Richard Dawkins: Immoral not to abort a fetus with Down's

[It'sFunToRun]

I'd rather that the conversation not happen at all (in general, not just here). IMHO, there's a huge danger in deciding that someone's not really human.

Human DNA? Not a parasite (ie. physical existence depends entirely on another human being, possibly to their detriment)? Brain stem activity? Congratulations, you are a living person with human rights.

Of course, there are debates around end-of-life treatment. To me, though, the key issue is whether treatment would achieve anything or just cause pain without really changing the outcome. It's not about whether someone is worthy of treatment or care.

First of all, to Maggie Mae, why are you afraid of being called a troll? Trolls are cute!!!

To 2xx1xy1JD, why do you feel comfortable saying that an embryo (I assume this is what you mean by parasite) shouldn't get human rights, but not feel comfortable extending that conversation? If someone is in the shape of Ariel Sharon (or Terri Schiavo for those who aren't familiar with Sharon), for instance, in the last years of his life, couldn't he be described as having his physical existence depending entirely on another human being, possibly to their detriment?

Also we can recognize that all people are human while not granting them all the same rights, it doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" deal. The first example that I can think of is that a four year old human does not have the right to vote.

[Maggie Mae]

I'd rather that the conversation not happen at all (in general, not just here). IMHO, there's a huge danger in deciding that someone's not really human.

Human DNA? Not a parasite (ie. physical existence depends entirely on another human being, possibly to their detriment)? Brain stem activity? Congratulations, you are a living person with human rights.

Of course, there are debates around end-of-life treatment. To me, though, the key issue is whether treatment would achieve anything or just cause pain without really changing the outcome. It's not about whether someone is worthy of treatment or care.

While I understand the concern in deciding who is and who isn't human, the conversation about "personhood" (in that a person is different from a human being somehow) has been happening since, oh, 5th century? To me, it's an interesting thought experiment with no hard answers. But I suppose I'm mostly a grey area person anyway.

You say that to be a person, a being/animal must have brain stem activity and human DNA, not dependent on other people. Do you mean all of the three qualifiers or just one? What about a human who possesses all DNA, but has an accident and is on life support, waiting to be taken off and organs donated?

[FreeHannie!]

Richard Dawkins is the atheist answer to fundies. I'm an atheist and even I'm like 'please stop talking' when he is saying nonsense like this.

(For the record, I have no problem with terminating a Downs pregnancy but I believe the parents have the right to keep the pregnancy without judgement if they wish.)

[2xx1xy1JD]

While I understand the concern in deciding who is and who isn't human, the conversation about "personhood" (in that a person is different from a human being somehow) has been happening since, oh, 5th century? To me, it's an interesting thought experiment with no hard answers. But I suppose I'm mostly a grey area person anyway.

You say that to be a person, a being/animal must have brain stem activity and human DNA, not dependent on other people. Do you mean all of the three qualifiers or just one? What about a human who possesses all DNA, but has an accident and is on life support, waiting to be taken off and organs donated?

My phrase was "living person with human rights". If there is no brain stem activity, the person is dead, which is what makes taking the organs legal.

To be a living person with human rights, you need to be human (ie. not another species) AND have brain stem activity (because without it you are dead) AND not be a physical parasite (I'm not talking about someone needing assistance, I'm talking about fetuses, parasitic twins and certain situations with conjoined twins. Your rights do not allow you to infringe on the life or health of others.)

[It'sFunToRun]

My phrase was "living person with human rights". If there is no brain stem activity, the person is dead, which is what makes taking the organs legal.

To be a living person with human rights, you need to be human (ie. not another species) AND have brain stem activity (because without it you are dead) AND not be a physical parasite (I'm not talking about someone needing assistance, I'm talking about fetuses, parasitic twins and certain situations with conjoined twins. Your rights do not allow you to infringe on the life or health of others.)

