I have a question.

[BabyPiglet]

This is mildly inspired by the holocaust thread.

If you truly, deeply, believe that you're doing some right. That it's for the greater good & it will make things better. I mean like, from the depth of your soul you believe you're doing the right thing. Is it still wrong?

Okay, forget the autistic thing, lol. People were getting to caught up in the example, so I'm changing it.

I don't want to get into politics, but I will anyways.

George Bush and GITMO. He truly thought that torturing people and not giving them their 'rights' was the best for our country.

So does that make it wrong? Does that make it right, if he bad the best of intentions?

 

[PigletGurl]

Yup. Just because you believe what you are doing is right, doesn't mean its true. Hilter thought he was doing the right thing, when he really wasn't.

 

[3mtn-kate]

Oo thats tough...I think that if you are hurting more people than you are helping it is still wrong.

If you killed this autistic child you be hurting the family deeply, even if you are putting this child in a better place it doesn't change the pain you are putting the family in.

 

[chisnpeke]

Yes it's still wrong. If you think that it's ok to kill a child with autism then you are severely disturbed in the head.

I might think it's right to steal from a bank but just because I have a messed up way of thinking doesn't make it right.

 

[imabrat]

I think it really depends on the situation.

I put my beloved cat down in August. It tore me to pieces because I've never lost something before that I loved so much. The odds weren't in his favor. It was either put him down, or bring him home with round the clock care, and even then he wouldn't live much longer.
I knew that he was suffering, and I knew what it felt like. I loved him too much to let him go through that pain, so I decided to let him go. I thought, and still do think, going to the Rainbow Bridge was better for him. Sure, it was tough, but I got over it.

Now, if you want to put something like Hilter to this situation, well I dunno. Hitler thought it was right, and all he did was murder thousands of people. Then it's wrong.

In your example, yes I would let the child go. I know what the suffering feels like first hand, and I don't want someone I love to go through that.

 

[imabrat]

Yes it's still wrong. If you think that it's ok to kill a child with autism then you are severely disturbed in the head.

Well, I guess I'm severely disturbed in the head. I know if I were "barely there", like Jenny stated, I wouldn't want to be kept around like a vegetable.

 

[chisnpeke]

Well, I guess I'm severely disturbed in the head. I know if I were "barely there", like Jenny stated, I wouldn't want to be kept around like a vegetable.

Being a vegetable requires something to keep you alive. If an autistic child can still eat on its own then you shouldn't kill them. If you're a vegetable then it's a totally different situation because they are being kept alive by artificial means.

You mentioned your pet and that is different. I see that like a life support thing...there's basically no hope. I think in that case there is suffering and it's usually the right thing to do. We had to do it to one of our cats in September.

If someone just has autism or is mentally retarded they shouldn't be killed just because they can't really function. If they can live without artificial support and food then they should stay alive.

 

[pigletgirl]

Why would you 'put down' a severely autistic child? You mean before birth?

No, I couldn't. I believe that God put that child into my life for a reason, and I'm the one who is to guide and raise that child to reach their highest potential (with therapy of course).

Yes, it would be difficult to have a child with special needs, but if they can sustain life, then why not let them live? You dont know what they're capable of.

 

[MuskratSusie]

Yup. Just because you believe what you are doing is right, doesn't mean its true. Hilter thought he was doing the right thing, when he really wasn't.

You took the words right outta my mouth.

 

[chisnpeke]

Why would you 'put down' a severely autistic child? You mean before birth?

No, I couldn't. I believe that God put that child into my life for a reason, and I'm the one who is to guide and raise that child to reach their highest potential (with therapy of course).

Yes, it would be difficult to have a child with special needs, but if they can sustain life, then why not let them live? You dont know what they're capable of.

Exactly.

If you have someone who needs life support then it's different.

You can't tell if a child is autistic before they are born anyway.

 

[telescope]

I think that if the autistic child is a vegetable and isn't mentally "there" then yes, I think it would be best to put the child down.

 

[imabrat]

Being a vegetable requires something to keep you alive. If an autistic child can still eat on its own then you shouldn't kill them. If you're a vegetable then it's a totally different situation because they are being kept alive by artificial means.

You mentioned your pet and that is different. I see that like a life support thing...there's basically no hope. I think in that case there is suffering and it's usually the right thing to do. We had to do it to one of our cats in September.

