Why Are Handicaps Not Part of Diversity?

Or tolerance? Here’s diversity, indicating differences?

Here’s tolerance:

Here it is with regards to the handicapped:

Lovely! If your baby at 24+ weeks gestation has some sort of defect, you’re free to kill him or her. The newer blood tests looking for anomalies can also identify the sex of the unborn. I wonder if we’ll be seeing less baby girls any time soon.

Blind, deaf, paralyzed people have achieved everything from composing an alphabet (Louis Braiile), to music (Ludwig Von Beethoven) to aiding disabled Christians in the developing world and art from a paintbrush held by mouth (Joni Eareckson Tada).

So why are handicapped unborn infants considered fungible rather than part of so called diversity initiatives?

1 Like

The child isn’t born yet, so IMO for some it is just a concept. The idea of having to go through extra hoops in life to accommodate a handicap child through to adulthood may be (selfishly) unappealing to those with a “vision” of a perfect family.

Just my two cents.

I remember how many were calling out for this lady’s head on a platter for the offense of some level of brain damage.

Divorce decree & being cared for by her parents wasn’t enough for these ■■■■■■ just dehydration and death.

Diversity and tolerance, since they aren’t inclusive of all differences, are hypocritical p c buzzwords.


The lesson of the Terry Schiavo case is to have a clear living will made up while you are of sound mind and body…has jack to do with diversity.

1 Like

Did we read the first part of this definition? Difference? Unlikeness?

Isn’t physical or mental handicap a difference? So why is it those preaching diversity and tolerance consider handicapped people fungible?

Here’s an advanced directive:

Note the part “two physicians certifying”

Couldn’t count the number of people I’ve known who were written off by a physician as not likely to survive, or incapable of survival without intensive therapy they didn’t want.

The patients survived. The power given physicians made me uncomfortable with signing this document. Many here in the Commonwealth don’t sign it either, opting strictly for naming a proxy.

Having a health care proxy should suffice. But that individual should be named & wishes known in writing.

Well that’s already a thing. Gender selection abortions have been happening all along (with female babies bearing the majority of those.) Feminists look the other way, of course.

Here’s more info on that topic:

May I assume diversity and tolerance aren’t for infants of sexes unwanted—namely female?

They definitely aren’t for the handicapped.

Well, abortion in general is an exercise in intolerance at its foundation. Each one is a statement that the parents would rather kill the child than tolerate whatever issue the child represents to them.

But to the original point of the thread, yes, the potential of some perceived flaw or handicap in the child is plenty enough reason to kill it. It makes the child little more than a commodity. Put the dented can back on the shelf and select one that’s the perfect cylinder.

I think we’re supposed to say “physically deactivated” now.

1 Like

So, diversity and tolerance, as I’ve suspected for awhile, are only for those the loudest preachers deem worthy of them. If you’re something else, that isn’t for you.

The preachers don’t like white people from more conservative states. No diversity and tolerance for you.

From experience, they get mad when different choices are made. Wanna adopt overseas, or give birth rather than abort a less than perfect baby? No diversity or tolerance for you.

Have different, particularly conservative ideas? Work an occupation they consider inessential? No diversity or tolerance for you.

As in the topic of this thread, physically or mentally handicapped, particularly if you are young or as yet unborn? There is definitely no diversity or tolerance for you.

Diversity and tolerance are hypocrites’ concepts, IMNSHO.

If you knew your fetus would have a life threatening or altering disability that would make it extremely difficult do it to live… could it also be seen as cruel and unusual or even selfish on the mother’s part?

My scenario assumes the mother knows of the disability before birth (24 weeks in the case of the OP)


Sounds like a robot with the battery removed. Alterations in language are one means of dehumanizing those with disabilities, for example “developmentally disabled” for the mentally retarded.

Developmentally disabled? Are we talking about a human being or computer with a crashed hard drive?

Retarded. Disabled. Physically disabled. Mentally disabled.

Won’t say physically deactivated or developmentally disabled.

Is there a moderator in the house? I’m a sensitivity offender.

1 Like

Life threatening or altering, like what? Down’s syndrome?

How about if the defect isn’t survivable providing end of life care?

Clearly you have false memories and know nothing about what Terri Schiavo was about.

It is instructive in that it was an early example of how conservatives will aggressively lie and hand wave contrary to reality and the law to try and get a political/religious “win”.

Terri Schiavo wasn’t “handicapped”. She was a vain woman who routinely made herself throw up food and liquid diets to stay thin, which led to cardiac arrest and the resulting lack of oxygen caused extensive brain damage. She was diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state and even then had two years of occupational therapy to try and improve, all the while her brain turning into liquid.

Then the resulting personal attacks con her husband who had next of kin legal rights and you’ve got Jeb Bush sending out state police to try and commandeer her, Bill Frist subpoenaing her to testify in Congress and just a horrible ■■■■ show of religious pandering all in contravention to every law of the land.


Why does it matter? Fine I’ll play…

Cerebral Palsy



Bulimia? Really?

According to one written source, she lost weight on NutriSystem. Here’s another state autopsy finding:


So, if someone is shy and chubby, and loses weight, they’re condemned as vain? If they don’t, they’re ridiculed. Lotta tolerance there!

So I guess even if someone does suffer from the mental disorder bulimia nervosa, that’s what we do with them, not even divorce and let mom and dad care for them, but dehydrate ‘em.


Sarcasm off now

Is that it? She induced cardiac arrest though dangerous diets.

She wasn’t “handicapped”. She was a meat tree.

C P is treatable.


Anancephaly is not survived long term:

That babies with handicaps are reduced to “choice to be made” status tells me they’re really not considered part of diversity initiatives or tolerance.

Well currently all fetus are reduced to that before viability.

Aren’t abortions just the modern version of natural selection?