Imperfection a reasonable excuse for execution?

[Aufan59 69]

On top of the boy I knew when I was a kid, my grandfather had a brother that was a special individual. He was able to talk and have some form of conversation with others although not to the level most of us can. He loved checkers and jigsaw puzzles and he was very good at both. I always looked forward to the times when he would stay at my grandparents house. There were challenges to be sure but you just can't get imagine what life would be like without these truly special individuals. Sometimes I get too caught up in my own life and forget that others have something to offer me. Those memories are some of the best I have.

Almost every post in this thread has made me smile. Some people just don't know what they are missing. We don't know exactly what is wrong with my sister. She has a twin (fraternal), her apgar scores were higher than her twins when they were born. Her twin is perfectly normal. We found out when she was 10 years old that she began having seizures the night she was born. The doctors and the hospital never told my parents. The court order they got when she was 10 was the first time we knew anything had happened out of the ordinary. Most of the records were blacked out so we have never found out what happened. My sister doesn't have downs; she can't talk, and I would say in many ways she is only on the level of a 4 to 5 year old. In others only 18 months. She understands everything you say to her. She responds in some ways. She will shake her head yes sometimes..make noises that sound like agreement. Years of living with her has given most of us in the family the ability to mostly read her and tell you what she wants. When she was much younger she seemed to be able to verbalize more than she does now. She would fuss at me and her twin when we played with her, she would tell us to quit and stop. She called her twin Daya...which is not even close to her name and she called me sistar. She used to say Dada. She called my mother Nana..and she said these words seldom. As she has gotten older she says nothing except Trishy. My mothers name is Patricia and my dad called my mom Trish. My sister heard it and picked it up...and began calling my mom Trishy. It is the only word she says now. I can't imagine how much my moms heart has to fill up when she hears that.

I didn't know until I began kindergarten that everyone didn't have a sister like her. I thought everyone did. I was blessed that my friends always loved her and were so sweet to her when they came to our house. To this day the girls I graduated high school with still ask me about her. People who don't have the experience of "special" adults and children just don't know what they are missing. Sure, life can be hard for some of them. Is their life any worse than that of someone who is "normal" that has health problems? These children and adults get to be innocent mostly for life. They get to enjoy the world and show us how to enjoy it as well. When I was told I had cancer, and then that it was stage four, she is what kept me from falling into a depression. How could I be depressed when I had this blessing for a sister. I knew she needed me and I had to be around for her. She has kept me going, helping my mom with her as always have allowed me to keep going and not let the chemo and other treatments really get to me. God blessed my family with her. All of your stories have blessed me today too. BB, those links were great, as a matter of fact I fell down the rabbit hole you could say following all the different links at each website I was led to..lol..DKW and JapanTiger you both are awesome people! All of you are actually, with the exception of one.

To the poster who seemed to be worried about 'the quality of life of these people." "These" people are humans, no different than you, they need love and care and attention just as any child does when they are younger, and any adult does as they age. Sure some of them will never be independent but so what? How many of us have thought "man I wish I could relive my childhood knowing what I know now?" Many of them always get to have a childhood, and if they have good parents and a solid family I can promise you their "quality of life" is much better than anyone else on this board. The children who are unwanted and are unlucky enough to have selfish, immature parents are the ones who suffer. Adoption is the answer here. Despite what you may think there are many people who want a baby badly enough that they don't mind a "special" child. Killing a child simply because they have an extra chromosome is not an excuse.

The person I was responding to mentioned that some people are only concerned with themselves, but his post was only about how a mentally handicapped person benefitted him. While that is fine and dandy (and is something I can relate to) shouldn't the discussion be about the people with Down syndrome? Is asking about the potential quality of life that far off base?

From what I've seen and understand, having a child with Down's syndrome can be a much bigger responsibility than having one without. A couple could be prepared and able to raise a child, but not one with Down's syndrome. Is it moral for parents to birth a child that they don't feel capable of raising?

you don't have the right to make that decision. You don't have the right to take that innocent life just because it will inconvenience you. Do we only bring into this world the perfect babies, the ones that don't require special care?

