Eligre wrote:I'm going to be what I am best, a profound cynic to the topic's question:
No.
Of course, my definition of Physical Disability differs from most. If they can act normal without third-person support, they aren't disabled. Electronic prosthetics, mechanical limbs, these eliminate, mostly, the disability in my eyes. Someone using the sensory-touch-sight shock system who is blind: not disabled, just a slow walker. A lip-reading deaf non-mute that has a synthesizer, not a problem. All of these exist, cures for everyone in this game. If one of these approached me, I'd have no problem with them, though maybe because (quothe Kaiba) I have a hard-on for technology, but if they can get past it, they're valid mating material. For amps, if they can perform normal functions normally, even without a false limb, still fine with me. (As an aside, if I were on cordial terms with a mute for a long time (over 2 years), I may master ASL completely and try to further the relationship, since then there would be no communication difficulties between us.)
If they cannot, however, nothing helps or they refuse things that may help, then as Darwin intended, they should not mate, not with me, nor anyone else. Doesn't stop them from having a full life otherwise, but a lot of physical disorders are genetic and can be bred out. I would also likely not be on more than polite terms with them either, since they would not be able to fit in most of my circles.
Disfigurement like Hanako... I have a standard for image, as most of us do, if it is as mild as Hanako's (25-30% or less), it is no issue, but a 50% or more scar tissue with no hope or desire for reconstructive surgery, I may be friends with them (since it isn't performance-hindering), but would not date them.
Such is the way of life: if something cannot thrive in the current environ, it dies along with its ilk. If it can evolve, even electronically, to meet or pass the rest of the population, its genus may continue in later generations.
Woooo ..., someone who is cynic to the very ancient core of it's meaning.
While your definitions are agreeable I highly advise you to word the highlighted section in a different way - someone might get offended.
Also:
Eligre wrote: as Darwin intended, they should not mate, not with me, nor anyone else. Doesn't stop them from having a full life otherwise, but a lot of physical disorders are genetic and can be bred out.
Such is the way of life: if something cannot thrive in the current environ, it dies along with its ilk. If it can evolve, even electronically, to meet or pass the rest of the population, its genus may continue in later generations.
If your are defining life with spreading your genome (by the way Darwin was writing about animals - not humans, Social Darwinism was not something that Darwin as a devout Christian would have really liked) than you are not giving them a life by your own definition.
Miroku wrote:
Finding someone like that.... who accepts you for you, faults and all.... is actually much harder than you think. And add to that the ever-expanding population of this planet, and you're looking at a very big haystack to look for that needle in.
I never claimed it to be easy, but looking for that person is one of the biggest adventures this life has to offer. And I do not back off from a challenge.
Ahh, Morticia? I would die for her. I would kill for her. Either way, what bliss.