[wagglebee]

I advocated the sterilization of persons with genetic defects listed as catastrophic to the child, who had then chosen, after have been advised of such, to produce that child.

And once we accept the premise that such a list is permissible, what will stop its expansion?

Eugenicists have already tried this and the best known (though not deadliest) result was the Holocaust.

Once that kid is born, they should be charged, prosecuted, and if found guilty, then punishment should be exacted. You are correct that this is not listed as a statutory crime. I am stating that it should be.

The eugenicists have also done this before, the Nazis called it the "Marriage Health Law" and it well parallels your beliefs.

Guns were used for murder too. That does not make what I proposed to be eugenics.

Are you totally unaware of the eugenic sterilization programs that existed in the United States? Are you familiar with the Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell?

[Darksheare]

I forget what the forced sterilization programs were called, but men and women who had learning disabilities were forcibly sterilized in the past.
Sanger was proud.

[Carry_Okie]

And once we accept the premise that such a list is permissible, what will stop its expansion?

Well, after all that hypocrisy, slander, misconstruction, and disrespect, you now ask a legitimate question and expect a discussion without apology? Really?

Yes it is a slippery slope. So is the cost/benefit of technology while children suffer for the lack of basic care. You think Messiah doesn't care about them?

Best to think of how to manage that slope. I picked one. The devil will be in the details. I still do not understand how you fail to equate the damage done to a child by drugged out parents as compared to pedophiles you would see mutilated.