Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "There are many people who argue that childhood innoculations are painful, unnessary, and potentially harmful. (They is evidence that they ARE potentially harmful.) And so they lobby against having their own kids innoculated, despite the evidence that the "greater good" is to have all kids vaccinated. Should they be allowed to subject their kids to the posibility of disabling or fatal illnesses -- all for the sake of avoiding a miniscule chance of a bad reaction to the vaccine?" I57, as always, your arguement is rational and has some merit. I am very pro immunisations. However, there is a definate benefit to innoculating our population. There are only two benefits in this case (the sad one jonvn has highlighted about sexual assault - which is sad but true, but it can still happen anyway, surgery or not, just not a pregnancy and the perceived ease of care by the parents). But I have worked with grown women with a similar level of severity in their conditions. I really believe this child was put at unnecessary risk. The procedures are not straight forward, and with such disabilities, the heart and lung function are at a much greater risk than a 35 year old, fairly healthy woman for instance. They made the call, they have to live with it, and I hope they still have as great a parent/child relationship as they can. I cannot condone their course of action, but it is done now.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo ""Stunting a child's growth" [definitely a loaded term] is certainly an unusual surgery. But I'm not convinced that it's any more risky or selfish than a number of other procedures that are considered common, normal, and/or acceptable." But here is my point. Female circumcision is considered common, normal, and/or acceptable in African Countries. The risks in Africa of aids and rape are very high, so you could argue there is a point to it. But in the West it is considered Child Abuse and is an imprisonable offence. It has lead to a number of deaths or abnormal conceptions when the procedure is reversed later in life. So by your rationale Inspector which is right? Afterall female circumcision in that part of the world is far more common, normal, and/or acceptable than this procedure.
Originally Posted By MomofPrincess Jonvn, it's because you sound so freaking heartless in your replies that you get the responses you do. (I also venture to say that you're already well aware of that and purposely do it to get a rise out of people.) Pulling the plug on someone, and slowly starving someone to death (Terri Schiavo style), are two different scenarios. Both heartwrenching, certainly, but two completely different situations. And just because this little girl's in a minimally responsive state now does not mean there won't be technology--or intense physical/occupational/speech therapy--down the road that could change her situation, even slightly. To just write her off as a "vegetable" is cold and unfeeling. As for her being a burden to the state? Whatever. There are millions of people who are burdens to the state, and it's because of the lifestyles they lead, not because of the way they were born. Disabled people aren't considered "burdens" to most of us.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo YAY MoP - you have even more respect of mine. Totally agree with everything you are saying. I think sport stars are more of a burden on society. What value do they truly add?
Originally Posted By MomofPrincess Thank you so much, Dave. I am usually a little kinder than this, but this topic is an especially sore spot for me. I appreciate your support.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jonvn, it's because you sound so freaking heartless in your replies that you get the responses you do." I'm not the least bit heartless. I am speaking to the point, and am terse. "To just write her off as a "vegetable" is cold and unfeeling." It's also pragmatic, and will help in deciding what is actually the best course of action. "Disabled people aren't considered "burdens" to most of us." It's going to cost a lot of money to keep this person alive. That is a burden that will be borne by the state. It is not in the sense of the word you are using, though.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<So by your rationale Inspector which is right? Afterall female circumcision in that part of the world is far more common, normal, and/or acceptable than this procedure.>> I get your point, davewasbaloo. The fact that something is common, normal, or socially accepted doesn't mean that it is right. (I feel that way about the US' consumption of needlessly huge motor vehicles, about the promotion of sexual activity in media targeted toward youth, about gay jokes, about the decline in service standards, and about "reality" TV shows in our culture, among other things.) MY point was the fact that something being NOT common or normal doesn't automatically make it wrong. "Stunting a kid's growth" is unusual and media-worthy. And so we get an "ewwwwww!" reaction to the news of it. But when we look at the risk/benefit analysis of this case, is the parents' decision really so much "weirder" than than decisions that others make, unquestioned, every day? I think that these parents believed there was a significant benefit to having these surgeries performed, and that the benefit outweighed the risks. That's the same decision parents make when they decide to get their kid vaccinated or circumcised or to have braces installed. As regards "female circumcision"... I'm glad it's not allowed here. I wish it weren't done elsewhere. But I'm not sure I believe that I/we have the power/right/authority to march into another culture and tell them that they need to conform to US standards.