Would forced euthanasia be beneficial to society? if so...

would forced euthanasia be beneficial to society? if so, is it better to abort before the child is born (disability confirmed) or after?

Other urls found in this thread:

wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion
thehartleyhooligans.com/
youtu.be/BBvIweCIgwk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

the better question is
would Sup Forums even exists if forced euthanasia becomes legal?

understanding_in_an_ovaries_crash.jpg

explain?

I think it is better to include them for extra workforce in lesser jobs. If it is a condition that makes someone a potato, then yes, euthanasia is the only option.

Think about modern dogs, they exist because of horse breeding. There are smart, dumb, big, small, nice, angry dogs. If they would do the same with humans, imagine what would be possible: immune to the most illnesses, big strong humans, intelligent humans. You don't have to kill disabled persons, that would be cruel. But you can prohibit children from disabled, sick or not suitable persons.

Trips of truth

Anyone knows what happened to this girls?

Case made.

Dubs of confirmation

top kek and checked

I feel sorry for you.

Wow. You'd be the first to be euthanized

But would it be benefitial or not? We all know it would be cruel, but thats not the point.

...

Pure Sup Forums gold, right here

Born without a brain, essentially. They only have what's called the "lizard brain" which is not much more than a brain stem and which allows for basic physiological functions (breathing, growing, shifting) but no mental functions at all. They're as intelligent as moss.

It's difficult to have a really good and free society when you have people with disabilities being dead weight with their medical bills. Hell even soviet russia realized that communism doesn't work when you have a lot of people who don't work so they killed them.

However I recognize that freedom can also mean not aborting disabled fetuses and giving them a shot at life.

Honestly I think we need more money and emphasis on education and post-high school programs. High school education has changed little in the last 30 years while the economy has rapidly changed. A lot of the work force simply doesn't measure up to the responsibilities required of them. This parallels the discussion on disabled persons in many ways as to whether they contribute to society or are even happy with a place in it at all. The freedom of becoming the best you can be is paramount to a country's success.

The humans have to enhance themselves, because we alter (destroy) our planet too fast. This menas that the nature can't keep up, so of we want to exist the next 500 years we HAVE to make strict laws to better the human race.

Yes it would bring advantages and keep us alive, I think outlawing bad material (for genetic reasons, not the person) would be important and the right thing to do.

Euthanism like the nazis did is absolutely wrong. Abortion is a difficult topic, if it is 99.99% certain that the baby is diabled, abortion should be allowed. But in future there will (hopefully) be technology to check the genom so that fetus wont exist in the first place.

no some people still get livable lives despite their situation

I'm definitely not communist or even socialist but I recognize there's some people I meet whom I think would be even more impressive if they had the same opportunities as me.

even when they have little to no brain cells? and don't you think its cruel that the parents of the retard sperms above knew they had the gene causing this and took the risk not once but motherfucking twice? I think we should kill the parents and rape them at least

>Euthanism like the nazis did is absolutely wrong.

You'll have to explain this. I don't see a problem with self-improvement as a species. No one screams when we selectively breed livestock, plants or pets for genetic excellence - and we've done it for thousands of years - but if we do it for humans once, everyone loses their minds. I never understood that.

If there is a human he should have the right to live, but if its absolutely clear that he or she is disabled and an abortion is not possiblr, then this disabled person shouldn't be allowed to have kids. If you take the right measures you can decimice the figure of disabled persons humanely.

>would forced euthanasia be beneficial to society?

Of course. If everyone with an IQ lower than 100 was gassed, the world would be a far better place, mostly because it would solve the nigger problem.

Some would argue that forced sterilization - or something to the same effect - is absolutely immoral, a violation of one's human rights. It's not something you can do "humanely"

the problem is humans feel too much and think too little. plants/animals/cells are not viewed as emotional sentient beings, therefore its perfectly natural to kill off the inferior ones despite this not being true- (animals have feelings, have the ability to rape and be pedophiles, certain breeds of plants compete with each other and recognize their cousins, etc.) whereas other people have feelings, etc.

what gets me though is the people who defend retards like this are often the ones who shrug when 100 black people get killed, millions of Muslims die, etc. because they can't visualize them as individual objects but rather abstract ideas. I think people individualize these kinds of disabled people because 1) they look like kids and awww kids 2) religion 3) society forces them

But you can take this policy to reduction ad absurdum lengths. Do we just keep killing off the bottom dumbest 10% of the population every generation? Forever? Don't you have any moral qualms about this?

