You there! with the genetic defect! NO CHILDREN FOR YOU!

[Fish]

Yeah - I said it. We should screen people for disease and degenerative defects before allowing them to reproduce. We should put a sterilization chip ( that can be on or off) in all children at a certain age, and they should be tested (physically and also on their parenting capacity) before being un-sterilized. People should only be allowed a certain number of children, and no "wellfare" or social system should ever give extra money to people with a bunch of kids simply for having lots of kids. One child per person. Two children per couple. You may replace yourself only if you are fit to reproduce, fit to continue on the "human" race.

I'm not saying that we'll suddenly prevent a whole bunch of "undesirables" to reproduce. This isn't the Aryan program. But since we've sidestepped a huge chunk of nature (and thus, natural selection) with medical technology and such, it only makes sence that at some point, something must be done to ensure that the human race is not a) overpopulous and b) full of detrimental mutations.

You disagree? Well re-read the name of this forum and respond to my ideas.

[Fish]

I suppose that I should tie into this the fact that I am beyond pro-choice when it comes to abortio. I am actually "pro-abortion" or as some would prefer, "anti-life." Abortions (and any form of birth control, from tube-tying to condoms) should be free and plentiful. let's stop forcing people who don't want kids to have them, and let's stop telling women what to do with their bodies. If it's immoral, or against "God's plan," then I'm sure God will take care of it in the Great Beyond. Besindes, that's what Hell is for, right? (but that's another debate). Until then, however, we should stop assuming that we know what God wants and instead allow people to make their own choices, especially about when and how many children they have.

[Sephiroth]

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough," Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).

Though, despite the length of time I've known you, I do not know enough about your positions to place you squarely in one side of the political spectrum over another, I do see these sorts of arguments coming out of the left (to be fair to Hillary, the far left) generally and I find it interesting that though the left is quick to condemn laissez-faire economic policies and the relative paucity of social programs that would exist if the conservative social agenda were enacted, as "social darwinism," leftists nevertheless do not shy away from literal biological darwinism in public policy. Planned Parenthood has its roots in the American eugenics movement and continues to silently exterminate the poor and lower-middle classes in this country while promoting a culture with all the depth and charm of a Huxleyan Solidarity Service. While there may be some, as yet undiscovered, benefit to the experiments in social planning you and other socialists (both National and Marxist) are proposing, there is something to be said for a society that approaches such ideas cautiously, even at the immediate expense of progress. History is littered with the burning hulks of similar utopian plans and, given that context, I, for one, prefer life on the savage reservation for the time being.

[Sephiroth]

I suppose that I should tie into this the fact that I am beyond pro-choice when it comes to abortio. I am actually "pro-abortion" or as some would prefer, "anti-life." Abortions (and any form of birth control, from tube-tying to condoms) should be free and plentiful. let's stop forcing people who don't want kids to have them, and let's stop telling women what to do with their bodies. If it's immoral, or against "God's plan," then I'm sure God will take care of it in the Great Beyond. Besindes, that's what Hell is for, right? (but that's another debate). Until then, however, we should stop assuming that we know what God wants and instead allow people to make their own choices, especially about when and how many children they have.That I submit to the idea of government generally is indication enough that I am not merely content to trust in the superagency of my Creator for the belated resolution of the world's wrongs in the afterlife. Immediate self-interest only goes so far as to demand that I possess a means of self-defence; government goes well beyond that. By accepting the idea of government, particularly the idea of a Democratic Republic, I am, to a certain extent, accepting that I am not alone on this planet, nor was I meant to be, and that I have a certain right and duty to be nosy about what goes on outside my back fence. To that end, in the system under which we currently live, I am willing to support popular movements that would give certain of my most deeply held beliefs the force of law over others, not solely because I would personally face repercussions if these facets of the rule of law were not maintained, but because I believe, as a principle of civic virtue, that they should be upheld irrespective of my presence within the compass of their jurisdiction.

If, for instance, I could be guaranteed, in writing, that neither I, nor any of the people in my immediate monkey-bubble would ever fall victim to theft, that, though theft would continue among the rest of the population, I could rest assured that an omniscient God would note these crimes and pay retribution to the offenders at the end of days, and that therefore, the entire ugly business of keeping men in metal cages for taking that which is not theirs could be dispensed with absent my ever feeling any effects from their release, I would still be in favour of laws against theft and harsh imprisonment for offenders.

