Why I became the REAL Pro-Choice...Pro-Eugenics

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by mostlyspoons

 

I understand that you are worried about the HUMANE aspects of this. I am too. That is why I propose that we use a process of giving them a shot to knock them out and then humanely dispose of them through lethal injection, poison gas, or maybe if the family is poorer we could just cremate the person once they are knocked out and help save on the cost of burial. That is all humane or they wouldnt do it to animals at the vet.

You are kidding, right?

TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT SAY I AM JOKING

Why cant a person change and have a new view on these matters? I listened to the other side and realized the error of my ways. This is no joke. It is just expanding on a good idea. You might ask, what is that good idea? Well that good idea is giving the people closest to you as well as yourselves to have CHOICE about whether you are good for the family and the world.

Dont you want the freedom to terminate yourself if you are unhappy or sick? Why should anyone, including the government, tell us whether we should live or die. We should leave that answer to our loved ones and to ourselves. Just think of the possibilities.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


No I am not kidding. I am just showing you that we already do it to other animals so why not we humans. After all they call it humane disposal at the veteranarian, so it must be humane. Its more humane than taking a bat to the dogs head to put it out of its misery. Wouldnt you agree?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Well kick me, beat me and call me dirty names. I typed Eugenics Society into Google just for kicks and giggles and guess what!

Eugenics Society

A eugenics society was a society formed to promote the idea of eugenics. In particular, the two best-known were the British Eugenics Society and the American Eugenics Society, though smaller ones were also at universities such as the Cambridge Eugenics Society. Many prominent people were members of these societies, though with the discrediting of the idea of eugenics, most of them disbanded or at least shrunk in size.

WOW I am surprised you didn't know about all this.

and dear margret s.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

No I am not kidding. I am just showing you that we already do it to other animals so why not we humans. After all they call it humane disposal at the veteranarian, so it must be humane. Its more humane than taking a bat to the dogs head to put it out of its misery. Wouldnt you agree?

I am having a hard time taking you serious.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

I am having a hard time taking you serious.

Well I am sorry. I am just trying to explain my concept. Maybe you know a more humane way to terminate people. I am open to suggestion.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

I am having a hard time taking you serious.

Well I am sorry. I am just trying to explain my concept. Maybe you know a more humane way to terminate people. I am open to suggestion.

LOL
cute

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Well if you dont want to have a serious discussion about it then I dont know what to tell you. Dont you see the benefits of this for the world?

For example as in my previous post it could even be used to solve the crisis of starving people in africa.

We could just use that money we are spending to feed them to pay them or their families to terminate one another. Then each year its less money, because its less people to feed.

I mean we all know it must be better to be dead than be hungry with flies landing on you all day. I bet if we gave them the means they would run to the doctor to be terminated.

Maybe we could do it like Operation Smile where they take that jet around the world and operate on kids. Maybe there could be a jet with a crematorium on it and they could line up to have a chance to be next. Then when the Operation Hope (i am just making up a name, but that seems like a good one) doctors were done they could spread the ashes as the plane ascended out of there.

Thus we would be giving back to the earth. Its a win-win for everyone.

[edit on 5/21/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

You said :
Why cant a person change and have a new view on these matters? I listened to the other side and realized the error of my ways.

It's like a pendulum ... an open mind always trumps 'narrow minded attitudes' - and don't fall for the fear-mongering 'folk-wisdom' that if you're too open-minded your 'brains might fall out.'

Nonsense !

Keep thinking for yourself and with some luck you will 'converge' to the truth.

The pendulum 'swings both ways' !

reply to post by visible_villain


Thank you for your encouragement. I mean I will admit that I have always embraced things fully that I embrace. I will keep on trying to share my idea with the world in hopes that people will see the benefits. I know it can seem kind of rough, but really its just another way to love and help humanity.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

We could just use that money we are spending to feed them to pay them or their families to terminate one another.

How much should they get paid?

reply to post by visible_villain

We could just use that money we are spending to feed them to pay them or their families to terminate one another.

Then you think this is a good idea?





