Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[Mister Agenda]

As an atheist, it's clear that social darwinism is right.

Helping the poor, the disabled and disadvantaged is, ironically, the creation of the religious.

A truly secular world will treat humans according to their own worth. Only the strongest should survive.

In fact, I'm ashamed of atheists on welfare.

So is Neo-Humanism a version of humanism minus the humanity?

---

After all, humanistic values ultimately boil down to survival and reproduction.

I dare you to be more wrong.

---

It's certainly consistent with the pro-choice position to euthanize children born with down syndrome. We do that already, although before the fetus comes to term (see Rowe vs. Wade).

The pro-choice position is that women shouldn't be forced to carry fetuses to term. Euthanizing children with birth defects is an entirely different issue.

And there is no real difference between a fetus inside or outside a womb for most medical ethicists today.

I don't believe you.

But if that's a problem we can start slowly, by legalizing sterilization first, so that they can't reproduce.

Sterilization is already legal, provided it's voluntary.

The only problem is finding a convenient legal avenue in the American courts. We need 30 years at the most of consistently liberal Supreme Court selections till it's possible to start open, large-scale euthanasia or sterilization of some form in the US.

Have you ever spoken to a professional about your paranoid delusions?

Now that the Republicans have been destroyed in this last election, we are ready to start this chain. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is already 79. Those achy bones need to be replaced with a young, liberal maverick. And frankly it's about time.

Just trolling?