[ SECRET POST #3177 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3177 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12. http://i57.tinypic.com/35chf9c.jpg
[penis]


__________________________________________________



13. http://i.imgur.com/OB1EeH5.jpg
[porn - furry/illustrated]









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #454.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: A question

[ariakas]

No, I haven't, and... probably. Depends on the disability. If there was a possibility of a healthy, enjoyable life for them, no, I wouldn't, but if there wasn't, I would.

My only other thoughts on this come from studying science history and ethics... somewhere north of 95% of women abort if they find out that the fetus has severe, congenital diseases. Reading about the sheer human cost when 20-100x more children who required intensive, 24/7 care (and almost invariably died in childhood) for the entirety of their natural lives, and were often in crippling pain the whole time - and a greater proportion of women had children at an advanced age, not fewer as per popular myth because there was no birth control - is enough to make even the most religious soul staunchly pro-choice, I think. The drain on families and the drain on society - in particular fledgling attempts at socialized medicine - was staggering.

And if one wonders how we dealt with this before modern medicine and whatnot, well, the answer is pretty simple: we didn't. Infants born in these conditions were either killed or left to die (a practice that continues in hunter-gather tribes to this day). What you're seeing is a convenient modern expedience for a tradition as old as humankind itself, only we've absolved the rest of the "tribe" (i.e. society) of their complicity in this choice.

Re: A question

[(Anonymous)]

Question (not meaning to be wanky): would you support infant euthanasia if the infant was born with a crippling disability?

Re: A question

[ariakas]

If it was an utterly hopeless case, yes. It seems kinder than what doctors actually do right now, which is simply remove support and let the infant die on its own (which any infant will do without care).

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1880-we-can-let-babies-die-6-realities-neonatal-nursing.html