forum Debate. Debate. Debate.
Started by Deleted user
tune
Edit topic

people_alt 109 followers

@Pickles group

Unpopular opinion that's not mine #456793
We shouldn't try to help dying or diseased babies because they weaken the gene pool (again, not my opinion, it's something I heard at school)

Deleted user

this isn’t the fucking hunger games, it’s not survival of the fittest. ?!!! who even said that

Deleted user

Darwin… and technically is is survival of the fittest

Deleted user

From a scientific standpoint it does make sense. You only want to pass on the strongest genes so that the species survives.
But
It's babies.
I mean if it's merciful to let them die instead of suffer a horrible life of pain then yes, I would agree that letting them go would be a good choice. But that is the only criteria. Not 'because they have weak genes'.

weird subject.

Deleted user

I think the only argument against it is: They're babies. We don't kill babies. Especially when we have the technology to cure most (if not all) issues that a newborn would come into contact with.

But like I said scientifically it makes sense, so I can't really argue against it. A strong gene pool creates a strong race

@Pickles group

So it's just this one person (that is NOT me, to reiterate. I also do not support killing children). My school is seriously messed up…….well I'm glad we all agree killing babies is bad

@Pickles group

Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others

@The-N-U-T-Cracker

I just can’t see how that’s considered reasonable… That’s like ending overpopulation by nuking random cities, or ending racism by killing off all but one race… Like, it’s a good cause I guess, but it’s not a good solution at all