Eugenics; Vincent Bruno's model of empire building is an inversion of the patriarchal model

https://t.co/UKj2Qg9eDc

— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) April 28, 2025

3:00  https://x.com/FMClausewitz 

4:00  Vincent's attitude towards the disabled children.

6:00  Christian mother complained about Christians having to put up with disabled children because Christians are more likely to put up with it because of their greater wealth and compassion, probably.

7:00  TIM joins to rebuke Vincent.

15:00  Noahide laws

16:00  Victorian dramas when man had to decide to choose between saving the life of his wife or child

17:00  Smothered at birth

19:00  Playing God

20:00  Infanticide should be the option of the parents concerned.

Patriarchy/marriage is eugenic.

21:00  Parents will be told by the government that they will get no public money for the raising of their disabled children who must be paid out of taxed income.

22:00  Autism

23:00  Liverpool death pathway

Twelve Table of Rome

25:00  Mother who boasted about her two autistic children

26:00  Mothers who want to look after the most pathetic and disabled child to get martyr points

Ashley X, often referred to as the "Pillow Angel," is a profoundly disabled individual born in 1997 in Seattle, Washington, whose case sparked significant ethical and medical debate. Ashley has static encephalopathy, a severe brain condition that left her unable to walk, talk, sit up, or feed herself. She is fully dependent on her parents for care and has the cognitive capacity of an infant.

The Case

In 2004, when Ashley was around 6 years old, her parents, with medical approval from Seattle Children’s Hospital, pursued a series of interventions known as "growth attenuation therapy" to manage her care as she approached puberty. The treatment included:

• High-dose estrogen therapy to stunt her growth, closing her growth plates to keep her smaller (approximately 4 feet 5 inches tall and 75 pounds).
• Hysterectomy to prevent menstruation and eliminate the risk of uterine cancer or pregnancy (e.g., in case of abuse).
• Breast bud removal to prevent breast development, which could cause discomfort when lying down or being strapped into a wheelchair.

The parents argued these interventions would improve Ashley’s quality of life by making her easier to move, reducing discomfort, and allowing her to remain at home with family care rather than being institutionalized. They also claimed it would preserve her dignity by avoiding sexualization or complications from puberty.

Ethical Controversy

The case became public in 2006 after a medical journal article by Dr. Daniel Gunther and Dr. Douglas Diekema, Ashley’s doctors, described the treatment. It ignited fierce debate:

• Supporters argued the interventions were compassionate, prioritizing Ashley’s comfort and ability to stay with her family. They emphasized that her cognitive limitations meant she would not experience the social or psychological impacts of puberty or growth.
• Critics called it a violation of Ashley’s autonomy and dignity, arguing it treated her disability as a problem to be "fixed" surgically. Disability rights advocates, like the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, condemned it as a precedent for devaluing disabled lives. Some labeled it eugenics-like or a form of mutilation.

The hospital later admitted the hysterectomy was performed without proper ethical oversight (e.g., a court order), violating Washington state law. This led to policy changes requiring judicial review for similar cases.

Outcomes and Legacy

Ashley remains in her parents’ care, and her family maintains a blog (last updated in 2013) describing her as happy and well-cared-for. The case influenced medical ethics, prompting hospitals to establish stricter protocols for interventions on disabled minors. It also fueled broader discussions about disability rights, parental decision-making, and the balance between caregiving practicality and bodily autonomy.

Key Points

• Medical Rationale: The treatments aimed to ease caregiving and prevent complications, not to "cure" her disability.
• Ethical Issues: Consent (Ashley couldn’t consent), disability rights, and the risk of setting a precedent for non-medically necessary interventions.
• Public Impact: The case remains a reference in bioethics, cited in debates about growth attenuation (used in a few other cases since) and the treatment of profoundly disabled individuals.

28:00 "The heterosexual barbaric way"

Compulsory blood test before being allowed to marry.

29:00 FYRE joins.

30:00 Death pathway for children and disabled infants

34:00 DR HANNAH joins.

35:00 Council estates in Gravesend

43:00 Pakistanis

44:00 Kriss Donald

45:00 Gig economy

47:00 London

1:02:00 TIM accuses Vincent of planning to wage a war against Islam.

@DrHPMohammed , @PeacockClu38175 , @Book_of_Rules,

Here muhammad new of killing children in night raides before it would happen

It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet):

Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night…

— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) April 28, 2025

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/raid-caravans.aspx 

1:05:00  Night raid

1:08:00  Women are not innocent.

1:10:00  Women are part of  booty.

Would Vincent kill all the women and children but keep all the men because he is gay?

1:11:00  CAROL joins to talk of homicide and blood money.