For those of us who are religious, we can easily justify this position (after all, God instructed us to create a government and a system of laws), for those of us who are not, and who therefore can only logically defend a basal utilitarian ethos, relying, at best, entirely upon enlightened self-interest, my position in response to the above hypothetical can only be described as irrational. However, I will not belabour the part of this argument that pertains to the age-old objectivism/relativism debate: that, as you said, is for another discussion. Suffice it to say that the issue of abortion functions in a similar manner for me. It is a theological dictate for me that life begins at conception. Abortion, therefore, takes a life and constitutes murder. It is not the murder of a friend of mine, or of anybody I am particularly close to, but nevertheless, I feel it is wrong, and I would support legislation to stop it and penalise those who practise it.

Add to this the observation that the constitutional argument in favour of the abortion right is so astonishingly weak (this too is another debate), being based in a judicial doctrine that first took hold in no less a judicial travesty than the Dred Scott case, that even liberal law professors like Alan Dershowitz have abandoned it in recent years, and the whole mirage that this constitutes a civil rights issue, invoking some sort of moral imperative of personal autonomy, sort of falls apart for me.

Lastly, I note with no small degree of amazement that you have overlooked the obvious contradiction between your two posts in this thread. In your latest post, you say we conservatives should "stop telling women what to do with their bodies," adding that we should "allow people to make their own choices about when and how many children they should have," after just one post prior having called for forced sterilisation and a very concrete state control over precisely when and how many children people should have. So much for a "right to privacy and bodily integrity..." Naturally, failing to find such a right in the Constitution, I do not face such difficulties in my position.

[ArmsMerchant]

I walked the walk here, having had a vasectomy because I am near-sighted and alcoholic.

Okay, that and I figured that having children wasn't worth the bother or expense. I have yet to see any evidence that I was mistaken.

[LuKaZz420]

I definately support that, I'd rather have people abort their offspring than have them live in poverty and be a burden to society.

[moxxy]

as far as i know, in most countries it is illegal for retards and people with most severe genetic defects to have kids.
i feel that sterilisation/castration at birth would be the best solution in the long run, if somebody with fucked up genes has no sex drive, then they ultimately wont want to/ be able to have kids unless they adopt which would make the world a better place anyway. Just a shame about the majority of people stupid concept of ethics...

[Carbonbased]

I agree with the idea that medicine today has allowed people with out the best genetic profiles to breed and survive (read fucking stupid people). However in all honestly I don't think that the severely genetically handy caped are a real threat to the viability of the human race in the long run. People who should be sterilized on the other hand are idiots, like Paris Hilton and such.


I could see the reasoning behind the sterilization of the severely genetically impaired, in that it may save the government some money because the offspring would not be wards of the state.

[The_Wizard]

If we're going to do this, we at least have to have all of the support of the people involved; ie, this legislation needs to be voted into place before being placed on an unsuspecting public.

Trying to impose this upon the general populace would cause mass havoc and rebellion, we need to educate people on the joys of choosing when and where to reproduce.

Get to it, future politicians.

[Harlequin]

People should only be allowed a certain number of children, and no "wellfare" or social system should ever give extra money to people with a bunch of kids simply for having lots of kids. One child per person. Two children per couple. You may replace yourself only if you are fit to reproduce, fit to continue on the "human" race.


Japan is in economical turmoil after limiting each family to two children.
The children have to provide for the parents in old age because of a lack of social welfare, most of the children getting burnt out and killing themselves from the sheer stress of having to provide for both parents plus their own families.
Even worse if the two children are both girls; they can't earn a decent wage.
And what happens when there's a war and all the men are conscripted and 3/4's of the male population is obliterated?
There is then a whole nation of young women without future husbands and grow old, never reproducing, therefore leaving a startling dip in the population that lasts for generations.
Conclusion;
Defects or no defects, people need to populate to keep their country going, for their economy's sake.
However, that's only one side of the coin, and I don't feel I need to elaborate on the stupidity of Fish's proposition any more than I have at present.

[AdamSmokesCrack]

Being an alcoholic and having a tendency to become addicted to substances upon trying them, along with being fairly mentally unstable, I plan on getting a vasectomy once I can afford it. I'm physically weak and almost always ill. My offspring wouldn't stand a chance unless I bred with superwoman.
I am also for the idea of a screening process, and having to receive a receipt of some sort in order to have a child.
No child should be born as a product of rape or incest, and no child without a matching receipt indicating both the mother and father are healthy enough for this child to have a good enough chance at being a productive, healthy human being, should be allowed to be born.