Why do you feel comfortable saying that a fetus doesn't deserve human rights but you don't feel comfortable discussing someone severely mentally disabled or someone in a permanent coma (Ariel Sharon)? I think women should be able to have abortion on demand, but logically I think that a fetus is more human than someone severely mentally disabled because at least the fetus would eventually become a functional human being.

Why is it wrong to expect one person (pregnant woman) to have to care for a fetus for <9 months, but it's okay for multiple people to have to care for a mentally disabled person until he dies?

[2xx1xy1JD]

A fetus cannot have rights independently. Fetal rights can only be a way of infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman to have control over her own body.

Someone with severe brain damage relies on others, but doesn't physically have to rely on a specific person. Someone like Ariel Sharon probably has many caregivers. They aren't being forced to do it, it's a job. If one of them stopped, you could hire someone else.

[It'sFunToRun]

A fetus cannot have rights independently. Fetal rights can only be a way of infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman to have control over her own body.

Someone with severe brain damage relies on others, but doesn't physically have to rely on a specific person. Someone like Ariel Sharon probably has many caregivers. They aren't being forced to do it, it's a job. If one of them stopped, you could hire someone else.

Had. He finally died in January. Where I live, Ariel Sharon is very much despised because of Gush Katif, so it was a funny joke people used to tell and you might get it since you're Jewish:

Q: If Ariel Sharon was a number, which number would he be?

A: 17, because 17 is almost chai.

(For the non-Jews out there, "chai" means "living" in Hebrew, but it's also the letters for the number 18)

[JillsFlowerHeadband]

My husband has a genetic disorder.

I don't.

My husband has spent most of his life trying to make the world a better place. He works -- and even if he didn't, that would make him no worse than the many able bodied people who have difficulty finding or keeping jobs.

I, on the other hand...if karma exists, it would give me a life 10 000 years long just to undo the damage.

If Dawkins were to have had his way about 40 years ago, he would have counseled for the termination of the wrong fetus.

Negative eugenics is junk even now, more than a century after the idea first appeared: The existing tests can give false readings. The existing tests can't determine character. They van sort of, dometimes, check for anomalies.

And besides that, who among Dawkins' brave new supermen would want the crappy menial jobs slower people take? He starts by talking about DS, but that is not where he would stop if he had his way. And just how many classes of people must be eliminatded in utero for the common good?

(Because if science ever finds a way to test for assholes, Homo Sapiens Dawkins would end up extinct.)

(bolding mine obviously) THIS.

To me, Richard Dawkins is the atheist equivalent of (insert strident fundie name here).

[Stephanie66]

Dawkins and (the late and finally dead) Christopher Hitchens are insane. Seriously. They do not speak for me or many other atheists, and I HATE IT when they get attention for saying ridiculously stupid things like this. Whatever intelligent things Dawkins has said are just undone by his smugness.

[JillsFlowerHeadband]

Dawkins and (the late and finally dead) Christopher Hitchens are insane. Seriously. They do not speak for me or many other atheists, and I HATE IT when they get attention for saying ridiculously stupid things like this. Whatever intelligent things Dawkins has said are just undone by his smugness.

Oh, Hitchens. Yeahhhhh, some of the stuff he came up with left me wanting to reach through the paper/screen/whatever I was reading and smack him. (For the record, I'm not an atheist but I do enjoy reading different points of view from as many different sources as I can, if that makes sense.)

[Burris]

So if a woman gave birth to a chimpanzee, then that chimpanzee should be given rights as a human? Why does coming out of a human's womb make an animal so special? If you had a beloved dog who got hit by a car and became incompetent, unable to eat by itself and unresponsive, would you have it put down? What would be the more ethical thing to do?

What is so special about human rights that it sets people's teeth on edge merely considering the possibility some of those same basic rights should be extended to animals?

I didn't say if a woman give birth to a child so scrambled to resemble another animal that it should necessarily be given human rights, however; I said there's no cause to destroy it.