Imagine there were a flock of sheep, the strong will survie whilst the weak die, so the nature regulates the population. In the stonage disabled persons would not have single chance to survive. But because of our modern society we can be social an keep then in the society, but that doesn't mean a man with Trisomie 21, or a 50 cm munchkin should be allowed to get kids.

I remeber a story about a gropu of people in the jungle, that village contains people with only three toes, they live and eat like normal people, but the aren't allowed to breed with people from other villages. So if the stock to themselves their population will shrink until the last three-toed-mutant dies. And so the bad genes will be gone without killing anyone.

You won user.

First of all grand kek at the nigger joke.

Second I find intelligence to be very subjective. There's genetic ability which is almost impossible to isolate as you clearly can't give an IQ test to a 1 year old.

There's also environmental and cultural/social aspects.

There's also how the personality is geared towards learning and succeeding in work life. Some of the people start out strong and fizzle. Others are late bloomers. It's really hard to judge.

Finally there's hard work. You can't underestimate the importance of giving a strong fuck and taking action. If you have a 100 IQ and a strong work ethic then you'll do better than a good portion of your peers.

When we breed dogs we don't kill the other puppies. We just don't use theits sperm. It's that simple. You don't have to kill weak memebers of a race to evolve. Just exclude them from the breeding process.

>Do we just keep killing off the bottom dumbest 10% of the population every generation? Forever?

No, not forever. There's 7.6 billion people on this planet, and we'll ALL die due to exponential population growth, and feeding and nurturing subhuman populations who just breed and beg for more resources.

Human population grew from 1 billion in 1800, and now the carrying capacity of the planet is challenged.

>There's genetic ability which is almost impossible to isolate as you clearly can't give an IQ test to a 1 year old.

You can extrapolate based on the stupidity of the parents. They should go, too.

>Just exclude them from the breeding process

People still lose their minds if you propose this. Imagine forcibly sterilizing everyone with a sub-100 IQ. The liberal media would go ape-shit. There is no way you could arrange for a "humane" limiting of the breeding habits of idiots without it getting shut down in five seconds due to widespread moral outrage.

>They should go, too.
Kek

Sub 100 would literally mean 3.5 billion people.

Slippery slope. Obvious deformities prebirth - parents should be given the choice. Prevention or genetic therapy while still developing is the best answer here.

You should also factor in things like comfort care - this is the term, at least in the USA, that refers to how we treat patients after we stop curative and correctional measures. Say you're a 90 year old with a heart condition, we stop trying to treat that and just make you comfortable. With how advanced neonatal care has become in the last 30 years, many babies are surviving that otherwise would not. This is in many cases a good thing, but as a result there are many more sickly children out there.

It also opens up the potential for abuse down the road. IQ is often correlated with education levels as well. Lack of education does not imply inherent low intelligence, it's merely correlated.

That jpeg is hilariously retarded.

>People still lose their minds if you propose this. Imagine forcibly sterilizing everyone with a sub-100 IQ.

Who's to say that there aren't scientists working on this already? Covert chemical sterilization might be an option. When food becomes hard to come by, there might not be too many faggots crying about a low fecundity rate in the third world.

Frankly I'm surprised the Chinese haven't already.

>jpeg

Not as retarded as you

>Lack of education does not imply inherent low intelligence,

Societies and cultures that discourage education are inherently stupid and deserve to be ended. Note the muslim terrorists that attack schools and children in Pakistan.

>actually giving a shit about checking the file types

Wow, you're both retarded AND autistic. Gold star for you.

This is the norma distribution for the IQ, the population is represented by the face under the curve, that means 50% have a higher and 50% have a lower iq. The 60% around 100 is razed normal. That mean 84% of humans are ok.

I'm pretty sure China is doing a pilot test of a Citizenship Score which is similar in that it quantifies your value as a contributing person to society.

wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion

>Note the muslim terrorists that attack schools and children in Pakistan.

A lot of Muslim terrorists are highly formally educated. PhDs, engineers, etc. For some reason, even intelligent people can get suckered into the religious fervor.

>Frankly I'm surprised the Chinese haven't already.
Until they went quasi-capitalist they used forced abortions, financial burdens, and even used tanks to wreck houses of families that had more than on child.

Now, with capitalist cash, they're equipping the largest military force the world has ever seen.

Forced euthanasia would, besides being horrible immoral, be very difficult to implement in any country that isn't an autocratic shithole. Even then, Nazi Germany tried to do that with the mentally retarded before the whole Jews thing, and the people got so butthurt about it that Hitler shut it down.