[Kinkou]

there should be an intelligence test for people who want to add to our population

[HARDMAN]

A better idea would be to try to eliminate all genetic defects using genetic engineering. We're almost to that point, now.

Eugenics sucks. The Spartans had a similar program. How ironic that they were eventually conquered by a short guy with scoliosis named Alexander.

[The English Gentleman]

there should be an intelligence test for people who want to add to our population

This, however even this is not set in stone, I have known a bloke at my old school who had stupendously stupid and poor parents and was a genius, came to school with a full scholarship. However people should only be allowed children if they can support them and are mentally mature enough.

Equally to the OP, genetics, so that would count out Stephen Hawkings then, who pwns all of us, apparently he rolled into his Cambridge lectures late, spent five minutes solving a problem that had confounded all of his peers and then left. Hows that for genetic worthlessness and lack of contribution to society?

[The_Wizard]

there should be an intelligence test for people who want to add to our population

I disagree, you cannot decide how much a child's stupid parents will affect their growth and development. If you haven't realized that children aren't a carbon copy of their parents yet, should we let you reproduce?

[The English Gentleman]

I disagree, you cannot decide how much a child's stupid parents will affect their growth and development. If you haven't realized that children aren't a carbon copy of their parents yet, should we let you reproduce?

I agree, however their is a correlation, intelligence is a wild mixture of genetics, random gene mutations and the environment. although environment including diet and stimulation I would say only accounts for 50%

[InspiredByMe]

I suppose that I should tie into this the fact that I am beyond pro-choice when it comes to abortio. I am actually "pro-abortion" or as some would prefer, "anti-life." Abortions (and any form of birth control, from tube-tying to condoms) should be free and plentiful. let's stop forcing people who don't want kids to have them, and let's stop telling women what to do with their bodies. If it's immoral, or against "God's plan," then I'm sure God will take care of it in the Great Beyond. Besindes, that's what Hell is for, right? (but that's another debate). Until then, however, we should stop assuming that we know what God wants and instead allow people to make their own choices, especially about when and how many children they have.

This has been my view for quite some time now, but I still haven't convinced my theology teacher of it yet.

[NeonMonkeys]

Many people see me as a horrible person for it, but am a firm believer that people with horrible diseases should be quarantined and the disease would be eliminated. Imagine a world without AIDS or other medical disasters. Scientists would be able to focus on curing diseases that cannot be killed off, like cancer.

Also, whats wrong with abortions? "Oh your not even giving the child a chance at life!" I don't give a fuck. If the child is just going to be neglected and have a horrible life, or be put up for adoption so its mom can go back to being a cheap prostitute and get pregnant again? I don't think so. Having more than one child per person (like you said, two per couple) should be punishable by death. We don't need a bunch of retards popping out babies every two years or so.

[Blunderfail]

But then Zoklet would have no members.

[SKUV]

I think you would have a hard time finding someone without some kind of disease or genetic defect (Including recessive) in this day and age. But yeah, good luck with that.

I wonder though, if a lot of the population was lowered in the future due to something like this, how would the economy be? Do we really consume more than what we produce, costing us more in the end?

[Yggdrasil]

An aunt of mine, upon turning 40, started to feel her biological clock ticking and married the first guy she could snatch. Turns out the guy has Asperger's syndrome I think, or at the very least he's just plain odd. Anyhow, my aunt had two kids with him, both of them are severely autistic. One of them is 10, the other 7, and between the two of them they can hardly speak a single word. Yikes : [

[King of the world]

I walked the walk here, havnig had a vasectomy because I am near-sighted and alcoholic.

Okay, that and I figured that having children wasn't worth the bother or expense.

This is one thing we can all be thankful for.

[King of the world]

I think you would have a hard time finding someone without some kind of disease or genetic defect (Including recessive) in this day and age.

The amish?

[SKUV]

The amish?

Isn't that a disease?

:confused:

[King of the world]

Isn't that a disease?

:confused:

They're possibly the healthiest and most intelligent gentiles alive today. It's a shame they'll have to be killed.

[beefymcmanstick]

This sounds like something Hitler would have posted if he were around for Zoklet.

