Man only fosters terminally ill children

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: johnnysixguns

If I could I would happily deny someone an existence that consisted of nothing but darkness, silence, immobility and daily seizures.

Yeah but I’m sure your all correct, this girl must be having a wonderful time inside her mind with absolutely zero understanding of any aspect of reality other than the touch of a well meaning stranger and constant seizures

I see nuance is not a strength of yours, and the point flew over your head.

If you're so sure no existence is better than any existence, what keeps you hanging around? Why not follow your own advice?

Would it be appropriate if someone with a "better" existence decided the right thing to do would be to end yours? Since yours could never compare to theirs?

I do see IKS's point here. Is existing in a terminal state, for many kids since birth, really living? How is it even humane? Death doesn't come painlessly for the terminal, it can be downright excruciating at best. I find it deplorable to make terminal kids live through that until their bodies give out, we treat our terminal pets better than this & refuse to let them suffer in that manner. But kids, we allow to live in indescribable pain while they slowly wither & die. There's a mix-up of ethics here.

And this girl, is living in a seizure-wracked, dark, soundless void really existing? One could say Helen Keller is an example of it, but did she also live through seizures, too? She wasn't terminal, either.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: johnnysixguns

If I could I would happily deny someone an existence that consisted of nothing but darkness, silence, immobility and daily seizures.

Yeah but I’m sure your all correct, this girl must be having a wonderful time inside her mind with absolutely zero understanding of any aspect of reality other than the touch of a well meaning stranger and constant seizures

I see nuance is not a strength of yours, and the point flew over your head.

If you're so sure no existence is better than any existence, what keeps you hanging around? Why not follow your own advice?

Would it be appropriate if someone with a "better" existence decided the right thing to do would be to end yours? Since yours could never compare to theirs?

I do see IKS's point here. Is existing in a terminal state, for many kids since birth, really living? How is it even humane? Death doesn't come painlessly for the terminal, it can be downright excruciating at best. I find it deplorable to make terminal kids live through that until their bodies give out, we treat our terminal pets better than this & refuse to let them suffer in that manner. But kids, we allow to live in indescribable pain while they slowly wither & die. There's a mix-up of ethics here.

And this girl, is living in a seizure-wracked, dark, soundless void really existing? One could say Helen Keller is an example of it, but did she also live through seizures, too? She wasn't terminal, either.

All my questions still apply. You're only projecting your own existence and contrasting it to theirs. I ask again - is the alternative of no existence better than any existence?

I doubt death comes painlessly for anyone except a fortunate few.

Animals and humans are not the same creature. And I'm all for assisted suicide and compassion, but that is a choice that can only be made by the sufferer. Not anyone else.