Do you think it's cruel and selfish to keep severely disabled people alive?

Anonymous
I think it is. When a mother is told her child will be severely disabled and likely die within a few years, but she chooses to keep it anyway, I think it's selfish. They might not know any different but they cost so much to society, they indirectly stress out their relatives due to demanding care and they don't have a purpose, they just exist. I've worked first hand with them and despite mothers saying how much they love their disabled child, they often outcast them from the family and don't bother much with them at all. They're a burden but people are too afraid to admit it.
If I was severely disabled, where I had no quality of life, I couldn't communicate, I was having seizures every few minutes and couldn't do pretty much anything, I would prefer to be left to die. That's how humans used to do it. If a child was disabled, it would be left to die. It goes against nature. It was always survival of the fittest and so the disabled would die because they weren't the fittest and they couldn't reproduce, but that doesn't happen anymore. Except disabled people can be taken advantage of in that respect too which adds fuel to the fire. If an animal is severely disabled, it would be euthanized. We're animals that selfishly hold onto things we shouldn't.
It is cruel and selfish to keep them alive.
Vote A
I'm not sure.
Vote B
It isn't cruel and selfish, they should be kept alive to suffer
Vote C
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
GirlGuy
Updates:
+1 y
When I say "disabled" I mean brain dead, can't move much, can't communicate, can't feed themselves etc. Not blind or people with cancer or no limbs. Those people can have full lives as they have some level of ability.
Do you think it's cruel and selfish to keep severely disabled people alive?
22
24
Add Opinion