It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

French TV Bans Smiling Down Syndrome Kids - Dear Future Moms Banned As Offensive

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: trollz

There's was a small group in Germany who were big on eugenics as progress oh, about 80 years ago or so... you related to them in any way, or just fans of their work?


Yeah? They also believed we should protect the environment and that animals should never be mistreated. Is that evil too? If I said it's bad to pollute and throw your trash into the environment, are you going to call me a Nazi? Ideas don't belong to groups of people, they belong to all of humanity. If I say something that reminds you of some policy of Nazi Germany, that doesn't make me a Nazi, it makes me a human being that has an idea.




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to: trollz

But in the above thread you stated difficulties communicating with your mother at a level above child and suspect her being mildly retarded.
I'm curious about your cut off point with retardation and abortion, how retarded is too retarded?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I have problems with french cultural regard towards people with disabilities.

Though I can only roll my eyes at some of the comments here, which are exaggerated and do not take into account the context... but then, that isn't their fault. You don't know what you don't know, and making hasty judgements is easy the less you know...

The whole culture is built around values of conformity , in order to promote solidarity.
Unlike the American idea that real solidarity can be achieved between peoples who are all very different (hows that working out for ya?)
They tend to think that the more we have in common, the less we try to put emphasis on ways we are different,
the more collective bonding can be achieved.

That's why they feel religion should be kept within the home or within places of worship, not in common public areas, for example.
That's why, if you are eating or drinking something, it is rude to do it in front of others unless you plan on sharing - otherwise do it at home or otherwise out of public.

Any thing that provokes or stimulates sense of being different is considered a detriment to the strong collective bond (which counters and opposes the government, by the way, for the "Orwellian" confused folk...)

So yeah, there's laws against anti-sematic speech, for example....that separates people. Stuff like that. THE PEOPLE want certain limits upon separating acts, so they can keep their power against the government.

Now, unfortunately, that means also that people with disabilities are treated somewhat like religion - it's okay to have them, just keep them out of the public areas.

You don't see people with handicaps in public. I was very confused by this at first. Many are kept in specialized homes, some are simply kept by the family, in the family home. I have known a couple of these families.
Two of my good friends come from such families - they are not ashamed, they consider it protecting them from the ignorance and potential cruelty of others.

I often argue with them that my handicapped sister went to the same school as I, and kids in our area were understanding and comfortable with disabilities because they were used to them.

-But you know, she has also had some terrible experiences with predator men and boys though too..My theory of integration has some flaws as well...Her life is very very hard. Yes, I have dared to wonder at times if it wouldn't have been better if she hadn't been born. I can't go far with the thought, but I am dishonest if I pretend the experience of integration in our society has been ideal.

I also know someone in my family in law who had a late abortion when she found out her baby had Downs. I am confused by the choice, but nobody in the family dares to speak about it to them. It is considered their personal choice and a very difficult one, so respect for their personal life is applied. They went on to get pregnant again and had a child without disabilities.

I don't like it, but I think it is okay to not purposefully try to hurt such people. What if they were not capable of taking care of a child with disabilities? I don't know. What if we have souls, and the soul of that child gets to experience life without limiting disabilities instead of the first body? I don't know.

In any case, if people choose to have a child with disabilities here, they will mostly be tied to the home for life, and a large part of their life will be in secret. Already, schools do not have, for example many different math classes per grade, according to abilities - you either fit within the norm, or you get held back until you are at the same level as anyone else. There are not special classes for anyone. I don't see it happening any time soon either.

I don't feel comfortable with the current situation in France concerning disabilities; but I think I like their respect for the privacy of the individual .



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I'm old.

The last thing I want is an outside agency, government, to determine for me, the quality of life.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to: trollz

But in the above thread you stated difficulties communicating with your mother at a level above child and suspect her being mildly retarded.
I'm curious about your cut off point with retardation and abortion, how retarded is too retarded?