But then I get the feeling, reading your other posts, that you prefer a genetic hegemony. (I outgrew that; arguing about who does and does not deserve basic rights is precisely the sort of thing that lends itself to the worst humanity has to offer its own.)

You then argue it's basically alright to lock up people with eccentric and frightening (but non-harmful) behaviors - and to ensure through genetic testing that no new such people are born - because you are uncomfortable. Some of the other riders are uncomfortable.

That sounds more like your own problem than then the problem of the PEOPLE who boarded that bus.

And then - and not in the least bit surprisingly - you wade hip-deep in hypocrisy: You'd choose life even if you were horribly disfigured and your disfigurement made people avoid you on the bus or anywhere else - because only the people who love you matter, right? Because your terrible, hideous face is not really "you"?

You apparently have no clue how a disfigured woman is treated.

You're not a troll; you're just inconsistent. You're also playing with fire. Be sure you don't set a precedent against "the other" that leads back to your own imperfect self.

[It'sFunToRun]

What is so special about human rights that it sets people's teeth on edge merely considering the possibility some of those same basic rights should be extended to animals?

I'm confused. Are you saying that a dog should not be put down if it becomes "a vegetable", or did you just not understand me? I actually am pro animal rights, and more so than most people, but I definitely believe in putting animals out of their misery sometimes.

I didn't say if a woman give birth to a child so scrambled to resemble another animal that it should necessarily be given human rights, however; I said there's no cause to destroy it.

I want to be clear that when I talk about "destroying" I'm talking about people in a state like Terri Schiavo and Ariel Sharon, not just people with an IQ of 70. You say "there's no cause to destroy it", but I think the word "destroy" is loaded. A person like this is being artificially maintained, I don't see pulling out the tubes as destroying as much as letting someone dead get buried.

But then I get the feeling, reading your other posts, that you prefer a genetic hegemony. (I outgrew that; arguing about who does and does not deserve basic rights is precisely the sort of thing that lends itself to the worst humanity has to offer its own.)

You then argue it's basically alright to lock up people with eccentric and frightening (but non-harmful) behaviors - and to ensure through genetic testing that no new such people are born - because you are uncomfortable. Some of the other riders are uncomfortable.

I didn't say anything about locking people up. I do think that the best thing to do is to abort fetuses with Down Syndrome and other such problems, but I don't think the government should force anyone to abort, even if they're pregnant with something as ridiculously abortable as anencephaly.

However, if someone chooses to go ahead and bring a severely mentally disabled person into the world, they should not expect to be able to get for that person 30 times (probably way more!) the resources that a normal, healthy child gets, and then expect people not be resentful. It is fucked to pieces that a person who can't think gets to go to public school and have their own private teacher, and a smart, healthy child who IS capable of learning has to sit in a classroom with 35 other children. There are so many children who don't get much attention at home, don't learn to read in school, then they get behind, and they would FLOURISH with just an hour of one-on-one time with a teacher each day, but that teacher is busy with mentally disabled "students" who are incapable of learning not to drool on themselves.

That sounds more like your own problem than then the problem of the PEOPLE who boarded that bus.

I agree that it is my problem, because those people already exist and already are on the bus, so the only thing I can choose is whether to let myself be uncomfortable or not, so I should choose to make myself be comfortable. You either purposely took what I said out of context, or you misunderstood me though: I wasn't saying those people on the bus should be locked up or murdered, I was saying that I would choose to abort a mentally disabled child because I want to make the world a better place, and not bring something into the world that will be a burden to society. That was the point of my bus story.

And then - and not in the least bit surprisingly - you wade hip-deep in hypocrisy: You'd choose life even if you were horribly disfigured and your disfigurement made people avoid you on the bus or anywhere else - because only the people who love you matter, right? Because your terrible, hideous face is not really "you"?

You apparently have no clue how a disfigured woman is treated.