We aren't talking about an inconvenience, to call a child an inconvenience is ridiculous. We are talking about a huge, unplanned, life changing responsibility, where a child's quality of life is on the line. If a couple aren't capable of caring for a child with Down's syndrome, is it moral for them to go through with birth?

[Weegle777 78]

Moral? You are talking about KILLING A HUMAN LIFE, and you ask if it's moral? Are you serious?

[Aufan59 69]

Is it moral to birth a child that you cannot care for?

[Weegle777 78]

Is it moral to birth a child that you cannot care for?

Is it moral to kill a human being? You look at these people as someone with a disease that they have acquired and are aware of. People with downs aren't usually aware that they are different. A small percentage may be, but not many.

[Kassc22 0]

On top of the boy I knew when I was a kid, my grandfather had a brother that was a special individual. He was able to talk and have some form of conversation with others although not to the level most of us can. He loved checkers and jigsaw puzzles and he was very good at both. I always looked forward to the times when he would stay at my grandparents house. There were challenges to be sure but you just can't get imagine what life would be like without these truly special individuals. Sometimes I get too caught up in my own life and forget that others have something to offer me. Those memories are some of the best I have.

Almost every post in this thread has made me smile. Some people just don't know what they are missing. We don't know exactly what is wrong with my sister. She has a twin (fraternal), her apgar scores were higher than her twins when they were born. Her twin is perfectly normal. We found out when she was 10 years old that she began having seizures the night she was born. The doctors and the hospital never told my parents. The court order they got when she was 10 was the first time we knew anything had happened out of the ordinary. Most of the records were blacked out so we have never found out what happened. My sister doesn't have downs; she can't talk, and I would say in many ways she is only on the level of a 4 to 5 year old. In others only 18 months. She understands everything you say to her. She responds in some ways. She will shake her head yes sometimes..make noises that sound like agreement. Years of living with her has given most of us in the family the ability to mostly read her and tell you what she wants. When she was much younger she seemed to be able to verbalize more than she does now. She would fuss at me and her twin when we played with her, she would tell us to quit and stop. She called her twin Daya...which is not even close to her name and she called me sistar. She used to say Dada. She called my mother Nana..and she said these words seldom. As she has gotten older she says nothing except Trishy. My mothers name is Patricia and my dad called my mom Trish. My sister heard it and picked it up...and began calling my mom Trishy. It is the only word she says now. I can't imagine how much my moms heart has to fill up when she hears that.

I didn't know until I began kindergarten that everyone didn't have a sister like her. I thought everyone did. I was blessed that my friends always loved her and were so sweet to her when they came to our house. To this day the girls I graduated high school with still ask me about her. People who don't have the experience of "special" adults and children just don't know what they are missing. Sure, life can be hard for some of them. Is their life any worse than that of someone who is "normal" that has health problems? These children and adults get to be innocent mostly for life. They get to enjoy the world and show us how to enjoy it as well. When I was told I had cancer, and then that it was stage four, she is what kept me from falling into a depression. How could I be depressed when I had this blessing for a sister. I knew she needed me and I had to be around for her. She has kept me going, helping my mom with her as always have allowed me to keep going and not let the chemo and other treatments really get to me. God blessed my family with her. All of your stories have blessed me today too. BB, those links were great, as a matter of fact I fell down the rabbit hole you could say following all the different links at each website I was led to..lol..DKW and JapanTiger you both are awesome people! All of you are actually, with the exception of one.