[ArmsMerchant]

there should be an intelligence test for people who want to add to our population

Such as Charles Manson--who qualified for Mensa.

[Midnight Sun]

Such as Charles Manson--who qualified for Mensa.

My own father qualified for Mensa...and take a look at me. lawlz:D

[Travis Bickle]

I know I won't be having children for that reason. I'm a drug addict alcoholic, and I know if I have children they'll be just as fucked up as me. And I'd hate to see my little daughter suck nigger dick to support her habit, because that's usually what happens to little white girls who become drug addicts.

[Shrike]

But then Zoklet would have no members.

Nice bump. :hrmph:

[IWD]

Yeah - I said it. We should screen people for disease and degenerative defects before allowing them to reproduce. We should put a sterilization chip ( that can be on or off) in all children at a certain age, and they should be tested (physically and also on their parenting capacity) before being un-sterilized. People should only be allowed a certain number of children, and no "wellfare" or social system should ever give extra money to people with a bunch of kids simply for having lots of kids. One child per person. Two children per couple. You may replace yourself only if you are fit to reproduce, fit to continue on the "human" race.

I'm not saying that we'll suddenly prevent a whole bunch of "undesirables" to reproduce. This isn't the Aryan program. But since we've sidestepped a huge chunk of nature (and thus, natural selection) with medical technology and such, it only makes sence that at some point, something must be done to ensure that the human race is not a) overpopulous and b) full of detrimental mutations.

You disagree? Well re-read the name of this forum and respond to my ideas.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read. Short but sweet.

I completely agree with everything you said and it has nothing to do with you being an authority figure. Most people are cool with slaughtering animals, and eating meat wouldn't stimulate evolution nearly as much.. but they're cool with it because they're told it's OK, and our beliefs are made up of a combination of things relating to what we've seen from other people.

Everyone should feel less guilty about killing off things that are detrimental to our lives and society. There should be no welfare AT ALL, that way people would be a hell of a lot more motivated to do something with their lives, even when they don't feel like it.. and that would probably lead them into feeling better about their lives and capable of doing the work because of the superior mental state they've gained after escaping the stagnation of their pitiful routines.

Cigarettes should be made illegal as well. If such a huge amount of the population felt a bit better in terms of physical health, the world could be like 150% as productive.

[Mutant Funk Drink]

Well I'm not really for forcing people to do anything like that. However I think it would be great if there were a public campaign to encourage people to get tested before having children. In this day and age, I'm getting tired of people asking for sympathy when their child is born with Rett Syndrome or some shit. If you're willing to spend money on raising a child, you might as well pay extra to make sure they don't come out all fucked up.

[Butcher]

Genetic engineering > eugenics. Better to have a positive pressure than a negative pressure, and its only a matter of time before this is possible.

[Unwyred]

Someone somewhere along the line would take it too far. Before long you would have to be in elite physical and mental condition with no genetic markers for predisposition to disease and have to win a lottery in order to procreate.

Everyone should have the right to experience raising children. :hrmph:

[SKUV]

Everyone should have the right to experience raising children. :hrmph:

I don't know about everyone, but yeah, mostly everyone.

[Snoopy]

Such as Charles Manson--who qualified for Mensa.

Just because you know that 2+2=4 doesn't make you a good parent. Just because someone is a psychopathic killer doesn't mean his kids will be killers. There's a difference between making children, and raising children.

You wouldn't know anything about this, because you're a dim, childless bastard.

[DaGuru]

ELL OH FUCKIN ELL @ remembering when Fish used to post memorable shit around here, and now he's just a shaow lurking coward like the rest of the fools that have run this place into the ground with their management(?) skills. ; D

[Snoopy]

yeah, el oh fucken el

[Unwyred]

ELL OH FUCKIN ELL @ remembering when Fish used to post memorable shit around here, and now he's just a shaow lurking coward like the rest of the fools that have run this place into the ground with their management(?) skills. ; D

3EkBuKQEkio&autoplay=1

[lukegwaters]

In theory, this would probably make the world a better place after a few generations.

In reality, all I can see is one word: corruption. Over time, the benefit of the whole human race will take a backseat to the benefit of the program administrator.

[Rainycity]

I think it should be the ugly people, the fat people, who aren't willing to get into shape and the people who are not capable of learning.

[moribund.burgermeister]

But then Zoklet would have no members.


Haha. Harsh.


