The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,246 times Debate No: 18688
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I see a lot of debates on Abortion, but that leaves the decision up to the mother. Why not leave the decision of abortion up to the State?

If a fetus is going to be disabled once it is born, why not have the government do a forced abortion so that child wont have to suffer its entire life, and put a drain on our tax dollars to support this dead weight?

Also if a fetus is going to form perfectly healthy why let the mother kill the baby? It will grow up to be a productive citizen, adoption is a perfectly fine alternative.

If a human is stupid, or has genetic diseases such as diabetes or etc. , and shouldn't be having children because they will pass their negative genetic traits onto their children, we should sterilize them, so they can no longer have babies.

If a man and a woman are of good genetic stock, and they have children together, they should get tax breaks for every child they produce, this will encourage the production of healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays.

Also to allow mothers to work while they have children, state sponsored daycare centers should be opened up everywhere, so mothers can put their child in the states care who will employ child psychologists so their children will be in good hands. These day care centers will be socialized and paid for by tax dollars.


I'm thinking this may be a joke, but I'll take it seriously anyway.

There are a multitude of reasons why we should not let the state decide eugenics. I shall specifically address those that are practical, as this seems to be the major contention.

1) Promotion of individuality causes motivation causes better workers. Opposite is also true (removal of choice causes demotivation causes worse workers). Citation : It's so true, I cannot actually find anything to go here, so I'll refer to the Type Y worker dominant society. and will explain it best, I think.

P1 - Motivated workers work harder.
P2 - Happy workers are hard workers (or whatever the saying is)
C1 - Therefore, an effective business will want to motivate workers.

Now, the state, in your example, is completely totalitarian. Therefore, ignoring the obvious innate problem here (which I will later address), they would wish to motivate people. Therefore, it is not in a State's right mind to do this.

2) Requries mass upheaval of Status quo

Even the thought of this taking place is sickening, but I shall not address moral arguments, I shall do a pre-fiat argument. That is, the consequences of what you are doing. I shall also criticise the inevitabilities.

a) It would require mass upheaval of religious authority.

We know many many times that the church is against abortion of all kind. The pope said himself that "For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself,"[1] and the pressure group UK Life League uses regular citations to other sources to back up their claims, and the current and most prominent one is this[2] referring to house of commons legislation being failed. It is one of four (as of 9th october 2011) sites that refer to a Christian movement, the remainder involving either political movements, or not religious enough to fall under the category as primarily. Religion has a massive role, its dislike of abortion will only be amplified by the view of doing it to people with "genetic diseases such as diabetes" for the goal of "healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays."

b) It requires removal of democracy, free choice, and human dignity.

I'll just leave it as one big group, and go through them quickly. 1) It removes Democracy. I do not have a citation yet, but I shall open a poll, because I can, and will cite it later on, about how people here would react to a bill promoting eugencs, to "encourage the production of healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays." If it is a no, then you are going against the idea that people can decide what is good and bad for themselves.

You also remove free choice. Not allowing someone to partake in a having a child because "a human is stupid" is so ludicrous and pitiable that free choice governs that we should not allow such barbaric actions to be allowed to take place. We do not have the right, surprisingly, to force other people to behave in a certain way.

Human dignity also becomes a factor. The fact that you said the following:

"If a man and a woman are of good genetic stock, and they have children together, they should get tax breaks for every child they produce, this will encourage the production of healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays."

Frightens me. It frightens me to the very core of my being. It frightens me that there are people who would promote the idea of treating people like cattle to be traded and fornicate with each other. I guess the next step is to force different peope to breed with each other to get better matches, regardless of the romantic feelings or human dignity as a whole. Or we should cage up the best genetic stock to produce better human beings. This is just ridiculous, inhumane, and should be struck from minds as it has been done in the 20th century.

It requires a complete change to the government procedure. You say we create "state sponsored daycare centers" as well; let's just have state run business and get it over with. But even on a larger level, it creates the ability for government to do as they please, as "stock" is containing "negative genes".