To the poster who seemed to be worried about 'the quality of life of these people." "These" people are humans, no different than you, they need love and care and attention just as any child does when they are younger, and any adult does as they age. Sure some of them will never be independent but so what? How many of us have thought "man I wish I could relive my childhood knowing what I know now?" Many of them always get to have a childhood, and if they have good parents and a solid family I can promise you their "quality of life" is much better than anyone else on this board. The children who are unwanted and are unlucky enough to have selfish, immature parents are the ones who suffer. Adoption is the answer here. Despite what you may think there are many people who want a baby badly enough that they don't mind a "special" child. Killing a child simply because they have an extra chromosome is not an excuse.

The person I was responding to mentioned that some people are only concerned with themselves, but his post was only about how a mentally handicapped person benefitted him. While that is fine and dandy (and is something I can relate to) shouldn't the discussion be about the people with Down syndrome? Is asking about the potential quality of life that far off base?

From what I've seen and understand, having a child with Down's syndrome can be a much bigger responsibility than having one without. A couple could be prepared and able to raise a child, but not one with Down's syndrome. Is it moral for parents to birth a child that they don't feel capable of raising?

Let me reiterate again, those with Down Syndrome or any mental or physical handicap for that matter have the same chance for the quality of life of a "normal" person. It all really comes down the parent in some ways. Some of these people have health problems, those problems can be mild or they can be serious. Guess what? So can a "normal person". Very few would ever suggest aborting a child who was handicapped but mentally had no deficiencies. Those that would suggest this would also likely be very sympathetic to the euthanasia of the elderly and infirm. You could apply this to patients with Alzheimer's as easily as children with Downs. If its all about mental capacity then people who develop Alzheimer's lose their ability to function autonomously and become as handicapped children. Should you be able to euthanize them?

Yes, in some cases the child outlives the parents. I am sure my sister will outlive mine. I have always known that one day she would become my responsibility. I was never asked to take care of her. My mother has never suggested it. I made that decision on my own and I have never questioned it. The consideration of putting her in a home has never crossed my mind, and it will never happen as long as I am capable of taking care of her. Her twin feels the same way. Honestly there will most likely be a fight between us over who gets to take care of her and its not for money because my family is firmly middle class and there is no money.

You are never 100% guaranteed a perfectly healthy child. Biology and life don't work that way. Your child can be born healthy and develop serious problems later. Children get all kinds of diseases, many of them life altering. If a person isn't prepared to handle a handicapped child then they shouldn't be contemplating children at all. My mothers cousin had a child who when he was 2 pulled a television off a table. It landed on top of him and as a result he was severely brain damaged. He got nutrition through a feeding tube, he never spoke, he couldn't walk, he was what many would call a vegetable. He had no life outside of his parents, who by the way took him out everywhere they went, he was not isolated in any way. His parents loved him and cared for him until he died at age 8. Should they have had him aborted?

You may say that is ridiculous, you can't abort after a child is born. There is a very real fringe that believes you can abort a child even after its born(some of the acceptable reasons are "“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe. Accordingly, “if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”) So the real question to me should be: Is it moral to become pregnant if you are not committed fully to raising a child no matter what life throws at you?

[Aufan59 69]

To answer your first question, yes I'm very sympathetic to euthanasia of the elderly. When you have a family member who is ready to die, and all they can do is starve to death while you drip morphine in their mouth every hour, you start to wonder if there is a better way. But that is a different subject.

As to the second question, there are a lot of things I don't know about that situation. But I do know there are situations where simply keeping someone alive is a fruitless effort. Was his treatment for his benefit, to prolong a quality life? Or was it to benefit the parents who couldn't let go of their son? Just because we can extend life doesn't always mean it is the ideal choice.

As to the third question, I imagine many parents aren't fully capable of rasing a child with down's syndrome. Was it immoral for them to have become pregnant because there was a small chance of having a child that they couldn't properly care for? Possibly, but that is quite a strict standard on become pregnant.

I think a reasonable reason for having an abortion is that you are not capable of raising the child. Many of those who are strictly anti-abortion see it as black and white, with no discussion about what happens to the child after birth. I think the life after birth is a relevant discussion to have. (Read: Discussion. I am not presuming the quality of life or lackthereof of a person with down's syndrome).