You're not a troll; you're just inconsistent. You're also playing with fire. Be sure you don't set a precedent against "the other" that leads back to your own imperfect self.

It's not hypocrisy; if I were in Terri Schiavo's position I would want to be unplugged, and if I were a fetus with Down Syndrome, I wouldn't give a shit if someone aborted me. Having facial disfigurations or being in a wheelchair is completely different that being mentally disabled. Apples and Oranges.

[MsSaylor]

I don't get why you think a person with Down's syndrome doesn't give a shit about existing, being alive and enjoying life. That it not at all what I've experienced being around individuals with Down's syndrome. They enjoy full lives and also bring joy and fulfillment to others. I understand there is a spectrum of severity amongst individuals with Down's syndrome but you are aware that many are able to do and accomplish a wide variety of things and participate meaningfully in society right? This includes working, doing sports, having relationships etc.

[2xx1xy1JD]

IFTR, I'm not convinced that you know fuck all about who is and is not capable of learning. Having a mental disability doesn't mean that someone can't learn. In fact, there's a huge difference between how individuals with certain conditions like Down Syndrome do in settings where they get appropriate resouces vs. settings where they are just warehoused.

My son's friend needed his own teaching assistant, because he was ADHD. They aren't just used for kids with the most severe disabilities.

[Mama Mia]

My son's friend needed his own teaching assistant, because he was ADHD. They aren't just used for kids with the most severe disabilities.

Wow, I wish my kid with severe ADHD went to school where your friend lives! Instead he just got a couple hours a week in the resource classroom, and treated like absolute shit.

[formergothardite]

FTR I have a child with a severe mental disability. This, by the way, wasn't something that I could have detected and aborted, not that it actually matters. Yes, she gets more resources than my other daughter because it takes more for her to learn, but she can learn. Can she learn in a way that you approve of? Probably not. Do I give one shit? No.

She will never walk, never be independent, she might not ever even learn to feed herself(but this is something they are working on and you never know, she might). She will probably always need to wear a bib because she drools a lot. But the amazing thing is, with all these resources and teachers and therapists that you view as wasted because of her having a severe mental disability, we have learned that she CAN communicate. Not with her voice but with various communication devices. It isn't perfect, doesn't always work, and her fine motor skills are poor so it is a huge challenge for her, but she is learning, she is communicating with us, something she would not be able to do without all the resources from the public school system.

You might see this as a waste of time and resources, but as a mother, being able to have my child tell me what she wants or what is hurting her, is life changing.

By the way, my daughter does make the world a better place. We volunteer(yes, shocking I know. :roll: But people with mental disabilities can volunteer in their community) at a local animal shelter as a family. She loves to sit with the cats and pet and hold them and the cats love to be able to get out of their tiny cages and have someone love on them. It is just a small thing in the world, but it makes a huge difference in the lives of the cats. They are more likely to get adopted if they have been allowed out and aren't sitting depressed in their cages.

[It'sFunToRun]

FTR I have a child with a severe mental disability. This, by the way, wasn't something that I could have detected and aborted, not that it actually matters. Yes, she gets more resources than my other daughter because it takes more for her to learn, but she can learn. Can she learn in a way that you approve of? Probably not. Do I give one shit? No.

She will never walk, never be independent, she might not ever even learn to feed herself(but this is something they are working on and you never know, she might). She will probably always need to wear a bib because she drools a lot. But the amazing thing is, with all these resources and teachers and therapists that you view as wasted because of her having a severe mental disability, we have learned that she CAN communicate. Not with her voice but with various communication devices. It isn't perfect, doesn't always work, and her fine motor skills are poor so it is a huge challenge for her, but she is learning, she is communicating with us, something she would not be able to do without all the resources from the public school system.

You might see this as a waste of time and resources, but as a mother, being able to have my child tell me what she wants or what is hurting her, is life changing.