[edit on 013131p://bThursday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I havent really thought it out that far. Well it is beneficial to the world on multiple levels so pretty much I guess. Maybe a 1000 dollars or so. That is just off the top of my head though. Think of the benefits.
1. We put the people out of their misery.
2. Nobody is getting love in africa because of the hierarchy of needs. If you arent eating you arent loving.
3. Its less people to feed so maybe they will become sustainable at some point.
4. Its good for the environment because it is less people to negatively impact it.
5. It will eventually free us from having to view the horrorific images of them suffering.
6. The ones that do get paid can use that money to feed themselves and improve their lives. Like they could use the money to get a well dug or build a school. If they are lucky and they have a lot of relatives they could build up a pretty good savings.


Maybe Sally Fields will embrace the idea and change her pitch so we can raise money for this idea as well. Something like for a dollar a day, the price of a candy bar, you could end these peoples suffering forever.

[edit on 5/21/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Whew, your good.

Do you do stand up?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I understand if you disagree. I used to be pro-life once too. However, you dont need to mock my ideas. That isnt constructive for anyone. Sorry for complaining though, because I have been foolish in the past and mocked other people, so I am really no better.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

You said :
Then you think this is a good idea?

What I think is the path to 'correct view' or 'objective reason' or 'truth' or however you want to call it is a process, a journey ...

As long as we are alive we might as well embrace life by 'living.' This implies ( hopefully ) going where 'no man has gone before' ...

Ideas change from day to day, hence the reference to the 'pendulum' ...

Unless we examine the world from many viewpoints we can never find what's real.

Never believe anybody ! Check it all out for yourself !!

If you can walk this path 'beyond hope and fear' you will find the truth.

This path takes time, and is filled with pitfalls, and we will take risks and all make mistakes.

This is called learning, living and 'finding the center' ...

Nobody can do this for us - we must each walk this path ourselves !

reply to post by visible_villain


Wow once again I thank you. Your words are very encouraging. This has been a tough concept to present to people. I didnt expect all the backlash and ridicule, so your kind words are much appreciated.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

I understand if you disagree. I used to be pro-life once too. However, you dont need to mock my ideas. That isnt constructive for anyone. Sorry for complaining though, because I have been foolish in the past and mocked other people, so I am really no better.

Oh I am not mocking.

reply to post by visible_villain

We could just use that money we are spending to feed them to pay them or their families to terminate one another.

So you think this is a good idea?

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya

 

See we are a lot a like. We are both pro-choice. Maybe I want to allow a little more choice than you do, but is that wrong.

My best friend and his wife have an autistic child and he is a real burden to the family. He wont behave and all he will eat is Cheetos and Pepsi. It has to be Cheetos and Pepsi or he will flip. Like if you try to slip him a coke he will loose his mind. It is such a strain on my friends. I have shared this idea with my friend and he says if it became legal he would put the boy out of his misery.

Why should my friend and his wife be burdened with this for the rest of their lives. It is no different than forcing a woman to have a child she doesnt want. Neither one is fair.

[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

I'm not sure if your serious - or your having a joke?

Anyhow - I used to like the idea of just offing people who were a negative impact on society, but I lightened up a bit - its mainly because people would complain about it too much.

Where people act in a criminal or violent way, then I still think it is economically better off to just kill them. The controllers however would have us believe its 'barbaric' to kill off 'evil' (I mean screwed up that will kill for no particular reason) people - it isn't of course, they just want to keep those people alive and in prison to increase the public debt. They have made it so expensive to execute people, that it is actually cheaper to lock them up - which is what they want.

Once people are alive however, then I think it is moral to try and give them a good life - even though it might be a hard burden. The trick I think is to try and identify if there is going to a problem before they are born - if theres a major problem then abortion should be considered, and further to promote better genes by using some form of eugenics.

Ultimately you don't want to see children brought into the world who are going to suffer from day one - whether its a congenital disease, or extreme poverty, especially if they are going to be treated as a burden by their parents, without loving parents then life is probably never going to give them joy. Suffering could be averted by having an abortion.

I think eugenics is necessary, because natural selection is no longer going to be in charge of the gene pool - so we have to manage it ourselves, or we will end up with a population suffering from every conceivable genetic disease etc. My suggestion for a eugenics program would be to test mothers for capability, then either offer them a financial incentive (if they have no genetic issues, decent intelligence and physique etc) or a disincentive if they have a genetic disease, or are below average mentally or physically.

I guess I'm pro-choice if that's what you call it - but people really need to work at getting it right before someone gets pregnant.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by Amagnon]