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 You don't get it both ways jonvn. On one hand you say it would have been better for her to be aborted and that she is a vegtable not being able to think, communicate enjoy life. So why bring up this weird sex assault stuff as if some assault on her would even affect her, as if she would be a victim. After all according to you she can't live, feel, think like a person.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Do you have anything to contribute to this topic other than criticizing jonvn's comments? Sometimes people can "have it both ways" while having a discussion, especially a discussion about issues like this where there are many different ethical angles.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You don't get it both ways jonvn." I'm not trying to get anything any way. "On one hand you say it would have been better for her to be aborted and that she is a vegtable not being able to think, communicate enjoy life. " That's right. "So why bring up this weird sex assault stuff as if some assault on her would even affect her, as if she would be a victim." Because then she won't become pregnant. No, it won't affect her. She won't know it. Of course, it might affect her parents, and anyone who then has to take care of the child of a sicko rapist, or abort the baby. You need to think through this stuff.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 Grand answer jonvn. And for the 50th poster I see you are still hung over from the religion topic where I thought you unfairly got on cmpaley and expected him or her to apologize when he or she did nothing wrong. I guess you are going to make this a personal thing, no?
Originally Posted By jonvn I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I really don't. I think someone else was talking about apologies, I wasn't. If you want to go out of your way to attack me, at least do it for something I've actually said. It's not like I don't give people big openings in that department.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 I see how I confused you jonvn, sorry. ////the 50th poster I see you are still hung over from the religion topic where I thought you unfairly got on cmpaley and expected him or her to apologize when he or she did nothing wrong. I guess you are going to make this a personal thing, no?//// this part was not to you jonvn, only the ///grand answer/// part was for you. everything else was for melekali( wow that is a long name)
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>As regards "female circumcision"... I'm glad it's not allowed here. I wish it weren't done elsewhere. But I'm not sure I believe that I/we have the power/right/authority to march into another culture and tell them that they need to conform to US standards.<<< Inspector, sorry to sound blunt but do you realize what female circumcision actually IS? It's removal or mutilation of the clitoris. It's intention is to deny women normal sexual sensations. If Canada were to start removing the left eye of every baby as a "cultural" thing, would you not think a group of other countries should get together and try and put a stop to it? Frankly, I'd RATHER lose an eye (I'll go ahead and keep everything though, thanks).
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>You don't get it both ways jonvn. On one hand you say it would have been better for her to be aborted and that she is a vegtable not being able to think, communicate enjoy life. So why bring up this weird sex assault stuff as if some assault on her would even affect her, as if she would be a victim. After all according to you she can't live, feel, think like a person.<<< ClintFlint, aka ThemeParkLover, is trying to catch Jon in the act of doublespeak. Jon may be many things (I think the "heartless" comment is a little over the top, BUT it's fair to say he can sound pretty abrasive at times in his posts), but the accusation of "inconsistant views" is not among them. ThemeParkLover, that was a dumb attempt. You should have read his original post. That's where he mentioned the potential PREGNANCY (not the rape issue) as a problem. I got it right away, I'm surprised you didn't. Or, you did, and you're just trolling away as usual. <---looks forward to ThemeParkLover writing back something (as ClintFlint) like "Who is ThemeParkLover? I've never heard of him. He sounds like a cool guy though". Jackass.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>If you want to go out of your way to attack me, at least do it for something I've actually said. It's not like I don't give people big openings in that department.<<< LMAO. If we had "signatures" on LP, that would become mine!
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 (ThemeparkLover)/// Now that's a name that I have not heard in a long, long time///
