, those who can't appreciate the beauty of a severely autistic boy, who ruined his families life by merely existing. Such beauty in the fact this child has the cognitive function of an over ripe satsuma

Just sterilize the disabled and those who give birth to disabled children. Nobody has to be killed.

youtube.com/watch?v=0UwEQTME0oI

>peacefully killed

alive ones shouldn't be killed but retarded fetus should be aborted

People in this thread
>Disabled people are worthless, we should just """peacefully""" kill the.

Moments later
>Oh my god, how can these /pol/tards like someone as bad as Hitler!! They are so stupid XD

I do feel remorse for this, but I believe people like him ought not to be born. I think although that is harder to say, it is kinder to do.
Perhaps we don't understand autism well enough though, perhaps there could be a cure. But until we have that cure or solution or understanding, I think abortion is the way to go.

I'm with this user.

but is preserving the severely disabled born empathy or a fear of doing the "wrong" thing?
The metaphor of a surgeon can applied here as well. If we view the entire human populace as a body, with the parts that make it up being people, is it not desirable to remove the parts which are bad for the body, harming it or hindering it?
We label criminals as undesirable, and rightly so. We would not hesitate to execute pedophiles and murders, and rightly so. They've consciously done wrong.

I don't know. Unchecked empathy is as harmful as unchecked brutality, and both are useful in their time. I don't think its as simply as pointing out the slippery slope, which indeed exists. It doesn't really answer the question.
If we are so happy with mentally handicapped people breeding themselves out of existence, why not help them along?
I honestly think it is kinder to both the child and their family to abort.

No its literally a defective human, it would have died in the wild a long time ago.

You don't know how this kind of autism works. Low functioning autistic people don't feel love. They're incredibly self centered. It's not their fault, but they can be horrible people.

Let's just say I went into a summer job at a home for the mentally disabled full of compassion and warmth, then left missing a lot of my hair (a child in a man's body pulled a huge chunk of it it including some scalp) and my trust in the system (sexually assaulted by an older patient and they swept it under the rug "oh he just does that sometimes. I forgot to tell you not to be alone with him!").

If I were ever to become pregnant with an autistic child I would abort them in a heartbeat. I won't even get into how expensive it is to take care of them or how dead their parents/relatives eyes looked.

The continued existence of those who consume society's resources with neither the ability (including future ability, in the case of children and the temporarily incapacitated) nor intention to offset their consumption with productivity, is a direct impediment to the current primary objective of our species, which is establishing the grounds for our indefinite survival.

Impeding the primary objective is the highest order of unethical action.

It depends how retarded they are.
If they are just very stupid humans or some which think in queer ways then they should be helped.
If there is no way to safe them from constant suffering, their family does not want them and they are not able to voice simple, general opinions then it may be better to kill them as letting them life would harm the life of their relatives in a greater way then the one harmed of a being that is neither able to remember or articulate in any sort of way what it did 3 weeks ago.

Limitations for this must be insanely high and strict or the slippy slope starts getting slippy.

what the fuck is that thing

You could say the same of most humans considered non-defective.

Yes, it's ethical because their existence serves an important role: Making it prohibitively difficult and risky for the mother to continue to reproduce defective offspring.

People may say that abortion is better in that case, but it isn't. Like plastic surgery hiding the fact that your ugly and your kids will come out ugly, aborting unborn children until one comes out okay hides your defective genes that have now been passed on to viable offspring.

Killing off mentally ill people at will will only lead to more dysfunction in the long run because people with shit genes will remain in the gene pool if they don't have to devote the rest of their lives to dealing with their dysfunctional spawn.

I do think abortion should be legal for just such occassions.

NO parent deserves or wants that type of ETERNAL burden. This poor woman will have to deal with this shit until one of them dies.

>fawn >doe
>Birds

Another Stellaris player

>people who are posting on a Afghanistan guerilla warfare message board actually have the gall to say others should have been aborted or killed off

Trust me, if you're posting on Veeky Forums, you would not have survived any future implantation of gene Cadillac baby creations.

