If a person is defective, they should be eliminated

Post Reply New Topic

This would simply be cutting the extra fat off of society. There are 7 billion people on this planet. If a single one of them is incapable of productivity, or damaged in any way, would it not be proper to eliminate them?

Consider that a large portion of human beings do not work, or are incapable of working, yet they reproduce and take up an unnecessary amount of resources. They are the surplus population. Like any instance in which there is a surplus of goods, the value of that good decreases. So it is with the human species.

So what happens to someone like Stephen Hawking?

We need to have a referendum:

Do you believe in euthanasia?

Yes?

No?

Once the results are all gathered in everybody who answered 'YES' should be euthanased

In 1994 my late wife, Corinne, was MURDERED in a Welsh hospital by a Consultant who had previously said to me:

"I have a duty to my patients' souls. If they deteriorate too much their souls have difficulty passing over"

He was lying ... he just liked killing people.

... and, of course, being the person he was he had to tell me he'd killed her.

Now he's heavily involved in the computerisation of patients' medical records in the UK ... and has proposed that the records be examined by a program that can "cost effectively" determine who should be treated and who should be "terminated".

The Devil has awoken from his sleep! "Ah! Yes! Euthanasia! What a WONDERFUL opportunity for ME!"

If I were to read in tomorrow's paper that Jeremy Paxman had tripped over his shoelaces a broken his kneck I'd be very, very happy, especially if he survived and spent the rest of his life as a paraplegic. Who knows, maybe he'd even change his mind about the need for the "burdensome" people to be "got rid of"?

I think of eugenics and population control as being sort of like vegetarianism.

I think that they are a good idea, but I don't think that these ideas should be made compulsory by governments. Rather, what is needed is a sort of consciousness-raising. Educated concerned citizens will choose to have fewer children. People with genetic diseases will choose to adopt. The key point is education.

A serial killer is found guilty of killing 17 women. The judge sentences him to spend 13 years being trained to be a hospital consultant.

There's no such thing as a compassionate serial killer.

I have a problem with this line of thinking. For one thing, I would hate to be the person making the judgment of who is/is not "defective." Furthermore, I would not like to be otherwise for fear of being judged defective myself. The conflict results in my opposition to such thinking.

OP this gets way to opinionated.

when do you decide that someone is incapable from work. I recently dropped out of college. I plan to go back, but I don't know when and I don't have the job at the moment, so I am free riding with my grandparents, so should I be killed?

Almost seems like you are saying the reverse should happen, as in your being sarcastic.

define worth and productiivity to the rest of humanity,

i can think of a few complete industries that do more damage than they ever did good.

What a bunch of anti-human garbage....

Let me be the first to Godwin this thread and cite the obvious similarities between the OP's post and Hitler's concept of the "Master Race".

Umm, I guess I am okay with killing serial killers but other than not, no...

I don't really feel like this needs to be argued further.

Yes!

The first to go are those socially and emotionally irrational types. They're the most defective as far as rational reasoning and logical deduction and induction goes.

(That's pretty much everyone, but that's beside the point.)

This is one of those issues that on paper it superficially makes sense. But once you explore the idea that it is people who make the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die, you realize a system like this could not function properly, as it would be corrupted and flawed from its inception.

Yeah this topic is not a good one. As others have said, since it is people who decide what flawed is, and people are inherently flawed, the system could never be anything but flawed. Humans have long since left behind evolution, using medicine, science and technologies to overcome limitations. The only real way to force eugenics in a neutral manner is to remove that medicine, science and technologies and have people work for survival, and that would only work if everyone was forced into it.

Euthanasia should be legal on the other hand, but only as an option and the patient being the one to decide. Those people in advanced stages of cancer or AIDS get pumped full of drugs only to draw out their inevitable death, they should have a choice. Someone who is completely paralysed too should also get a choice, being stuck in a wheelchair your whole life without even being able to breath without help would be cruel. Forcing it like Newtonscat describes is wrong.

I am the kind of person that would even defend a serial child killer clown's right to live, that is how serious about rights I am.

What if the authority you wanted decided that your sister was 'defective'? Would you be okay with that?