But also true. I’m going to bet that everyone who posts on this board is carrying one copy of an allele, which is detrimental when homozygous, or when paired with a specific genetic background. Yep, I’d lay odds that we all could potentially have children who have a nasty genetic disease.

Someone up thread mention Autism. I’m going to use this as an example of how problematic trying to wipe out some genetic defects can be.
A recent, massive whole genome association study looking at nearly 1000 ASD individuals tried to find some sort of genetic basis for the disorder. And they did identify a number of Copy Number Variants associated with the disorder. Well, not so much as just a number but multitudes, really. And by associated, I mean at ratios like 1.2:1 for the ASD cases to the controls.
The researchers concluded that they had found enough gene variants. to account for maybe 10% of all ASD cases.
Maybe.
If they’re lucky.

If you tried to wipe out any individual carrying these variants, I’m going to guess you’re not going to have an awful lot of people left. The variants identified affect a wide range of pathways – cell migration, cell proliferation, brain development, etc. Who knows, you may do the population overall harm in an attempt to reduce their frequency eliminate them - these variants may only be deleterious when combined with certain other variants and may actually be beneficial in other scenarios. One man’s detrimental mutation could be another man’s boon, depending on the genetic background. Who are you to say which variant constitutes as defective or not?

Ok, I'll admit that this is a little bit of a tetchy subject for me. I have had people threaten to wipe out people like myself in such programs.


You see, I carry the gene for red hair...:lsd:


A better idea would be to try to eliminate all genetic defects using genetic engineering. We're almost to that point, now.

Er, sorta not really that close. For most of the single gene traits, it’s certainly plausible to replace the bung copy of a gene in an embryo with a new one. But you would need quite a lot of embryos. As it is, we don’t really have a way of managing accurate site directed recombination in mammals like ourselves yet. (What I mean by this is that I cannot reliably go and directly replace, EXACTLY replace, one gene copy with another. It’s a bit more haphazard than that.) With the amount of embryos you would need to successfully do that, you would be better off just screening for ones without the trait of interest. Provided that it’s a simple, trait that we have fully characterized, of course…

[Twin Gats]

agreed, our society really needs improving. Think about how we could evolve if the gene pool only included the fit people.

[靠rent-a-jew輩]

this thread was started 3 years ago...

[Yggdrasil]

You mentioned eugenics, Ryan, why not take it a step farther than just people with genetic defects? I don't mean to derail, or get into an argument about the inheritance of IQ, or race, etc, but how about barring certain people from reproducing. By certain people, I mean crackwhores, white trash, stupid skanks, etc. Do it by IQ if you want, or economic situation, or any other marker by which one can set a bar of acceptability for one to reproduce. There could also be a minimum age at which one can have children, say, 25, and anyone who chooses not to get a government subsidized abortion relinquishes any claim to government support/aid.

In fact, for minors like those whores from "16 and Pregnant" or all those British teen mothers, those abortions should be forcible. No two ways about it, you're not going to have a fucking kid at 15, period.

It boggles my mind thinking of all the ways active efforts could be made to improve society. Is it a bit totalitarian? Yes. Invasive of one's rights? Yes. Necessary? I think so. The last thing we need are the bottom of the barrel of society (rednecks, Sarah Palin's daughter, etc) reproducing.

[Unwyred]

You mentioned eugenics, Ryan, why not take it a step farther than just people with genetic defects? I don't mean to derail, or get into an argument about the inheritance of IQ, or race, etc, but how about barring certain people from reproducing. By certain people, I mean crackwhores, white trash, stupid skanks, etc. Do it by IQ if you want, or economic situation, or any other marker by which one can set a bar of acceptability for one to reproduce. There could also be a minimum age at which one can have children, say, 25, and anyone who chooses not to get a government subsidized abortion relinquishes any claim to government support/aid.

In fact, for minors like those whores from "16 and Pregnant" or all those British teen mothers, those abortions should be forcible. No two ways about it, you're not going to have a fucking kid at 15, period.

It boggles my mind thinking of all the ways active efforts could be made to improve society. Is it a bit totalitarian? Yes. Invasive of one's rights? Yes. Necessary? I think so. The last thing we need are the bottom of the barrel of society (rednecks, Sarah Palin's daughter, etc) reproducing.