[Kassc22 0]

There is a difference in voluntary euthanasia of the elderly when they wish to die, have complete mental capacity to make that decision and would prefer to end their own life. Though I don't agree with suicide, it is of course their own choice. What I disagree with when it comes to euthanasia is when it is done as a matter of course and without the person having a say. Involuntary euthanasia or so called "mercy killing" is what we have mainly been discussing. Who are you to say whether its better to kill someone or let them live? I am not God and I would never want to be. Frankly the thought of a doctor who would advocate the taking of a life make me nervous. I wouldn't want that doctor in charge of my care. Perhaps that option is always in the back of his mind and he does less than he really should to prolong life.

As to the second question, there are a lot of things I don't know about that situation. But I do know there are situations where simply keeping someone alive is a fruitless effort. Was his treatment for his benefit, to prolong a quality life? Or was it to benefit the parents who couldn't let go of their son? Just because we can extend life doesn't always mean it is the ideal choice.

When it comes to this of course the treatment was to his benefit and to make him comfortable and able to live the best life he was capable of. Of course the parents wanted their child to live, they loved him. He was not on a ventilator. He needed to be fed through a tube and of course everything else had to be taken care of by his parent, hygiene etc.. But the only obstacle to life was the intake of food. Do you seriously think its more humane to starve someone to death simply because they can't talk to you? Because they can't walk, feed themselves, or take care of their bodily functions and need help? Starving them to death is more humane?

As to the third question, I imagine many parents aren't fully capable of rasing a child with down's syndrome. Was it immoral for them to have become pregnant because there was a small chance of having a child that they couldn't properly care for? Possibly, but that is quite a strict standard on become pregnant.

Many parents may not feel they are capable of raising a special needs child. You would be amazed what you can do when you are put into a situation and given the option of failing or making it work. If you had asked me before October of last year would I ever survive the mental trauma of having a breast removed, being told I have cancer, the physical hell of chemo and radiation and the loss of my hair (which was something I had always been known for. It was my one major vanity) I would have said no. I woke up from surgery without one breast and never let if phase me. I haven't worn a wig at all since I lost my hair, and I don't wear scarves either. I let my bald head shine.

So whether they believe they are capable or not, if they truly want a child and they truly love their child the challenge of Downs and any other disability would be met head on, they would grieve that their child might have a harder time than others, but they will do everything they can to make it easier for them and be ready for the next challenge.

Is it immoral to become pregnant if their is a small chance their child will have challenges? Well I asked you that question and though you didn't answer it I will happily answer it for you. Yes, it is immoral. You don't get pregnant on purpose unless you are prepared for the very best AND the very worst that can happen. I don't believe its strict at all. Its being responsible and it is reality. Aborting a child to erase a so called "biological mistake" is immoral.

I think a reasonable reason for having an abortion is that you are not capable of raising the child. Many of those who are strictly anti-abortion see it as black and white, with no discussion about what happens to the child after birth. I think the life after birth is a relevant discussion to have. (Read: Discussion. I am not presuming the quality of life or lackthereof of a person with down's syndrome).

If you are not capable of raising a child don't get pregnant. If you have not thought out every bad thing that could happen, then don't get pregnant. If you cannot handle a less than "perfect" child don't get pregnant. You are obviously not ready for a child. There is birth control available for free at the health department. Condoms are cheap, and as we all know, Obamacare has made it even easier to get the pill at little or no cost.

Children are not expendable. You could take your idea of aborting because you don't like the gene arrangement of your child and extend it to; I don't like the xx/xy chromosome arrangement. Lets abort and try again. Oh doctor my child has my hubbys blue eyes? I want it to have my green. Lets abort and start again. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have suggested taking things even further and aborting children later in life, up to the age of 3 if say for instance the family suddenly loses income. They say children aren't "persons" at that time so its fine to utilize "after-birth" abortion.

