Handicapped Children: Keep or Abort?

[Fragony]

Really recoverin from a drug addiction is worthy of praise. They won't get it from me because I kinda agree with you. But again this is a think-tank, it's impossible to pull of. For actual policy it has just as much weight as our conversation here.

[The Stranger]

I have never understood why (recoverd) addicts get lavished with such praise.

Being so addicted to something that it makes a pesron useless to socitey is something 99% of the population can avoid doing. Instead of lavishing praise on them we should hand them a card that says "Welcome back to the baseline" and give them a drive through walkie

It is utterly disgusting to see people piss there lives away and it is even more disgusting to see these people still sucking at the tit of the nanny state while a think tank proposes that to put less stress on the government payroll we abort retarded babies.

If unborn children could vote I suspect this would be a different story.

Now this does not mean I am opposed to abortion or some form of a government saftey net but I beilive the government saftey net would be much better if it was geared toward the working poor instead, including retards who bag groceries and are happy to be there.

A genuis drug addict is worth less to society than an imbecile. It is much better to allocate rescources to him

Let's kill all the people on welfare for more than 6 months. Crack open there skulls, scramble there brains, and throw them in a dumpster. That'll releive stress on the goverenment dole to.

European logic is literally ass backwards

i think there is some confusion. It is not about spending money elsewhere and not on aborted babies. it is about lowering taxes so that people who have no responsibility for the child of another person doesnt have to pay for it. if it was for them all schools and hospitals would be private and only those who can afford would benefit.

[Strike For The South]

i think there is some confusion. It is not about spending money elsewhere and not on aborted babies. it is about lowering taxes so that people who have no responsibility for the child of another person doesnt have to pay for it. if it was for them all schools and hospitals would be private and only those who can afford would benefit.

So cut spending for people who take and take and take....Of course that would mean losing votes which would mean losing power and we can't very well have a good solution get in the way of losing office

[The Stranger]

-_- u have no idea what you are talking about. if it was for the liberal think tank all those people would be left to die. but i wont defend that. cuz i dont agree with it. nor do i agree with the proposed argument about handicapped children.

[Ironside]

Enough questions - here are my views. Increasingly humans are creating a system that goes against evolution. Many handicaps are in essence genetic defects that should die out as the carriers have less children - but this is less and less the case. Certain classes breed like rabbits from a young age. In most species this trade off for this is higher infant mortality which would be the case if the State didn't support them with little if any tradeoff for their actions.

The lower class (aka those who breed like rabbits) getting genetically defective children will spend more of their own resources on that child, thus getting fewer children. Also, that child will have reduced probabillities to get children of his/her own. See evolution wins again.

Anyway, humanity is currently mainly genetically diversifying itself (6 milliards different genetical codes), most pruning will probably be from diseases, which have harder patterns to predict.

And the suggestion really sounds like subversive anarcho-capitalism. Thread down that patch and you'll end up with something that makes anarcho-capitalism sound like a reasonable alternative (since it will only make you cynical/borderline cruel and not cruel with a eugenics theme).

[gaelic cowboy]

The lower class (aka those who breed like rabbits) getting genetically defective children will spend more of their own resources on that child, thus getting fewer children. Also, that child will have reduced probabillities to get children of his/her own. See evolution wins again.

That is a load of cobblers man have you ever seen a properly destitute family they have loads of kids taking away support structures may save cash in the short term but it wont save it forever.

[miotas]

He's right actually, if a couple has a disabled child then they need to spend all of their time and money (even with government support) looking after that child and they usually don't have any further children because, as much as they love their child, they just couldn't cope if they happened to have another with the same problem.

[Husar]

He's right actually, if a couple has a disabled child then they need to spend all of their time and money (even with government support) looking after that child and they usually don't have any further children because, as much as they love their child, they just couldn't cope if they happened to have another with the same problem.

What if their 24th child is disabled and they already have 23?

[The Stranger]

What if their 24th child is disabled and they already have 23?

and how many families in europe since the 1980 do you know that have more than 5 children?

[Fragony]

and how many families in europe since the 1980 do you know that have more than 5 children?

You obviously didn't grow up in the bible-belt, not that uncommon at all.

[The Stranger]

actually... becoming more and more uncommon. my dad came from a 11 kid family. but thats baby boom.

[Fragony]

It would surprise you, but it's getting less yeah, life expectancy used to be bad because vaccinations are EVIL since a certain death after a long and excruciatingly painful sickbed is what the lord really wants for you

[The Stranger]

nah its not just that... ppl get families at later age, get less children cuz they want to pamper those they get. and besides they want to have a career too and you cant have one if you are pregnant all the time.

[Fragony]

nah its not just that... ppl get families at later age, get less children cuz they want to pamper those they get. and besides they want to have a career too and you cant have one if you are pregnant all the time.

Heh you -obviously- didn't grow up in the bible-belt these griffo's are assembly-lines they breed like rabbits, squeezing out the annual hatchling is as much a constant as Disney releasing a new classic at christmas.

[The Stranger]

im not just talking about christians XD but apparantly you are. i mean the west as a whole.

[Husar]

and how many families in europe since the 1980 do you know that have more than 5 children?

I don't know that many families in Europe so my numbers wouldn't be representative anyway. It wasn't me who complained about the poor having way too many children, ask those who did.

[Megas Methuselah]