I was not expecting this reply from you, Ygg. :(

This entire prospect sickens me. Sure there are a lot of people out there that I'd rather not associate myself with, but this kind of fascist policy being discussed here is absolutely disgusting.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person left that believes that everyone should be equal in this world. Sad.

[Yggdrasil]

I was not expecting this reply from you, Ygg. :(
Heck, I know. It's completely ridiculous for me to be pointing fingers in this way, when there's plenty of folks out there that'd gladly toss people like me in with the pile of 'undesirables' that are to to be shoveled into the furnaces. These are just some personal musings of mine, and in all honesty we should avoid targeting what we each believe to be social undesirables, as doing so leads down a slippery slope that can go anywhere
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person left that believes that everyone should be equal in this world. Sad.

Lets go back to the original thread topic, people born with physical or mental disabilities. I don't speak highly from some kind of lofty marble pedestal here, I've already mentioned I've dealt firsthand with the anxiety and hurt having disabled family causes, I can't imagine how hard it must be for a parent. But seriously, is anyone going to legitimately argue that it's worth it to keep a fetus even after prenatal screening determines the fetus to have, say Down's Syndrome?

As for people like my aunt who's children are later diagnosed with autism, I don't know what to say. Would it be abhorrent to euthanize them? I'm not saying I believe one way or the other, this is just an opinion piece, hear me out. My aunt is getting older, and so is her husband (she had her first autistic child at age 45, the other at age 48). Her kids are getting older, both just a few years away from adolescence, and yet between the two of them neither can speak a word. They can't hold a conversation, they can't look at you, can't express emotion like we do, it's sad, but they're not much different from dogs. The only difference is that in time they'll both be institutionalized, and for the rest of their lives they will be a massive burden to both the state and to my family, not only in economic terms, but in the taxing emotional drain they are to my aunt.

I don't know, it's a terrible thing to say, and not being their parent I'm in no position to say, but would it all turn out for the better if those kids were euthanized? Euthanizing a child, hell, a human, seems so wretched, but wouldn't it turn out for the best to have those two individuals euthanized at some point?

I'm not saying in favor of doing so, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I can't really say how I opine here. On the one hand, euthanizing a human, moreso a child, seems wretched, but on the other hand, the children in question are barely human. Are they even conscious? Certainly not in the way a 'normal' human is.

They get up in the morning, they're either led to the bathroom or they soil themselves. They're served food, and they know to reach for it and eat. They're given clothes, and prodded to dress, but not before they have diapers put on. They babble around all day, barely aware of the world around them or the people they're with. And when they grow up, it'll be the same thing. They'll be babbling at age 40, someone will be serving them food at age 40, someone will be taking them to the bathroom at age 40, someone will be changing their diaper at age.

Would it be sensible for my aunt, and society in general to pull the plug, so to speak, on people like this? People with cerebral palsy. People with Down Syndrome. Arguing that a person who has to have their ass wiped and their food spoon-fed to them at age 50 (at the expense of taxpayers and families, mind you) has as much right to life as a normal person is an argument I'm not going to buy. Not buying it. I'm not talking about quadriplegics or anything, I'm talking about people with severe mental disabilities that are little more than walking vegetables. Actually, allow me to opine here. Yes, euthanize them

edit: I don't mean to say euthanize all autistic people, as we all know there is a whole spectrum of autism disorders, and autism can come in varying degrees of severity. In my post I addressed the hardcore, beyond all hope nutters, like my two cousins, unfortunately :(

[SKUV]

They babble around all day, barely aware of the world around them or the people they're with.

How do you know that these people aren't mentally aware, but there's just no way for them to express it physically?

[Snoopy]

If you feel that way, why stop there? Why not put all the undesirables to death? In for a penny, in for a pound afterall.

I'm the product of a teenage pregnancy anyway, with my own mother in turn being the daughter of a one-time prostitute. The other half of my family is concretely middle-class, and they were no better (if not worse) as people and moral entities despite their relatively high level of social acceptance and integration.

The 'dregs' of society are not some eternal evil monster that needs to be exterminated. They are people, like everybody else, with their own problems and personal failings. There might be certain endemic problems associated with certain groups, but they aren't problems to be resolved with a passive genocide. You must remember too, that (on the wide-scale) all these problems that everybody gets so incensed about are circumstantial rather than personal or (pains me to even have to say it) hereditary. You wipe out the 'undesirables', and a new group of undesirables will just rise up to fill the same role.