Well if a person is able to function and work and be independent and whatnot, that's a bit different than someone who has to be cared for their entire lives due to a lack of ability to do the most basic of things. My mother can do things any other person can do, such as work or drive a car or cook, etc etc. For all intents and purposes, she's a normal person. But I can't expect any sort of intelligent discussion from her; she's just not capable. She literally thinks the sun and the moon are the same size since that's what they look like in the sky. I'm not saying that to make fun of her but to give you an example of her lack of ability to really "think".
To more directly answer your question, I'd say "too retarded" is when you're at the point that a person is unable to care for themselves, as with most Down Syndrome individuals, or when a person has retardation as a result of an inheritable genetic defect that could have been otherwise prevented. Basically... If the individual is unable to survive on its own.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There will be a reckoning, one day.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

I know exactly what you mean. I'm originally from Pennsylvania where there was a large Amish/Mennonite or otherwise strict religious community. Sometimes within these communities, disabled people are treated similarly to what you describe. I personally know a woman who is disabled along with her sister, and the mother essentially keeps them as prisoners in their home. They're not allowed to leave the house or talk to anyone and they're lucky if they even see a doctor. It makes me feel sick inside knowing how they're treated. I have spoken a bit about how I feel we shouldn't be promoting the birth of children with retardation or serious defects, but I've never advocated for them to be mistreated if they are born.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Your standard of caring for oneself makes anyone deaf and blind # out of luck in your world then as well?
Oh and just to be clear, do you advocate mandatory abortions for certain conditions prior to birth, or support parental choice?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

You are from America aren't you?

America used to be very much as you describe. Still is in some areas, I believe.

My mom was disabled in 1951 when I was 5. She was treated similarly as LGBT are treated today in non-accepting areas. We (mom, 3 kids under 7) were ejected from businesses. Even thrown out of a restaurant mid meal because another customer was uncomfortable.

Inclusion in school is fairly new. Activists are still fighting for it.

My daughter was ADD. Way back in 1974, when it was just beginning to be widely recognized. She had zero attention span on a one-on-one. She also required physical contact as in holding and squeezing her hands with one-on-one focus. The solution at the time was dump all non-conforming kids into one classroom. Which was mostly babysitting.

I was very fortunate to have a doctor who stood up for her and refused to allow this to happen. Then an experimental program, which fit her needs, was brought into her grade school. The only one in the entire state of California.

USA has evolved through activism. We still have a long way to go.

So, is this film a true activist film about taking care of LIVING children with Downs or a guilt trip on women who've chosen to abort? From what I've read the latter is at least a part of it. Which I can not support.

edit on 27-11-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: trollz

There's was a small group in Germany who were big on eugenics as progress oh, about 80 years ago or so... you related to them in any way, or just fans of their work?


Yeah? They also believed we should protect the environment and that animals should never be mistreated. Is that evil too? If I said it's bad to pollute and throw your trash into the environment, are you going to call me a Nazi? Ideas don't belong to groups of people, they belong to all of humanity. If I say something that reminds you of some policy of Nazi Germany, that doesn't make me a Nazi, it makes me a human being that has an idea.


Only issue is that the root of the Holocaust was eugenics, not protecting the environment or being nice to animals. If you're defending eugenics, yeah... I'm saying you're placing yourself amongst the same mindset that the Nazis had. Don't like that? Then change your ideas.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Hey! I'm with ya.

I agree with everything you've stated.




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Nm
edit on 27-11-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: trollz
Your standard of caring for oneself makes anyone deaf and blind # out of luck in your world then as well?

No, not at all. People who are deaf can perfectly well have productive, relatively normal lives. People who are blind would obviously have more difficulties, but they can still be productive or contribute to the furtherance of humanity regardless. Deafness and blindness are not mental retardation. Now, if a blind or a deaf person knew that if they reproduced, they'd pass that same disability off to their children, I don't think they should reproduce because that seems morally wrong to me. You wouldn't go up to someone and poke their eyes out, so why create another human who can't see?


originally posted by: grainofsand
Oh and just to be clear, do you advocate mandatory abortions for certain conditions prior to birth, or support parental choice?

Well in extreme cases such as where a child is going to be born without 90% of its brain, or without any arms or legs, then yes, I think it's best for it to not be born. In such cases I'd have no objection to mandatory abortions. Otherwise I think the decision should be up to the women (and men) who were responsible for the pregnancy. Should women be free to give birth to children with Down Syndrome? Sure. But I retain the right to disagree with the choice, and I don't think we should be advocating or promoting it as something that is "good".

For anyone who is opposed to abortion, let me propose something:
I believe the soul and body are two separate things. I don't believe that if an unborn child is aborted, the soul that would have otherwise inhabited it dies also. I believe that soul will continue to exist and simply be born into another child. Human beings do not have the ability to destroy souls.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz


I wish I didn't have to explain this to people, but "trollz" refers to the trolls of Scandinavian folklore.


LOL. Nice troll.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

You lost me when you stated you support mandatory abortions.
How would you prefer it done?
Women in chains? Maybe drugged to sleep?
Sounds a bit barbaric to me but perhaps you could explain how you'd enforce mandatory abortions?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: trollz

There's was a small group in Germany who were big on eugenics as progress oh, about 80 years ago or so... you related to them in any way, or just fans of their work?


