Father wouldn't give disabled daughter up for adoption. So the mother drowned the child.

[–]catlebrity 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bloodlustt 6 points7 points8 points 17 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]elissa1959 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nikola_S 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]elissa1959 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

What's the difference between a baby due in 2 seconds, one that has part of its body out of the womb, and one that is entirely out of the womb?

IMO, nothing, and abortion/infanticide is illegal in all those cases.

What about a baby that was given an injection or other procedure to abort, but was born alive?

Is this what's called "Partial birth abortions"?

I know that those were legal only in the context of the fetus being inviable and/or the mother's life being at risk. Laws have passed (and upheld by SCOTUS) making this illegal.

If a baby is born alive, but inviable (i.e., not going to live more than a few hours) then extreme life support measures are stupid and costly. But I feel that way about extending my own life. Both of my parents have died and both of them died after long and terminal illnesses and with "do not resuscitate" orders. I only bring this up because I think my position is consistent.

What's your question?

I don't necessarily think that living outside the womb is my personal cut-off point (for what constitutes "murder"). Since living external to the womb is occurring earlier and earlier, we can foresee a time when babies might not need wombs. I would tend to define "a human being" as requiring some level of brain development, but I don't know exactly at what point of development that is, sorry.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]elissa1959 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elissa1959 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the value of noticing stories like this is that it helps disabuse us of the notion that only men are violent and destructive, a notion which so pervades our court system that men can be jailed on a woman's say-so with no other proof (in domestic violence cases especially). Women are then not prosecuted when found to have lied. It is almost unheard of for a false rape accusation to be prosecuted seriously.

By staring the reality of women's capacity for violence in the face, we can begin to loosen the hold this false belief has on us.

In some ways, I think this belief has more of a hold on the minds of men than it does on the minds of women. Lawyers will tell you that when you are representing a woman accusing a man of rape, you want men on the jury, becuase they are less likely to believe that a woman would make such an accusation up than women are.

It is unpleasant, but sometimes you need to stare evil in the face when you are suffering from delusions about what people are capable of.

I think that is a valid thing to do.

[–]Saydrah[S] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 17 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Erudecorp -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Erudecorp 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Erudecorp 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]froderick 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustJoekingEX[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 17 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saydrah[S] 9 points10 points11 points 17 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]titaniumjackal 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Both of these guys were born perfectly normal. No reason to kill them.

Sure, disabled people can contribute to society. They potentially could be a lot of things. You never know what someone is going to grow up to be.

But that is lottery mentality. Hey, you never know! My kid (disabled or otherwise) might grow up to be a genius and conclusively prove fermat's last theorem or invent time travel or a new energy source.

They could also grow up to be the next Hitler. You never know.

You don't have to pretend that ten million to 1 odds is good enough, and that they are more likely to grow up and have a huge POSITIVE impact on the world, ignoring all the likely scenarios, and say "that's why we shouldn't kill babies". It's dishonest, and disingenuous. If you don't have the stomach to kill babies, just say so.

[–]Saydrah[S] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

If you're going to use pure probability to calculate whether or not a baby should be killed, then probability dictates we should kill all babies, because they have a 50% chance of being below-average. Or, better yet, let's kill all black males born-- I mean, one third of them will serve time in prison at some point. They can't all be Barack Obama.

Wait! Even better! We could just kill all male babies at birth-- men are more likely to be violent. Plus, men can inseminate as many women as they've got access to, so they're contributing to overpopulation. In a nine month period a woman could make one baby that might be Hitler or FDR, but a man could father 270 if he impregnated one woman every night!

Actually in terms of likely impact on society, the best route might be to allow ONLY disabled babies to live, because by the nature of their impairments, they're less likely to commit violent crime, which is arguably the most detrimental possible action of a single person.