A final point too, removed from the previous argument, how would somebody attempt to justify such a thing? Citizens would have no duty to comply with a state that was trying to bring about their destruction. If ever attempted, it'd only end in the 'undesirables' dealing out their own justice on the numerically inferior fools who tried to do the same to them.

You're not middle class mother fucker you're more like shit class.

[Yggdrasil]

How do you know that these people aren't mentally aware, but there's just no way for them to express it physically?

To be blunt, the two kids are right fucked, easily amongst the most severe of autism cases the two of them. They can't look at you in the eye, or interact with you, express pain or joy normally... They don't convey any sense of affection towards their mother even. I'm not going to buy a bullshit argument that tries to tell me those two kids are human in the sense we are. Biologically, yes, but mentally, emotionally? No, they're worse than dogs even, in that respect. Not only that, in the future they'll be a burden to the state, not to mention the burden they are to my aunt.

So, what's the argument against euthanizing people with severe mental disabilities? Enlighten me.

[Former_Member]

Only an individual has the right to decide that their own life is not worth living.

Worse than dogs is very subjective too, from an objective perspective there is no reason that Joe Bloggs is any 'better' than the most mentally abnormal autistic person.

[SKUV]

So, what's the argument against euthanizing people with severe mental disabilities? Enlighten me.

If you kill them you can't study them? :confused:

Kind of joking since I can't think of an argument for that, but let's say you were studying someone with a severe mental disability like that. Say that while studying them you discovered something about the human mind that's unrelated to the mental disorder, but still benefits humanity. If all of the people with that disability were euthanized, you wouldn't have discovered it. So in a way, they could help humanity by letting them stick around.

Lame argument, I know, but at least I tried... :facepalm:

[Yggdrasil]

Only an individual has the right to decide that their own life is not worth living.

Oh quit it with the politically correct, self-righteous, kumbaya bullshit. If these people can't wipe their own asses and spend their days running from one end of the house to the other babbling ''Oooogeegeegeegee, ah geegee ah" aand will still be doing so at age 50 you're not going to sit there and tell me with a straight face those people are in a position to decide shit

Again, please, I rationalized my case, either argue my points or rationalize not euthanizing the most severe cases of downies, autistic people, etc

[Former_Member]

Even if the most severely mentally handicapped can't decide for themselves whether to live or die, why do you have the right to do so?

[Snoopy]

Even if the most severely mentally handicapped can't decide for themselves whether to live or die, why do you have the right to do so?

Your mother must've eaten a fuckton of shit when she was carrying you in her shitwomb.

[Yggdrasil]

Even if the most severely mentally handicapped can't decide for themselves whether to live or die, why do you have the right to do so?

Because caring for people that are irreparably mentally disabled is an arbitrary waste of resources, both material and emotional for the people involved, including family, caretakers, and taxpayers. How does the arbitrary right to life of what is basically a walking vegetable justify a lifelong expenditure of resources on them?

[Former_Member]

We can afford it just fine, so why not?

Also, why is their life inherently less valuable (and therefore, less worthy of resources) compared to yours for example? If you could prove that the mentally handicapped are suffering, then you might have a point; but nobody can prove such a thing, because despite their differences they are just humans with the ability to experience pleasure and sorrow just as anybody else.

Ultimately, it boils down to wanting more than you need and looking for places to take these resources from. The mentally handicapped can't defend themselves, so why not remove the competition from them and we can all live in a little more luxury over the dead bodies of innocent people.

[Yggdrasil]

We can afford it just fine, so why not?
Fuck that, with all due respect. Why should the taxpayer's money go towards supporting these people? If out of the kindness of your heart you feel like 'supporting the cause', then by all means, donate all your income to charitable foundations for these pitiful people, in the same way that families with disabled members must expend all the resources they can on caring for them. No one wants to admit it, but the sensible thing to do here is to euthanize these people.

Also, why is their life inherently less valuable (and therefore, less worthy of resources) compared to yours for example?

They are a waste of resources in the same way that keeping Terri Schiavo alive for all those years was a waste of resources. These are people with no lives, no future. They're animals, those poor people. They are less worthy because their lives amount to nothing, they spend their whole lives in institutions and hospitals carrying out their metabolic processes, being spoon-fed, having their ass wiped. Every now and then the staff buy them some finger paint and let them doodle on paper. Their caretaking, their food, their treatment if they receive any, these are all expenses we (society) undertake because we're afraid of the only true remedy to the problem.