The discussion of what happens to a child after birth should be simple. You love the child, you raise it to the best of your ability and you overcome obstacles and struggles the same way everyone else does. You do the best you can. Life is not perfect, you are not promised sunshine and roses.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Should the government shoulder the costs of caring for these special needs children? Should the government give the parents a enough money to live on if, caring for their special needs child is a full time job?

[japantiger 4,051]

There is a difference in voluntary euthanasia of the elderly when they wish to die, have complete mental capacity to make that decision and would prefer to end their own life. Though I don't agree with suicide, it is of course their own choice. What I disagree with when it comes to euthanasia is when it is done as a matter of course and without the person having a say. Involuntary euthanasia or so called "mercy killing" is what we have mainly been discussing. Who are you to say whether its better to kill someone or let them live? I am not God and I would never want to be. Frankly the thought of a doctor who would advocate the taking of a life make me nervous. I wouldn't want that doctor in charge of my care. Perhaps that option is always in the back of his mind and he does less than he really should to prolong life.

As to the second question, there are a lot of things I don't know about that situation. But I do know there are situations where simply keeping someone alive is a fruitless effort. Was his treatment for his benefit, to prolong a quality life? Or was it to benefit the parents who couldn't let go of their son? Just because we can extend life doesn't always mean it is the ideal choice.

When it comes to this of course the treatment was to his benefit and to make him comfortable and able to live the best life he was capable of. Of course the parents wanted their child to live, they loved him. He was not on a ventilator. He needed to be fed through a tube and of course everything else had to be taken care of by his parent, hygiene etc.. But the only obstacle to life was the intake of food. Do you seriously think its more humane to starve someone to death simply because they can't talk to you? Because they can't walk, feed themselves, or take care of their bodily functions and need help? Starving them to death is more humane?

As to the third question, I imagine many parents aren't fully capable of rasing a child with down's syndrome. Was it immoral for them to have become pregnant because there was a small chance of having a child that they couldn't properly care for? Possibly, but that is quite a strict standard on become pregnant.

Many parents may not feel they are capable of raising a special needs child. You would be amazed what you can do when you are put into a situation and given the option of failing or making it work. If you had asked me before October of last year would I ever survive the mental trauma of having a breast removed, being told I have cancer, the physical hell of chemo and radiation and the loss of my hair (which was something I had always been known for. It was my one major vanity) I would have said no. I woke up from surgery without one breast and never let if phase me. I haven't worn a wig at all since I lost my hair, and I don't wear scarves either. I let my bald head shine.

So whether they believe they are capable or not, if they truly want a child and they truly love their child the challenge of Downs and any other disability would be met head on, they would grieve that their child might have a harder time than others, but they will do everything they can to make it easier for them and be ready for the next challenge.

Is it immoral to become pregnant if their is a small chance their child will have challenges? Well I asked you that question and though you didn't answer it I will happily answer it for you. Yes, it is immoral. You don't get pregnant on purpose unless you are prepared for the very best AND the very worst that can happen. I don't believe its strict at all. Its being responsible and it is reality. Aborting a child to erase a so called "biological mistake" is immoral.

I think a reasonable reason for having an abortion is that you are not capable of raising the child. Many of those who are strictly anti-abortion see it as black and white, with no discussion about what happens to the child after birth. I think the life after birth is a relevant discussion to have. (Read: Discussion. I am not presuming the quality of life or lackthereof of a person with down's syndrome).

If you are not capable of raising a child don't get pregnant. If you have not thought out every bad thing that could happen, then don't get pregnant. If you cannot handle a less than "perfect" child don't get pregnant. You are obviously not ready for a child. There is birth control available for free at the health department. Condoms are cheap, and as we all know, Obamacare has made it even easier to get the pill at little or no cost.

