should we cull the weak at birth

[Wowstrongcut]

blind, deformed, retardation , medical predispositions, cripple. etc.....

if there are known problems then what is the point of keeping these people around it seems like illogical sympathy.

[An hero]

wat

[flabtoabs]

start with yourself, your existence has drained 23 years and 9-months worth of resources.

[Penile_Dementia]

We should cull those in the red.

[E-Dub187]

OP, I think you need to find yourself a gun and a place with nobody around then.

[anonymous]

no, that would be inhumane, but we should not be incubating bad genes and pursuing the 'life at all costs' mentality I see in the US. When you watch the freak shows on TLC about kids born with no face and legs and the millions spent on trying to make them look marginally less horrific you have to wonder why we don't have mandatory genetic screening for pregnant women with compulsary abortions in the case of downs, faceless, armless kids.

I know, I know, every life is Preshious 2 Jesus.

Ideally there would be a way of predicting the egg/sperm combinations and having a designer baby.

I know, I know, we mustn't meddle and having a generation of healthy, intelligent kids isn't Gods will.

[dabbmw2002]

agreed, lets start with posters in the red

[Wowstrongcut]

agreed, lets start with posters in the red

brb getting culled

but for example i breed fish and the ****ty ones with bent spines i always cull them because their lives would just be hard anyways.

so why are humans any different if anything isnt it merciful to do what nature would have anyways if not for society being around ???

[leafs43]

They did that in ancient times.

There is a reason why we call ourselves more civilized.

[otisthebat]

im not in support of this, but we are forstalling evolution. in nature, the weak die off and when enough of the weak die, they cant pass on their genes, hence the weakness is naturally weeded out over time. however in modern times with humans, we take care of the weak and let them procreate, thus spreading their genes and more weakness ensues.

[jmonty]

i wish i could recall the name of the episode of star trek: TNG on this subject so i could link it.

[Bluerain]

They did that in ancient times.

There is a reason why we call ourselves more civilized.

Sparta well known for doing it. They didn't kill them they just threw them in a pit and left them for the wild animals.

To answer the OP's question ...NO !

[Moh7]

This is what hitler did you animal.

[Arbex]

OP has a point and you all know it.

We can find out about bad diseases before the baby is even born; specially genetic diseases.

In my genetics class we had a discussion about this **** (finding out what kind of deformities the baby would have and thinking about aborting it)--then thinking about where we'd draw the line.

Putting a person in this world who has diseases which will only make them AND THOSE AROUND HIM/HER suffer and not enjoy life isn't something anyone should go through.

It isn't fair for the kid and it isn't fair for the parents either.

**** again, and produce a healthy baby who will actually enjoy life or even BE AWARE of it.

[NJlifter88]

kill? no. let die? yes.

[Bluerain]

The goverment or the people shouldn't have any say at all in this ...it should be left up to the parents and the parents alone.

OP has a point and you all know it.

We can find out about bad diseases before the baby is even born; specially genetic diseases.

In my genetics class we had a discussion about this **** (finding out what kind of deformities the baby would have and thinking about aborting it)--then thinking about where we'd draw the line.

Putting a person in this world who has diseases who will only make them AND THOSE AROUND HIM/HER suffer and not enjoy life isn't something anyone should go through.

It isn't fair for the kid and it isn't fair for the parents either.

**** again, and produce a healthy baby who will actually enjoy life or even BE AWARE of it.

[Arbex]

kill? no. let die? yes.

Agreed with this. The only problem is that in today's society we'd never "just let it die." We'd be spending a lot of money supporting it. That's why the decision has to be made before the baby is born.

That way it'd be more "accepted" in today's morality.

[Arbex]

The goverment shouldn't have any say at all in this ...it should be left up to the parent.

Yes, agreed.

Personally, if I was going to have a baby with someone and we found out that it'd have a bad disease, I'd talk with my wife/gf about aborting it.

[Bluerain]

kill? no. let die? yes.

Don't you think to let them die on their own would be more cruel ?

[NJlifter88]

Don't you think to let them die on their own would be more cruel ?

this is not about cruelty to me. its about justice. i don't think its just to kill a baby. however, i do think its just to let nature take its course with human life. if parents want to take care of a kid, let them do it. however, i don't think there needs to be state support.

[lightningwatche]

blind, deformed, retardation , medical predispositions, cripple. etc.....

if there are known problems then what is the point of keeping these people around it seems like illogical sympathy.

Are you bald? Let's kill you since I'm sure you are suffering if you are bald. And no, you don't get a choice in the matter.