Really, don't you see how ridiculous your logic is, or are you just a particularly determined troll?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saydrah[S] 2 points3 points4 points 17 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saydrah[S] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saydrah[S] 1 point2 points3 points 17 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]elissa1959 5 points6 points7 points 17 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 17 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]elissa1959 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a neo-con. You're way the fuck off.

I apologize.

The depression was caused by the fiat money system, as was the compression.

I agree with the former point and disagree with the latter. The compression was caused by purposeful tax policies to "patch" a broken system. It's possible that the fiat money system will always be "broken" in the same way, and so we find ourselves back at the same point in the a loop.

Medicaid and Medicare are the reasons why we no longer have free clinics, because the cushy government contracts drove the prices up because the government would pay for it.

We had free clinics?

Social Security most certainly does us wonders now, right?

Well, yeah. There are a sizeable number of elderly who rely on SS for the majority of their income. Do you prefer to support them yourself or would you rather throw them on the streets?

It's policies and programs like those that have led to our sickening national debt.

Ok, here's where you are either completely mistaken or a complete liar. SS is completely paid for by contributions into the scheme.

The cause of our national debt is that George Buttwipe Bush has spent trillions and trillions on a fucking war for oil.

Here's where I rescind my apology. Supporting a war for any pretense other than national security can only be describes as neo-conservative.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 17 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I apologize.

It's cool.

The compression was caused by purposeful tax policies to "patch" a broken system.

By gathering up the remaining gold and printing money backed by an independent bank, basically taking out loans. That's why the dollar says "note". A note, in banking terms, is an IOU, debt.

We had free clinics?

When medical supplies were much cheaper, yes we did. They were usually restricted to people with low to no income, and especially children and women. We still have them today, like the one ran by the freemasons/shriners, but it's only for children. Plus, the Ronald McDonald house.

Besides this, healthcare was far more affordable all around, so it wasn't a big deal to not have insurance.

Do you prefer to support them yourself or would you rather throw them on the streets?

I am supporting them myself, by throwing money into a system I won't see a penny back out of. Those who are currently dependent I wouldn't want to throw out, however they should have saved for retirement, like we did before SS. I know many people who collect SS who do not need it.

The people should be weened off the system. Imagine if you just took the money you're throwing into SS and put it in a bank account or invested it.

SS is completely paid for by contributions into the scheme.

Yeah, you're a little mistaken. Due to 1. the government dipping their fat grubby fingers into the account to pay for other stuff and 2. the baby boomers. The old people are the largest age group, or else there wouldn't be nearly the support for McCain. So the cash output doesn't get covered by the input.

The cause of our national debt is that George Buttwipe Bush has spent trillions and trillions on a fucking war for oil.

Uh, a lot of it, but the national debt was already disastrous before Bush. It has continually skyrocketed since the fiat money system was introduced (we had a national debt of like a million or less before that), and despite periods where the growth has slowed down, it has never stopped rising.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png

A common misconception is that Clinton lowered the national debt, but the truth is that he proposed a budget that projected a surplus, which never came into existence.

Here's where I rescind my apology. Supporting a war for any pretense other than national security can only be describes as neo-conservative.

What war did I support? I just said it was ironic for social programs of that magnitude to be introduced when we were battling against communism, an extreme socialist system.

[–]elissa1959 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The compression was caused by purposeful tax policies to "patch" a broken system.

By gathering up the remaining gold and printing money backed by an independent bank, basically taking out loans. That's why the dollar says "note". A note, in banking terms, is an IOU, debt.

I can't spend much time on this now, but according to Paul Krugman's, Conscience of a Liberal, the compression was a result of changing the tax structure and effectively taxing wealth at a far greater amount than was done previously.

The cause of our national debt is that George Buttwipe Bush has spent trillions and trillions on a fucking war for oil.

Uh, a lot of it, but the national debt was already disastrous before Bush. It has continually skyrocketed since the fiat money system was introduced (we had a national debt of like a million or less before that), and despite periods where the growth has slowed down, it has never stopped rising.