By the way, my daughter does make the world a better place. We volunteer(yes, shocking I know. :roll: But people with mental disabilities can volunteer in their community) at a local animal shelter as a family. She loves to sit with the cats and pet and hold them and the cats love to be able to get out of their tiny cages and have someone love on them. It is just a small thing in the world, but it makes a huge difference in the lives of the cats. They are more likely to get adopted if they have been allowed out and aren't sitting depressed in their cages.

I could train a rat to communicate more than your said daughter can, AND the rat wouldn't drool. Let's say I wanted to take my rat to your older daughter's class and have it go to school there, so resources will be taken away from your daughter's class to teach my rat how to minimally communicate, because to me it's a big deal for it to communicate even a little? You would say "No, because the rat is not capable of learning, it doesn't belong there! If YOU care about teaching it how to nod it's head when it's hungry, then YOU teach it that yourself at home. It's not going to learn writing and mathematics, so it has no place is school with my child!", and you'd be right.

I thought hard about this because someone earlier pointed out that they are disabled and thus a burden to society, but they still deserve education. While I am somewhat financially conservative, I don't believe in a pure free market society, so for example, if a fourth grade boy has a terminal disease that will definitely kill him within five years (aka, he'll never use his education to contribute financially to society), then I still think he deserves to sit in that fourth grade class. Why? Because he's capable of sitting in history class and learning history, and that's where he's supposed to be. But a turtle that will live to be 120 has no right to be sitting in that history class because he's not learning history, he's just sitting there. School is for people who are capable of learning on that level!

If the city offers your older daughter and everyone her age free swim lessons, and I show up with a kid who is allergic to water and demand that my kid get skydiving lessons, what would you say? Would it be fair for my child to take away a teacher from the swim class and take away huge amounts of $$$ so that my kid can learn skydiving? Would you be happy that now your child sits in a class with a much worse teacher-to-student ratio, and now there isn't the money to teach butterfly stroke? Because that's exactly what you're doing.

I love cats and am all for volunteering, but what your daughter does is not impressive at all. Petting the cats is the fun part! There is so much more that needs to be done like changing the litter boxes and washing their dishes, feeding them, cleaning them. I hardly call "petting" volunteering because it's not something anyone would ever get paid to do. Most small children love animals and would give up their allowances to be able to go pet kitties. The fact that you're proud of your daughter over this just shows how far removed from reality you are. If a normal child convinced her parents to take her to the shelter and let her pet the cats, would you say "well, aren't you lucky that your parents let you do that?!" or "wow, you really deserve respect for petting cats!"?

Your daughter is less of the amazing volunteer making-the-world-a-better-place, and more of your own beloved pet rat whose tricks you love, who you are forcing upon the public schools.

[Mythicwings]

huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/20/richard-dawkins-sparks-twitter-debate-over-aborting-down-syndrome-fetuses_n_5694961.html

True, he sort-of apologized, but he still claims that his viewpoints are logical and a natural extension of pro-choice mentality.

As someone who is pro-choice, I have to disagree with him on this one.

What do you think?

Edited: spelling mistake

Richard Dawkins is SUCH a bad spokesperson for all that is sane. Jesus.

[Mythicwings]

You really are awful, aren't you? You need to keep your opinions about people with disabilities to yourself. Then go get some therapy.

If this thread goes off the rails, it is because a certain poster is a bigot and likes to show it off. I don't know why the bigot keeps getting a pass, but substitute race with her opinions on disability, and the uproar would be insane.

^^^^^ what Nellie said. :clap:

You aren't being all pro-choice by acting like people with certain disabilities shouldn't even exist. Do you know how many people on here have disabilities? There are a bunch.

[Mythicwings]

True. But is so hard not to when the person just revels in ignorance and enjoys pushing buttons. And I guess when you are saying posts are bring "approved", someone is on a journey to heart. :nenner: I don't mean to be such a pain about this, but bigotry is so hard for me to swallow. If people don't stand up for their principles and what is right, and just ignore bad things, then the bad things win.