A more practical method would be forced sterilization, which the American government actually implemented in the early 1900s during the eugenics craze. The first woman sterilized tried to bring her case to the supreme court, who actually ruled that it was legally okay. The problem with this is that they wanted to sterilize anyone who was deemed feeble minded, or genetically predisposed to degenerate behavior. The woman, whose name I can't be fucked to remember or look up, was sterilized because her mother wasn't the most upstanding citizen. The woman didn't actually do anything to indicate she was going to be a social failure, but her lawyer kinda fucked her over.

Basically any effort at eugenics will probably be implemented poorly and/or recieve a shit ton on push back

>A lot of Muslim terrorists are highly formally educated. PhDs, engineers, etc. For some reason, even intelligent people can get suckered into the religious fervor.

But by discouraging other people from secular education, they deserve to be shot on sight.

>Basically any effort at eugenics will probably be implemented poorly and/or recieve a shit ton on push back

At least until people start going cold and hungry.

If I recall in Tennessee, a judge would cut off a couple years on your sentence if you took chemical sterilization pills. Some inmates embraced it and other people were abhorred by it. They obviously retracted it.

If it's completely optional then is there necessarily a downside such as this case.

You're the one who specified a file type rather than just saying "image" you .. you .. DOUBLE NIGGER!

88 Heil Hitler dubs

Germans tried that under Hitler, google Lebensborn.

Resembles Clockwork Orange, ma brotha

thehartleyhooligans.com/

Are you german?

yes

I think a lot of people in this thread have hit the nail on the head with sterilisation as opposed to euthanasia.

However a big problem with modern society is less and less smart people are having kids, especially at a younger (and therefore healthier) age. These people are focusing on their careers and life experiences, as any smart person should. However, the later you have kids, the more likely it is that something will be wrong with it. Some of these smarter people are choosing not to have kids at all, because why bring a child into a world like this?

It reaches a point where the dumber and therefore less well off people are out breeding the smarter people, meaning their children have less opportunities and the cycle repeats, over and over again. This leaves you in the situation where you can leave a tactic like sterilisation too late, because if you do you'll end up with massive economic and social consequences.

Well when survival is at stake then morality usually takes a breather, which I don't actually have too much of an issue with. However survival is not at stake, and so people don't have to choose between having not kids or starving to death.

If it's optional then it's completely okay, however in the prison scenario there's an lement of coercion involved. You can either stay in a cage for years on end surrounded by other criminals and risk rape, fights, death, etc. OR you can give up your ability to have children forever. It's like getting caught between a rock and a hard place, and so it can't be considered as voluntary.

Grüße aus der Ostmark!

>less and less smart people are having kids
youtu.be/BBvIweCIgwk

Interesting, it says on their page, the big one is already 16. I was always under the impression that anencephaly doesn't allow for more than a couple of weeks for the newborn.

Grüße aus Berlin, der Hauptstadt des Versagens.

I kek'd, might have to give that a watch tomorrow

I am extremely pro-euthanasia and eugenics

>less and less smart people
>less
fewer

few people died
a few people died

You got me, its late af here. Realised as soon as I posted it.

The perfect society is simple:
-Communist totalitarian society based on meritocracy (basically the absolute intellectual elite runs the government, they should all have a deep and sincere concern for the progress and survival of Humanity). There are no elections, to work in the government (and thus have power) you have to pass extremely hard tests of aptitude in pretty much every category. Remember that this is actual real communism (everyone works hard, the people that contribute the most get better stuff) not sissy student council communism (free stuff for everyone yay).
-Every heavily disabled fetus is aborted (unsalvageable things like Down Syndrome)
-As soon as they're born, the children are sent to government run education facilities.
-Extreme education ensues. Just like in ancient Greece, the kids are trained in every science, art and sport (including combat).
-Gradually the education program specializes depending on personal aptitude and what's needed for society
-The kids graduate and get their jobs assigned instantly. If you're dumb as rocks then robots will probably be able to do your job, which means you die and your remains are used as organic fertilizer.

I agree with one minor change - advanced AI runs the system at the top with the elite. This will (hopefully) prevent corruption, keeping everyone in line with the established rules.

...

Winrar

lmao this movie. I was thinking the same thing. Seriously a majority of the people I've met who have truly impressed me have 1 or no children. I can't even begin to count all the dumb fucks with several children.

Smarter people realize they have more opportunities in life than being breeding livestock.