Yes, you're right, but according to this US Govt page Reagan got the debt at about $997,855,000,000.00 (Sept 1980, 3 months before he started) and the 12 years of Republican presidents left a debt of about $4,064,620,655,521.66 (Sept 1992, 3 months before Clinton started).

Clinton's 8 years left the debt at around $5,674,178,209,886.86 (Sept 2000, before Bush Jr started) and 7 years later (Sept 2007), the debt was at $9,007,653,372,262.48.

Yeah, those numbers are pretty disastrous. Reagan/Bush added a trillion every 4 years, Clinton added 0.8 trillion every 4 years, and our current disaster is adding 2 trillion every 4 years.

What war did I support? I just said it was ironic for social programs of that magnitude to be introduced when we were battling against communism, an extreme socialist system.

True, irony appreciated. Also, the programs were appreciated. Social welfare programs are very desired by the populus and less so by the owning class. Try asking the British to get rid of their health care, they'll bite your head off.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 17 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

the compression was a result of changing the tax structure and effectively taxing wealth at a far greater amount than was done previously.

The income tax was introduced with the Federal Reserve system.

Yes, you're right, but...

As are you. I certainly wasn't refuting anything, just wanted to make sure you weren't blaming the whole enchilada on Bush. And yes, I hate Bush, too.

Social welfare programs are very desired by the populus and less so by the owning class. Try asking the British to get rid of their health care, they'll bite your head off.

I'm sure they will, but we already pay 50% of our income to taxes in one way or another. Granted, the owning class doesn't qualify, so they despise socialism. But realize that I know people on disability for bipolar disorder who would make less money if they got a job. So, of course, they don't.

Our culture removes so much personal responsibility, be it through weak qualifications for disability, or the legal system allowing someone to sue McDonald's over hot coffee.

Before the income tax, people were only tax voluntarily. Cigarette taxes are constitutional, because I don't have to pay them if I don't smoke them. Personal income taxes could be considered unconstitutional, as they are unavoidable taxes.

The truth is, we wouldn't need the income tax if it weren't for the federal reserve system. 100% of all personal income taxes go directly to paying the interest on the national debt, period. Our roads and schools are built from property taxes, and there's still sales tax.

Sure, Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are helpful to those who need them, but consider this:

CEO A runs a company, gets shit loads of stock. He then retires, but retains his stock. He then uses his connections to raise money to become Politician A. He then goes to congress, and with the help of lobbyists and bribes, gets government contracts awarded to his compan(y/ies), at whatever costs that are quoted by those companies.

A company to point out there is Pfizer (Donald Rumfeld's pharmaceutical company). The stock goes up, and Politician A makes bank.

Reinvest into the political machine, rinse, repeat.

That's why Halliburton (Dick Cheney) is washing the clothes of our troops at 100 bucks a load and sells them soda at 5 bucks a can (locally made coke, btw).

That's why the Carlyle Group (bin Laden's brother and the Bush's defense contracting company) went from the 5th largest weapons supplier in America in 2001 to the first in 2003.

Socialism leads to extortion if the politicians are left unchecked, a duty trusted to the journalists. Like Fox, who's been busted for getting guidelines on what to report and how to report it from the White House directly. And this isn't illegal, believe it or not.

Now, money is a representation of energy. Now consider the allegory of the Matrix: the machine(s) robbing the populace of their energy as they live in a fantasy world.

I'm not against all social programs, but I think social programs should not be addressed at the federal level.

And I eagerly await your response.

[–]Mithel 4 points5 points6 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]gum11 -6 points-5 points-4 points 17 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Father wouldn't give disabled daughter up for adoption. So the mother drowned the child.
Author	Saydrah
Upvotes	38
Comments	44
Date	September 15, 2008 4:23 PM UTC (17 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/71k1l/father_wouldnt_give_disabled_daughter_up_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/father-wouldnt-give-disabled-daughter-up-for.1056649 https://theredarchive.com/post/1056649

Comments