Exactly. I could never let someone say something about eugenics and not speak up. ok so she gets attention if that's what she's looking for. But at least someone with Down's who happened to see her asenine hideous comment would know they were supported and protected here.

[Mythicwings]

It's super easy to add someone to your Foe List, and you never have to see their posts again!

1. click on the username of the person you want to foe

2. click on "Add foe"

3. profit*

I could not imagine why I would use the Foe list until now. I get it now :D and am getting the hell out of this thread because it's almost evening and I don't want my pre-sleep thought to be about eugenics people, I already have nightmares. :pray:

[Boogalou]

I could train a rat to communicate more than your said daughter can, AND the rat wouldn't drool. Let's say I wanted to take my rat to your older daughter's class and have it go to school there, so resources will be taken away from your daughter's class to teach my rat how to minimally communicate, because to me it's a big deal for it to communicate even a little? You would say "No, because the rat is not capable of learning, it doesn't belong there! If YOU care about teaching it how to nod it's head when it's hungry, then YOU teach it that yourself at home. It's not going to learn writing and mathematics, so it has no place is school with my child!", and you'd be right.

I thought hard about this because someone earlier pointed out that they are disabled and thus a burden to society, but they still deserve education. While I am somewhat financially conservative, I don't believe in a pure free market society, so for example, if a fourth grade boy has a terminal disease that will definitely kill him within five years (aka, he'll never use his education to contribute financially to society), then I still think he deserves to sit in that fourth grade class. Why? Because he's capable of sitting in history class and learning history, and that's where he's supposed to be. But a turtle that will live to be 120 has no right to be sitting in that history class because he's not learning history, he's just sitting there. School is for people who are capable of learning on that level!

If the city offers your older daughter and everyone her age free swim lessons, and I show up with a kid who is allergic to water and demand that my kid get skydiving lessons, what would you say? Would it be fair for my child to take away a teacher from the swim class and take away huge amounts of $$$ so that my kid can learn skydiving? Would you be happy that now your child sits in a class with a much worse teacher-to-student ratio, and now there isn't the money to teach butterfly stroke? Because that's exactly what you're doing.

I love cats and am all for volunteering, but what your daughter does is not impressive at all. Petting the cats is the fun part! There is so much more that needs to be done like changing the litter boxes and washing their dishes, feeding them, cleaning them. I hardly call "petting" volunteering because it's not something anyone would ever get paid to do. Most small children love animals and would give up their allowances to be able to go pet kitties. The fact that you're proud of your daughter over this just shows how far removed from reality you are. If a normal child convinced her parents to take her to the shelter and let her pet the cats, would you say "well, aren't you lucky that your parents let you do that?!" or "wow, you really deserve respect for petting cats!"?

Your daughter is less of the amazing volunteer making-the-world-a-better-place, and more of your own beloved pet rat whose tricks you love, who you are forcing upon the public schools.

Rats aren't people.

Turtles aren't people.

People with disabilities are people.

I am pretty sure Formergothardite's daughter petting cats contributes far more to society than you did by making this post.

EAT: skydiving isn't swimming.

[Mama Mia]

ItsFunToRun, you were doing so well for a little while there! You did that apology that sounded sincere and everything. But, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you to write that post? I get, that for whatever reason, you have an absolutely obsessive and irrational fear of people with developmental disabilities. But seriously, you are coming off not just as opinionated, or just an ignorant bitch -- but as flat out unhinged and out of touch with any normal reality on this subject. I understand getting so wrapped up in an argument on here that you get more strident and entrenched than is normal. But, again, What The Fuck is wrong with you?

And your " points" don't even make any sense. Yes, schools exist to teach people things. Public Schools exist to teach and educate children. That is EXACTLY what FormerGothardites daughter is doing! It may not be the same thing as another kid, but that doesn't make it less important.