If someone just has autism or is mentally retarded they shouldn't be killed just because they can't really function. If they can live without artificial support and food then they should stay alive.

So let's say, you have a serverely autistic child (who's barely 'there'),

I take "severely autistic (barely there)" as in vegetative, comatose state. Like, where's it's best to have them drugged up so they won't have rash actions. I take it that is life support, G/J tubes, ventilator, whatever.
If that's the case, then yes I absolutely would let my child die. I know what it's like to suffer and think "God, just make it quick and painless". I don't want my child going through that. I know if I were barely there, I wouldn't want to be kept around like a vegetable just cause my Mom says so.

 

[HSMndLKfan92]

It's all subjective to the situation. Even if the majority thinks you're right/wrong, there's always someone that's going to call you out for it.

 

[BabyPiglet]

I don't want to get into politics, but I will anyways.

George Bush and GITMO. He truly thought that torturing people and not giving them their 'rights' was the best for our country.

So does that make it wrong? Does that make it right, if he bad the best of intentions?

 

[chisnpeke]

I take "severely autistic (barely there)" as in vegetative, comatose state. Like, where's it's best to have them drugged up so they won't have rash actions. I take it that is life support, G/J tubes, ventilator, whatever.
If that's the case, then yes I absolutely would let my child die. I know what it's like to suffer and think "God, just make it quick and painless". I don't want my child going through that. I know if I were barely there, I wouldn't want to be kept around like a vegetable just cause my Mom says so.

Ok I understand what you mean now. If the child is so developmentally challenged that they cannot function on their own and need support to survive then I think it's up to the caregiver to do what they feel is best.

I thought "severely autistic" to mean that the child had a lot of developmental delays but could feed itself and wasn't really in any pain just more of a "burden" to the parents.

If a child is in pain then I think you should do what you feel is best.

 

[Ms.Squeakers]

Thats kinda like the question ive had since i was 4.

To the hero, hes the hero
but to the villian, hes the villian.

Why cant the hero be considered a villian in the villians eyes
and the villian be considered a hero in his own?

 

[Zip-A-Dee-Lady]

I'm not touching that with a fifty foot pole.

 

[STOPxmickeytime]

This is mildly inspired by the holocaust thread.

If you truly, deeply, believe that you're doing some right. That it's for the greater good & it will make things better. I mean like, from the depth of your soul you believe you're doing the right thing. Is it still wrong?

So let's say, you have a serverely autistic child (who's barely 'there'), & you're a devout Christian. You honestly believe that if you end your childs life, then he/she would be in a better place. A peaceful place with God. Every part of you thinks you're doing the right thing for your child's sake. So is it still wrong?

I really don't understand your example.
Are you speaking about a child who was on life support and couldn't function at all? Or simply a child who had developmental delays and socially was unresponsive?
Because the thought of a parent killing a child, just because they were socially unresponsive...makes me sick to my stomach.
And I don't understand how that would model any Christian values.

In any case. Your main question is a philosophical one. It really can't be answered on a concrete level.
In every situation, when one person thinks something is right, another will think it's wrong.
Ethically and morally, everyone has different concepts of right and wrong.

So all you can do is do what you believe is right.
If society as a whole disagrees, you'll be punished.
But if you believe whole-heartedly that what you're doing is right, you'd probably be willing to take the risk of the punishment.

 

[Sparx]

short answer yes, long answer no, abbreviated answer, right and wrong are subjective.

 

[Captain Brain]

Shelby just touched upon what I was going to say.

Good is a very subjective term. What I think is good may not be what the greater good is, but to me it is still good. Hitler thought that what he was doing was what was best for himself and Germany as a whole. Was he right? Did he have a good idea?

I think that Hitler had good ideas, but he took them way too far. I don't think that killing someone based upon religion will ever be right, or good for that matter.

What's good for me is not necessarily what's good for you. It's like the classic tale of heroes and villains, we never stop and think about the villain's motives. The book Wicked takes a stance on the Wicked Witch of the West that makes it seem like we are just judging by the half of the story we're told. There are two sides to every story, we just have to hear them.

And to answer Jenny's question, no. I would not put down my child even if he/she was autistic and barely able to function. I believe that God does everything for a reason, and we just have to find that reason. But that's all I'm going to say here, I don't want to get carried away.