[HVCO]

Unfortunately as with so many complex issues like this, there will never be an easy answer. It's frightening to think that a likely gov'mt agency could end up dictating how and when, not to mention who.... will reproduce.

HOWEVER- I lean far more towards the population control angle (quality control hah!). Fucking bleeding hearts ABSOLUTELY refuse to acknowledge the simple reality. Eventually, as the planet becomes more and more crowded- controls will have to be implemented. Disease/Disaster can help cull the herd but likely not to the extent that will be needed.

If, say..... on a planet with 10 billion heads, everyone was rationed their (insert low number here) of bread? Could you really justify giving that ration to some shitbag or retard??

I dunno, there's a lot to the issue. I'd rather sit back and watch it burn anyway.

[Former_Member]

You don't have the right to decide whether a life is worth living or not. If they literally were not living, like the Schiavo case, then it might be a different story.

The only motivation to euthanize these people is selfish financial, and it goes against the fabric of all that is good about civilisation.

[FrY]

With out random genetic mutation a new virus or bacteria might find a welcome home in those that are genetical similar.
So out of the many possibilities of genetic predisposition , you wind up with a new combination of genetics that out weighs the sum of what is currently available.

That kid you know down the street that has to take shots before each meal may wind up producing an exponential amount of data that benefits society compared to you average blue collard tweaker.

[SKUV]

Disease/Disaster can help cull the herd but likely not to the extent that will be needed.



It seems that nature will kind of do this just fine. If the world gets so overpopulated that it is crowded all over the world, all it takes is one new virus or deadly bacteria, and since it would be so crowded everywhere it would spread like wildfire. Where would people run in a situation like that? The thing is, since everyone has survival instincts, what kind of crazy things would they do to survive?

Sorry, I'm just kind of rambling on..... :o

[Yggdrasil]

You don't have the right to decide whether a life is worth living or not. If they literally were not living, like the Schiavo case, then it might be a different story.

The only motivation to euthanize these people is selfish financial, and it goes against the fabric of all that is good about civilisation.
**cough**

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/4/343

Stop being such a bleeding heart dipshit, you'd think I targeted you personally when I said we should put down all the severe downies/autistic people (Seems like I may have :rolleyes:). Since when is incurring huge economic and not to mention emotional costs not only on family but on taxpayers as well to support people that will never do anything with life part of 'all that is good of civilization'.

[Butcher]

You guys are all fucking retards if you think any country in the western world (read: any country that matters) is going to impose hitler-esque eugenics protocols, whether or not you think they should. Reality does not care about your opinion.

The only real chance at improving the genetic makeup of the human species is with genetic engineering. For one thing scores of people won't have to be slaughtered, which aside from being an atrocity is also a huge drain on resources and money. For another, it will be optional, but will eventually create competition in such that not enhancing your child will be the same as disabling them. This way it creates a more natural, sort of market based selection rather than selection via human violent intervention.

Also I find it funny that a homosexual is in favor of this kind of thing given what happened to his people some 70 years ago. I guess the lesson is its okay as long its the people you don't like who are being exterminated.

[Former_Member]

**cough**

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/4/343

Stop being such a bleeding heart dipshit, you'd think I targeted you personally when I said we should put down all the severe downies/autistic people (Seems like I may have :rolleyes:). Since when is incurring huge economic and not to mention emotional costs not only on family but on taxpayers as well to support people that will never do anything with life part of 'all that is good of civilization'.

It's nothing to do with me, it's to do with ethics.

Again, it all comes down to your subjective ideas about what is good and should be encouraged; even if that encouragement means the murder of innocent people. Society won't be furthered at all by some mass culling of the mentally and physically challenged, it will be set back tremendously because whatever improvements that come along with it will also come with the understanding that a human life is only worth the material gain it can produce for the species.

What's next after that? Let's say it turns out homosexuals, due to not having kids, are considered a waste of resources in the grand future of humanity. I trust you'll be turning yourself in to the Gestapo then?

[DirtySanchez]

I completely agree with this eeveryone who has a very disabling genetic issue is only harming the kid and burdening society when they breed. For example Midgits have a 50 50 chance of the kid being a Midget. Same with retards having kids. I say I dont allow it and sterilize them.

[meth god]

Look at you SMU dating and falling in love then getting dumped by people on the internet.