Also, absolute bullshit on volunteering not including petting cats as an important part of volunteering. One of my teens, who has no developmental disabilities, volunteered at an Animal Shelter in high school -- giving the animals affection was her assigned job. Because animals that get attention are calmer and healthier and easier to adopt, and it's not something the staff has time to do. If you think about it, instead of just blindly reacting-- you would see that's just common sense. A cat who isn't having human contact will become fearful or aggressive - not a good selling point. Perhaps you should consider it.

[Maggie Mae]

...snip...

Also, absolute bullshit on volunteering not including petting cats as an important part of volunteering. One of my teens, who has no developmental disabilities, volunteered at an Animal Shelter in high school -- giving the animals affection was her assigned job. Because animals that get attention are calmer and healthier and easier to adopt, and it's not something the staff has time to do. If you think about it, instead of just blindly reacting-- you would see that's just common sense. A cat who isn't having human contact will become fearful or aggressive - not a good selling point. Perhaps you should consider it.

This is exactly what a volunteer should be doing. Feeding, cleaning, paperwork are all things that the shelter would be paying someone to do anyway. Personally, I love volunteers and the things they do. But there are far too many people with very good jobs who volunteer at various places to make themselves feel good, not realizing that if they weren't volunteering, someone would be paid to that job.

I know, underfunding, overworked employees, etc. But in a healthy organization, volunteers should be doing things that are extra - not just unpaid labor - like playing with cats or decorating the soup kitchen for whatever holiday.

[Curious]

ItsFunToRun, you were doing so well for a little while there! You did that apology that sounded sincere and everything. But, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you to write that post? I get, that for whatever reason, you have an absolutely obsessive and irrational fear of people with developmental disabilities. But seriously, you are coming off not just as opinionated, or just an ignorant bitch -- but as flat out unhinged and out of touch with any normal reality on this subject. I understand getting so wrapped up in an argument on here that you get more strident and entrenched than is normal. But, again, What The Fuck is wrong with you?

And your " points" don't even make any sense. Yes, schools exist to teach people things. Public Schools exist to teach and educate children. That is EXACTLY what FormerGothardites daughter is doing! It may not be the same thing as another kid, but that doesn't make it less important.

Also, absolute bullshit on volunteering not including petting cats as an important part of volunteering. One of my teens, who has no developmental disabilities, volunteered at an Animal Shelter in high school -- giving the animals affection was her assigned job. Because animals that get attention are calmer and healthier and easier to adopt, and it's not something the staff has time to do. If you think about it, instead of just blindly reacting-- you would see that's just common sense. A cat who isn't having human contact will become fearful or aggressive - not a good selling point. Perhaps you should consider it.

I have been sitting here for 20 minutes trying to decide how to respond to the post that IFTR wrote and have just been at quite a loss. I'm rarely speechless, but this is one time that I am.

I'm not sure how comparing a child being in school to bringing a rat or turtle into a school is could even a rational argument by anyone, no matter how much of a "hot button" issue it is for you.

It's one thing to talk in abstracts like IFTR normally does, but it's completely another to actually address the mother of a child personally like she has done here. The post didn't break any rules, so it was let through, but that doesn't mean we feel good about things like this happening.

I know that in the past I have been supportive of IFTR's contributions to the community and have posted positively about some of her postings. I have tried working privately with her to help her integrate better into the community, but over the last few days it has become clear to me that while I am relatively sure she is capable of being a good community member and a positive for the community, she doesn't really have a desire to maintain the level of maturity necessary for that to happen.

This doesn't really change anything other than my level of disappointment and at this point my "support" (such as it is) for her as an asset to the community. Her posts will still be approved if they don't break any rules, just like they always have been.

Formergothardite, I'm sorry that you had to read something like this on FJ (or anywhere, obviously). I hope you consider the source and don't let it upset you. If you want to talk me to about it, feel free to send me a PM.