Children are not expendable. You could take your idea of aborting because you don't like the gene arrangement of your child and extend it to; I don't like the xx/xy chromosome arrangement. Lets abort and try again. Oh doctor my child has my hubbys blue eyes? I want it to have my green. Lets abort and start again. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have suggested taking things even further and aborting children later in life, up to the age of 3 if say for instance the family suddenly loses income. They say children aren't "persons" at that time so its fine to utilize "after-birth" abortion.

The discussion of what happens to a child after birth should be simple. You love the child, you raise it to the best of your ability and you overcome obstacles and struggles the same way everyone else does. You do the best you can. Life is not perfect, you are not promised sunshine and roses.

Well said. Prayers are with you in your battle with cancer.

What you are up against here is the "me" generation....it's all about them and it's all about them not being inconvenienced. Simple principles are hard for them (e.g., life is sacred)....personal accountability and living with the consequences is hard for them. Their ideology guarantees them consequences free, guilt free living subsidized by the rest of us...because, well they're special.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

There is a difference in voluntary euthanasia of the elderly when they wish to die, have complete mental capacity to make that decision and would prefer to end their own life. Though I don't agree with suicide, it is of course their own choice. What I disagree with when it comes to euthanasia is when it is done as a matter of course and without the person having a say. Involuntary euthanasia or so called "mercy killing" is what we have mainly been discussing. Who are you to say whether its better to kill someone or let them live? I am not God and I would never want to be. Frankly the thought of a doctor who would advocate the taking of a life make me nervous. I wouldn't want that doctor in charge of my care. Perhaps that option is always in the back of his mind and he does less than he really should to prolong life.

As to the second question, there are a lot of things I don't know about that situation. But I do know there are situations where simply keeping someone alive is a fruitless effort. Was his treatment for his benefit, to prolong a quality life? Or was it to benefit the parents who couldn't let go of their son? Just because we can extend life doesn't always mean it is the ideal choice.

When it comes to this of course the treatment was to his benefit and to make him comfortable and able to live the best life he was capable of. Of course the parents wanted their child to live, they loved him. He was not on a ventilator. He needed to be fed through a tube and of course everything else had to be taken care of by his parent, hygiene etc.. But the only obstacle to life was the intake of food. Do you seriously think its more humane to starve someone to death simply because they can't talk to you? Because they can't walk, feed themselves, or take care of their bodily functions and need help? Starving them to death is more humane?

As to the third question, I imagine many parents aren't fully capable of rasing a child with down's syndrome. Was it immoral for them to have become pregnant because there was a small chance of having a child that they couldn't properly care for? Possibly, but that is quite a strict standard on become pregnant.

Many parents may not feel they are capable of raising a special needs child. You would be amazed what you can do when you are put into a situation and given the option of failing or making it work. If you had asked me before October of last year would I ever survive the mental trauma of having a breast removed, being told I have cancer, the physical hell of chemo and radiation and the loss of my hair (which was something I had always been known for. It was my one major vanity) I would have said no. I woke up from surgery without one breast and never let if phase me. I haven't worn a wig at all since I lost my hair, and I don't wear scarves either. I let my bald head shine.

So whether they believe they are capable or not, if they truly want a child and they truly love their child the challenge of Downs and any other disability would be met head on, they would grieve that their child might have a harder time than others, but they will do everything they can to make it easier for them and be ready for the next challenge.

Is it immoral to become pregnant if their is a small chance their child will have challenges? Well I asked you that question and though you didn't answer it I will happily answer it for you. Yes, it is immoral. You don't get pregnant on purpose unless you are prepared for the very best AND the very worst that can happen. I don't believe its strict at all. Its being responsible and it is reality. Aborting a child to erase a so called "biological mistake" is immoral.

I think a reasonable reason for having an abortion is that you are not capable of raising the child. Many of those who are strictly anti-abortion see it as black and white, with no discussion about what happens to the child after birth. I think the life after birth is a relevant discussion to have. (Read: Discussion. I am not presuming the quality of life or lackthereof of a person with down's syndrome).

