Another Autism Fillicide

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps you could come up with a better counter argument than to compare me with a vigilante. And why do you presume that I am without compassion for the disabled. Sometimes it is the more compassionate thing to end a suffering life than to watch and praise God for it.

While I do not know your view a lot of American eugencists supporters thought eugenics was the humane thing to do for the disabled because it saved them from a life of misery.

It used to be called mercy killing.

The deceased served no utilitarian purpose, in the secular, materialistic sense. The eugenicists would have thought that charity is misguided, and they were also saving pollyannaish people from the burden.

And, as an adamant rescuer of people, places, and things, I would say that my efforts have many times been sabotaged, or the rescued has been ungrateful. Besides being a resource-hog, was this person a jerk.

If you think not, at least, quit confusing the meanings of simple words, during a sensitive time, sjw's. You know what this line of thinking entails, and we are all lucky it hasn't been applied to us.

You guys are all making the same mistake. You view all life as equal in value. But this is not the case. People's lives and their experience of life are unique. This is what confuses me about "pro life," "life" is never defined. Are we really so obtuse as not to be able to see that a physically and mentally healthy person's life is a better experience than someone whose experience is suffering. Life for life's sake is as base as throwing a party over a petri dish.
And I am saying this out of compassion. I don't think disabled people should be mistreated because of their challenges, they should be supported as long as they live. But there is a bigger picture. The population has grown too much in the last century to avoid the possibility of population control. We have to start thinking of humanity as an entity that needs to be kept healthy. And people as parts of that entity. The stronger the parts the stronger the whole.

Are you saying that the blind, autistic person may have been miserable, and this was an assisted suicide?

No, this incidence was unfortunate and should have been prevented. I have compassion for both the son and the mother. I blame society for failing to offer assistance to those taking care of the disabled. Things shouldn't have been allowed to get to the point where something like this happens.

The you believe that society, at large, has reached this point?

I think it's already started happening. As science is more accurately able to predict disorders it will become the norm to abort the imperfect.

I am thinking of the pendulum of history, swinging away from decadence. In general, demoralization is followed by a purge.

They would all kill us if they could.

Once a prenatal test is available, we're history.

Civilisation and progress will then cease and they can go back to being animals. They won't like it though.

How is that not first degree murder...when she intended to kill him the entire time. She feels like she's going to throw up huh....well imagine how her son felt being denied food, water, necessary medication with her watching him die and doing nothing to help. I have no pity, sympathy or empathy for this woman.

From the sound of it she wouldn't have taken him to such a place...as that would have interfered with her plans of 'helping god take him out of this world.' via killing him. Doesn't sound of a case of her being just too overwhelmed and drained to have any idea what to do...seems she had very specific plans of killing him rather than any spur of the moment desperation.

She took him to a field and let him die a slow painful death, if that's not a reason to 'cast stones' I don't know what is....I cannot believe you're trying to justify this, or criticizing people for being disgusted with what she has done. There should certainly be help for parents dealing with a disabled child, and options to have them taken care of if it really is too overwhelming. But there is no way to know if this woman would have taken up such help rather than killing him.

In some senerios I could certainly see putting someone out of their misery as the most humane option, but a blind kid who needed some medication? I don't see that as being in that category. Also, it seems she induced even more suffering to kill him...so I don't see how you can argue she was trying to do the more compassionate thing.

There's never a reason to cast stones, that's the whole point.


I don't think I'm trying to justify it. There is no justice to it. The boy died a horrible death that he did nothing to deserve. I think I'm trying to understand how such a horrible thing could happen.


Just offering another point of view.


We don't know; it's possible she is evil. It happens. But I don't know enough about this specific case to know.


If she was trying to end his life out of compassion she really screwed it up. It's possible she is not mentally well. But that doesn't make what she did okay.
It's like John Hinckley Jr. being released. He shot the President for heaven's sake. Even if his mental condition has improved he still shot the President. He should stay in jail.

How do you know? where exactly do you draw the line?