No, we don't kill the weak. We just sterilize them if they are incapable of taking care of themselves. I say don't breed them if you can't feed them. But the state does not kill you just because your life is not as good as someone else's.

I do support blood tests to see if a fetus will have those problems in the first 3 months of pregnancy. But once it is conscious, all you can do is sterilize if it can't take care of itself as an adult.

[lightningwatche]

no, that would be inhumane, but we should not be incubating bad genes and pursuing the 'life at all costs' mentality I see in the US. When you watch the freak shows on TLC about kids born with no face and legs and the millions spent on trying to make them look marginally less horrific you have to wonder why we don't have mandatory genetic screening for pregnant women with compulsary abortions in the case of downs, faceless, armless kids.

I know, I know, every life is Preshious 2 Jesus.

Ideally there would be a way of predicting the egg/sperm combinations and having a designer baby.

I know, I know, we mustn't meddle and having a generation of healthy, intelligent kids isn't Gods will.

Depends if the funds are private or public. If public, they should only go to educating and raising the kid, and buying a wheel chair so he can go to school and sit behind the big desk. If private, they can do what they want, face lift and all.

IMO, if you can feel the warm summer breeze on your face and look at a sunset, then you are better off alive and should not be allowed to commit suicide.

[otisthebat]

Are you bald? Let's kill you since I'm sure you are suffering if you are bald. And no, you don't get a choice in the matter.


No, we don't kill the weak. We just sterilize them if they are incapable of taking care of themselves. I say don't breed them if you can't feed them. But the state does not kill you just because your life is not as good as someone else's.

I do support blood tests to see if a fetus will have those problems in the first 3 months of pregnancy. But once it is conscious, all you can do is sterilize if it can't take care of itself as an adult.

since when is being bald a weakness? you are comparing a coat hanger to a fountain pen.

[lightningwatche]

this is not about cruelty to me. its about justice. i don't think its just to kill a baby. however, i do think its just to let nature take its course with human life. if parents want to take care of a kid, let them do it. however, i don't think there needs to be state support.

What if a parent chooses not to take care of a normal kid? What level of care may they drop to before they must inform the state the kid may be addopted?

Should all parents be allowed to give up their kids at any age if they want? This happened in Nebraska a while back. Many parents were dropping off kids of all ages at hospitals, until the law was reworded to only include infants under 3 days old.

[lightningwatche]

since when is being bald a weakness? you are comparing a coat hanger to a fountain pen.

He mentioned kids with messed up faces. That is not a weakness either, but is comparable to baldness. If you attack my baldness example, don't forget to tell the OP that an ugly face is not a weakness either.

[otisthebat]

He mentioned kids with messed up faces. That is not a weakness either, but is comparable to baldness. If you attack my baldness example, don't forget to tell the OP that an ugly face is not a weakness either.

he said deformed, as in born deformed. people become bald late in life and you can still lead a completely normal life. whereas you are born deformed and are always deformed, which is a trait that most people would like to phase out.

[lightningwatche]

he said deformed, as in born deformed. people become bald late in life and you can still lead a completely normal life. whereas you are born deformed and are always deformed, which is a trait that most people would like to phase out.

Deformed faces don't necessarily stop you from surviving. They can be appearance based, same as balding. You got to decide where you want to draw the line.

[djwolford]

God yes. If a baby is going to be born with a severe physical/mental deformity or condition, just off it before it ever gets out of the womb. I mean I'm a pro-life kind of guy but I'd be willing to set my beliefs aside for the good of mankind in that situation.

[NJlifter88]

What if a parent chooses not to take care of a normal kid? What level of care may they drop to before they must inform the state the kid may be addopted?

Should all parents be allowed to give up their kids at any age if they want? This happened in Nebraska a while back. Many parents were dropping off kids of all ages at hospitals, until the law was reworded to only include infants under 3 days old.

i think that parents have the responsibility for caring for their own children. i don't mean that parents ought to be freed of their parental responsibilities, but rather that they are alone in caring for their child and that they do not rack up incredible medical bills with tax payer money. we have our own kids to take care of.

[qwertyui213]

Huh?


The fact that someone's got bad eyesight, or a physical disability, doesn't mean ****. Steven Hawking is completely paraplegic, and he's the world's foremost physicist.

Beethoven went deaf and he's a legendary composer.

People's potential isn't dependent on their physical attributes - just because someone's not a physically "perfect" Gattaca example of humanity doesn't mean he may not do incredible things in the world.

This kind of elitism should have died with the eugenics movement in 1945