If you are not capable of raising a child don't get pregnant. If you have not thought out every bad thing that could happen, then don't get pregnant. If you cannot handle a less than "perfect" child don't get pregnant. You are obviously not ready for a child. There is birth control available for free at the health department. Condoms are cheap, and as we all know, Obamacare has made it even easier to get the pill at little or no cost.

Children are not expendable. You could take your idea of aborting because you don't like the gene arrangement of your child and extend it to; I don't like the xx/xy chromosome arrangement. Lets abort and try again. Oh doctor my child has my hubbys blue eyes? I want it to have my green. Lets abort and start again. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have suggested taking things even further and aborting children later in life, up to the age of 3 if say for instance the family suddenly loses income. They say children aren't "persons" at that time so its fine to utilize "after-birth" abortion.

The discussion of what happens to a child after birth should be simple. You love the child, you raise it to the best of your ability and you overcome obstacles and struggles the same way everyone else does. You do the best you can. Life is not perfect, you are not promised sunshine and roses.

Well said. Prayers are with you in your battle with cancer.

What you are up against here is the "me" generation....it's all about them and it's all about them not being inconvenienced. Simple principles are hard for them (e.g., life is sacred)....personal accountability and living with the consequences is hard for them. Their ideology guarantees them consequences free, guilt free living subsidized by the rest of us...because, well they're special.

What is the age group to whom you refer to as the "me generation"?

[Tigermike 3,039]

"What is the age group to whom you refer to as the "me generation"?" Some never grow out of it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"What is the age group to whom you refer to as the "me generation"?" Some never grow out of it.

Okay, how do you characterize, define them?

[Grumps 3,704]

Should the government shoulder the costs of caring for these special needs children? Should the government give the parents a enough money to live on if, caring for their special needs child is a full time job?

This is the important question. Very often we confuse what is moral with what is the government's responsibility.

[Grumps 3,704]

"What is the age group to whom you refer to as the "me generation"?" Some never grow out of it.

Okay, how do you characterize, define them?

I'll give my answer, if I may. I was raised to believe that I was part of many groups, and that I had an important role in those groups, and that others also had important roles. I was taught that the effectiveness of the group (family/school/church/community) depended on all of us. I was taught that I was special, but so was everyone else. It seems to me that today people (especially children) are taught that they are the most special and important being that was ever created and that their self-esteem and happiness is the most important thing in the world. Instant gratification is important. Self sacrifice for others is lacking. These people, in my opinion, are the "me" generation.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"What is the age group to whom you refer to as the "me generation"?" Some never grow out of it.

Okay, how do you characterize, define them?

I'll give my answer, if I may. I was raised to believe that I was part of many groups, and that I had an important role in those groups, and that others also had important roles. I was taught that the effectiveness of the group (family/school/church/community) depended on all of us. I was taught that I was special, but so was everyone else. It seems to me that today people (especially children) are taught that they are the most special and important being that was ever created and that their self-esteem and happiness is the most important thing in the world. Instant gratification is important. Self sacrifice for others is lacking. These people, in my opinion, are the "me" generation.

Are these the people who benefit from the institutions of our society and yet do not want to pay taxes corresponding to the benefits they derive or, are these the people who just don't want to get up in the morning?

My point has nothing to do with the class, just the opposite. My point is, you cannot define them by age or by class.

I think we have replaced a sense of doing the "right thing" with doing whatever is "legal". The is no longer any shame associated "gaming the system". It is being done by all types of people in all segments of society.

[japantiger 4,051]

"What is the age group to whom you refer to as the "me generation"?" Some never grow out of it.

Okay, how do you characterize, define them?

I'll give my answer, if I may. I was raised to believe that I was part of many groups, and that I had an important role in those groups, and that others also had important roles. I was taught that the effectiveness of the group (family/school/church/community) depended on all of us. I was taught that I was special, but so was everyone else. It seems to me that today people (especially children) are taught that they are the most special and important being that was ever created and that their self-esteem and happiness is the most important thing in the world. Instant gratification is important. Self sacrifice for others is lacking. These people, in my opinion, are the "me" generation.