Yeah? They also believed we should protect the environment and that animals should never be mistreated. Is that evil too? If I said it's bad to pollute and throw your trash into the environment, are you going to call me a Nazi? Ideas don't belong to groups of people, they belong to all of humanity. If I say something that reminds you of some policy of Nazi Germany, that doesn't make me a Nazi, it makes me a human being that has an idea.


Only issue is that the root of the Holocaust was eugenics, not protecting the environment or being nice to animals. If you're defending eugenics, yeah... I'm saying you're placing yourself amongst the same mindset that the Nazis had. Don't like that? Then change your ideas.


You're going completely off track here and I think your evocation of the Holocaust and accusations that I'm being like a Nazi are inappropriate. Instead of discussing the topic, you're attempting to attack me for doing so.
I will not change my ideas just because someone on the internet told me to. If YOU don't like it then you're free to not participate in the discussion.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: grainofsand
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to: trollz

But in the above thread you stated difficulties communicating with your mother at a level above child and suspect her being mildly retarded.
I'm curious about your cut off point with retardation and abortion, how retarded is too retarded?


Well if a person is able to function and work and be independent and whatnot, that's a bit different than someone who has to be cared for their entire lives due to a lack of ability to do the most basic of things. My mother can do things any other person can do, such as work or drive a car or cook, etc etc. For all intents and purposes, she's a normal person. But I can't expect any sort of intelligent discussion from her; she's just not capable. She literally thinks the sun and the moon are the same size since that's what they look like in the sky. I'm not saying that to make fun of her but to give you an example of her lack of ability to really "think".
To more directly answer your question, I'd say "too retarded" is when you're at the point that a person is unable to care for themselves, as with most Down Syndrome individuals, or when a person has retardation as a result of an inheritable genetic defect that could have been otherwise prevented. Basically...If the individual is unable to survive on its own.


I'm trying to understand you. I truly am because I want to.

With your statements (portions bolded above) is it reasonable to believe that you would be of the opinion that if someone is paralyzed in an accident or an elderly individual is handicapped by arthritis or dementia than they should be euthanized because they can no longer take care of themselves and need assistance?

(I'm not talking about the decision to terminate a pregnancy when a terrible disorder is discovered in utero at the moment. I'm speaking only of people who have already been born.)

Your own mother perhaps? If she lacks the ability, you indicated, to carry on an intelligent conversation than something like...I don't know perhaps...alzheimer's would hit her quite hard and fast would it not?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: trollz

You lost me when you stated you support mandatory abortions.
How would you prefer it done?
Women in chains? Maybe drugged to sleep?
Sounds a bit barbaric to me but perhaps you could explain how you'd enforce mandatory abortions?


For extreme cases like where a child is going to be born without most of its brain, or without arms and legs, sure.
How would it be enforced? I have no idea. I have no obligation to decide that.
You know what I think is barbaric? Giving birth to children with Harlequin ichthyosis and forcing them to suffer.
Go ahead and defend that one.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
With your statements (portions bolded above) is it reasonable to believe that you would be of the opinion that if someone is paralyzed in an accident or an elderly individual is handicapped by arthritis or dementia than they should be euthanized because they can no longer take care of themselves and need assistance?


NO NO NO.
Anybody who is disabled or who needs assistance needs to be cared for and treated well!
Nobody should be killed for being disabled or handicapped!
All I'm saying is that if we can choose not to give birth to children with major genetic defects or retardation or other such things, I believe it is best not to have those births when that choice is within our power...



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
With your statements (portions bolded above) is it reasonable to believe that you would be of the opinion that if someone is paralyzed in an accident or an elderly individual is handicapped by arthritis or dementia than they should be euthanized because they can no longer take care of themselves and need assistance?


NO NO NO.
Anybody who is disabled or who needs assistance needs to be cared for and treated well!
Nobody should be killed for being disabled or handicapped!
All I'm saying is that if we can choose not to give birth to children with major genetic defects or retardation or other such things, I believe it is best not to have those births when that choice is within our power...


Okay, that statement makes a little more sense. So, in summary you do believe it's an individual choice. Once a person is born than they should be cared for equally and expect the same as the rest of the normal folks in their individual communities. Someone choosing to have an abortion is their individual choice and someone not choosing to is their individual choice. Folks can't and shouldn't expect others to believe or feel the same way as they do and cannot impose their feelings and beliefs onto them to make them act in accordance or alignment with their personal belief system.

If those statements are true then you and I agree on those points.



new topics




 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join