WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

578

I've been in the eugenics camp for quite some time, but this policy isn't necessarily "eugenic" because a lot of these people are genetic dead ends regardless. No girl is going to fuck a dude with cerebral palsy, for example.

Watch the beginning of this video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/m8zmjm/driver_gets_emotional_when_he_sees_how_his/

Most of the faggots on Reddit are tearing up, but I'm sitting here perplexed by a society that would foist such a limited and partial existence on a person who would be better off dead, and who we would be better off with dead. We're partway there; we pull life support on those in vegetative states, absent of any brain function other than that which keeps their bodies alive.

Consider . We, as an enlightened and scientifically-informed civilization, believe that it is more compassionate and humane to keep children like this alive. There are drooling, catatonic individuals in institutions that we keep alive from that same misplaced sense of compassion.

And on a different note, we keep old men and women who are completely invalid, emaciated, and dependent on others to shit, piss, show, eat, etc. We are so death-averse that we'd much rather have people endure their hellish existence than allow them to achieve the most enduring peace that is death.

I've been in the eugenics camp for quite some time, but this policy isn't necessarily "eugenic" because a lot of these people are genetic dead ends regardless. No girl is going to fuck a dude with cerebral palsy, for example. Watch the beginning of this video: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/m8zmjm/driver_gets_emotional_when_he_sees_how_his/ Most of the faggots on Reddit are tearing up, but I'm sitting here perplexed by a society that would foist such a limited and partial existence on a person who would be better off dead, and who we would be better off with dead. We're partway there; we pull life support on those in vegetative states, absent of any brain function other than that which keeps their bodies alive. Consider [these children](https://files.catbox.moe/qzqjuz.WEBP). We, as an enlightened and scientifically-informed civilization, believe that it is more compassionate and humane to keep children like this alive. There are drooling, catatonic individuals in institutions that we keep alive from that same misplaced sense of compassion. And on a different note, we keep old men and women who are completely invalid, emaciated, and dependent on others to shit, piss, show, eat, etc. We are so death-averse that we'd much rather have people endure their hellish existence than allow them to achieve the most enduring peace that is death.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

We’re not jews. We don’t behave like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#In_ancient_history

The Greeks and Romans did this. I don't advocate exposure but rather a peaceful injection. I would not condemn a person to an existence that is limited or painful. Who displays greater humanity here?

[–] 0 pt

Who displays greater humanity here?

We do. Because we can now GENETICALLY SCREEN AND COUNCIL THE PARENTS before the kid even exists. The Romans cited infant sacrifice as one of the reasons they razed Carthage, by the way.

[–] 3 pts

Sacrificing healthy babies to deities is not equatable to euthanizing lame infants. Or are you personally incapable of making that distinction?

[–] 0 pt

The distinction seems callously subhuman.