Are these the people who benefit from the institutions of our society and yet do not want to pay taxes corresponding to the benefits they derive or, are these the people who just don't want to get up in the morning?

My point has nothing to do with the class, just the opposite. My point is, you cannot define them by age or by class.

I think we have replaced a sense of doing the "right thing" with doing whatever is "legal". The is no longer any shame associated "gaming the system". It is being done by all types of people in all segments of society.

I would add to your comment on doing what is legal vs right ; and I think you nailed it on the lack of good old fashioned shame...it is the crowd that feels they are entitled to an easy life; that someone owes it to them (the gov't, me, you, society) and that if things don't go their way it's "unfair" (whatever that is) and they should be payed for their inconvenience. If it feels right; do it; and if it goes horribly/predictably awry; then get someone else to bail them out/pay for it/cover their ass/whatever. It is human nature; it is timeless...only now; you have an entire political apparatus aiding and abetting it....to the point that you are being "heartless" even if you don't pay for someones promiscuity.

[Weegle777 78]

What would stop many of these abortions is to do what I stated earlier. Give the mother a scalpel and have her end her own baby's life. Our morality compass has gotten way off course. Some ask if it is moral to bring a child into this world if the baby isn't perfect, and then turn right around and want to hypocritically use the bible to say, "Judge not, lest you be judged!" You have no idea what "quality of life" a person with downs may have. Those that use that argument are the ones who don't want to be so called "humiliated" in front of others for having a less than perfect child. If God blesses you with a baby with downs, you should feel honored that He thought you had what it took to raise that child. Who are you to judge that baby a curse instead of a blessing?

[Weegle777 78]

Why end the life of a precious little girl such as Isabella? She seems like her "quality of life" is pretty good by that pretty smile!

[japantiger 4,051]

Why end the life of a precious little girl such as Isabella? She seems like her "quality of life" is pretty good by that pretty smile!

She is absolutely beautiful and perfect...

[cptau 169]

The discarding of an innocent human life is a horrible act.

I think people need to read about "Action T4, Gnadentod" and the following concepts.

"Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens" and "Ballastexistenzen"

What the above led to was even worse.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Should the government shoulder the costs of caring for these special needs children? Should the government give the parents a enough money to live on if, caring for their special needs child is a full time job?

This is the important question. Very often we confuse what is moral with what is the government's responsibility.

Can we as a society impose such a responsibility on anyone? Should we as a society share such responsibility?

[Grumps 3,704]

Should the government shoulder the costs of caring for these special needs children? Should the government give the parents a enough money to live on if, caring for their special needs child is a full time job?

This is the important question. Very often we confuse what is moral with what is the government's responsibility.

Can we as a society impose such a responsibility on anyone? Should we as a society share such responsibility?

I believe that society should bear most of the burden. When government tries to bear the burden we end up with our current problem.

[Grumps 3,704]

Why end the life of a precious little girl such as Isabella? She seems like her "quality of life" is pretty good by that pretty smile!

She is absolutely beautiful and perfect...

Beautiful, but not perfect.

[cooltigger21 0]

Should the government shoulder the costs of caring for these special needs children? Should the government give the parents a enough money to live on if, caring for their special needs child is a full time job?

This is the important question. Very often we confuse what is moral with what is the government's responsibility.

Can we as a society impose such a responsibility on anyone? Should we as a society share such responsibility?

I believe that society should bear most of the burden. When government tries to bear the burden we end up with our current problem.

We have a whole host of govt. programs at the state and federal level now that people can access in order to ease that "burden"

[Weegle777 78]

Why end the life of a precious little girl such as Isabella? She seems like her "quality of life" is pretty good by that pretty smile!

She is absolutely beautiful and perfect...

Beautiful, but not perfect.

Maybe not in your eyes, but in her parent's eyes she is, so you don't matter.