>The metaphor of a surgeon can applied here as well. If we view the entire human populace as a body, with the parts that make it up being people, is it not desirable to remove the parts which are bad for the body, harming it or hindering it?

I didn't realize tumors have sentience

>We would not hesitate to execute pedophiles and murders, and rightly so. They've consciously done wrong.

That's not as universally excepted as you're claiming it is.

> Unchecked empathy is as harmful as unchecked brutality

Explain.

Retards don't breed though, that's the most hilarious thing about muh nu-eugenics. 90% of what these morons target never even put a baby in anyone in the first place!

>Gays
>trannies
>Mentally disabled
>Genetic freaks

Do you really think these people are knocking up every bitch that comes to town? That the list above represents the breeding desires of every woman on Earth?

Really it's just a closet excuse to suggest gassing the niggers/jews rather than any logical stance.

>If we view the entire human populace as a body

Kill yourself, we're not an ant hive no matter how hard you try to force yourself to be an ant. Collectivization is the most retarded idea on Earth and it leads to even more retarded ideas like the rest of your post.

These people are suffering, they're making all those around them suffer too.
You would have to be very shitty person to want them to live.

If people can pay to maintain useless individuals, then they should live, but no way in hell should the state provide for these people.

You're making me suffer with your wrought stupidity. I should gas you.

One Dresden wasn't enough.

It's okay user you'll forget about it in a few hours.
These people though, they'll keep suffering until they die.

nice projection, i have a job
you want to take care of them so bad? volunteer full time then

No. I only have bipolar disorder and I'm building a guillotine for myself the moment I graduate.
>irreversible demyelination of white matter
>irreversible loss of Von Economo bodies
>severe loss in orbitofrontal grey matter
>hallucinations, occasionally
>this is heritable

Shit's fucked. Tell your wife not to have kids after 40.

When did manic depression become associated with neurodegeneration?

Holy fuck, I just watched Drive not too long ago
Made me kek

You can't kill people because they're a burden. It's unethical. All human life has the exact same value, disabled or not. You throw that idea away and you go down a very dark path.

For years! Mostly through research overlap with the much more well-funded people behind Alzheimers, Picks disease and SZ research. It started with amygdala grey matter deficits, then the orbitofrontal, then ACC, then very recently the anterior insula.

My psych even calls it "bipolar suite", since the classification of Type I and Type II is slowly being phased out given the understanding of extremely heterogeneous genetic expression in the literature.

Page 8 and down has a condensation of the meat you'll want.
ifrao.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HelvenstonBednarik2011.pdf

Since the 1940's if not earlier. Bipolar Is get it the worst because they go through mania and often psychosis. Mania rots your frontal lobes and psychosis rots your frontal lobes even harder. Bipolar IIs generally don't get it much worse than major depressives because their hypomania is rare and less damaging to the brain.

And yes, depression itself is neurodegenerative. Chronic inflammation is bad for the brain, yo.

Cyclothymics haven't been reported to have any neurodegeneration though they are at high risk of progressing to one of the two conditions above.

the vast majority of the population would die in the wilderness.

Sure, but it exists on a spectrum, i mean i'm autistic and i ended up a sack of worthless shit, but a relatively successful sporty dude i knew also had autism, and then there was a dude who never learned to talk, there's a reason that it's a spectrum and not a single disorder.

Bipolar spectrum is hardly consensus in the field, even though Is and IIs are a bit closer genetically than we used to think.

The biggest problem toward its acceptance is figuring out cyclothymia, hyperthymia, and dysthymia. The closer you get to the general population in terms of dysfunction, the more controversial it gets. And Kraepelin's temperaments have been chronically understudied since the beginning, something that is only just now starting to reverse itself as we realize every factor that leads to severe mood disorder.

>If we are so happy with mentally handicapped people breeding themselves out of existence, why not help them along?
Everybody gets their chance at life, everybody has the chance to succeed, this is the creed of a successful society.

O_O enough internet for one day right?

Fuck off