Penultimately, it discriminates against the disabled. The procedure itself dehumanises non-perfect human beings, and forces the disabled to become not second class citizens, but dead men walking.

Finally, it makes the government absolute and tyrannical. If the government can decide who lives and who dies, it is tyrannical. If the government can decide that "you're genetically unhealthy so we can kill you" on whims, then it is tyrannical. A government that can force abortions, force (via inference) adoptions, and do all of this is ridiculous, insulting and tyrannical.

In conclusion, the affirmer of the motion is (via hidden premises) promoting discrimination, antireligious (not irreligious) viewpoints, removal of democracy, and dehumanisation, as well as rejecting all of modern knowledge when it comes to how to motivate others.

I await the response.

Debate Round No. 1


You say it frightens you that a non democratic, totalitarian government could have absolute control over your reproductive functions, and treat you like cattle being bred to perfection.

Well why is it acceptable with cattle then? You probably have eaten a burger before in your life, well the cow that it came from was bred to taste good, it was bred to have certain characteristics. Humans are animals just as cattle, if we can choose which cows live or die, then humans can work in the exact same way.

The type of government is not what we are debating, there could very well be a democratic government, where the people vote to have their reproductive rights put in the hands of the state. 100% of the population could completely agree to having Eugenics practiced on them. Just because the idea frightens you doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

You were probably raised with certain religious ideals, that abortion is murder, that all humans are above animals and we have inalienable god given rights. Well a population could be raised to believe just the opposite, that our ovaries and sperm belong to the state, that we must be given "breeding licenses" before we can procreate. If this was indoctrinated into children rather than religion, we would accept it as a second nature, it would not be scary or foreign to us because we would be raised into this belief. Therefore it would not feel evil.

Imagine a world where there are no crippled people, no mental retardation. Everybody is attractive, intelligent, and healthy. The world was full of super humans. This is possible, it is within our grasp, in less than 100 years we could achieve this goal. No children would have to suffer from genetic diseases. Everyone would have an IQ above 140. Due to the high IQs, science and technological advancements would greatly improve beyond our wildest dreams. There would be no more wars because everyone would be too intelligent to have childish religious wars like in the middle east. It would usher in a new era of innovation, and likely the space age. With our expanded minds due to selective intelligence breeding, we would discover new methods of space travel and explore the outer edges of the universe.

This is just a taste of the possibilities, the true potential is limitless and I could go on and on, but Eugenics is only a positive. Yes it discriminates against undesirable humans but the end justifies the means. When everyone is perfect there will be no more suffering or pain. It is all worth it once we achieve perfection.


Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


racismisawesome forfeited this round.


"If this was indoctrinated into children rather than religion" My opponent is also now promoting indoctrination as well as killing people left, right, and centre in order to "purify" the human race. I'd make some symmetries to other famous individuals, but I don't want to break Godwin's Law this debate.

"You were probably raised with certain religious ideals, that abortion is murder, that all humans are above animals and we have inalienable god given rights."
No, I was brought up thinking people had... you know... value? I think you see this too, and know that systematic murder of individuals for disabilities is wrong and disciminant.

"100% of the population could completely agree to having Eugenics practiced on them."
People don't agree on Capital Punishment, Abortion, and euthanasia. Why would people then decide that Eugenics is unanimously right?

"Well why is it acceptable with cattle then? You probably have eaten a burger before in your life..."

" it discriminates against undesirable humans"

My point is made. This argument is discriminatory and promotes indoctrination, the equivalent of brainwashing, other pepole in order to gain what he wants. Vote con, the kritik argument was unchallenged, the efficiency argument was unchallenged, the status quo argument remains unchallenged. There are 3 prima facie cases.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 7 years ago
Sorry, my internet died yesterday half way through writing the rebuttal... -_-
Posted by racismisawesome 7 years ago
Ok, good point, let me clarify. The Eugenics I am referring to would be to improve the human race as a whole, make them more intelligent and healthier, and to discourage less intelligent, less healthy people to not breed.

There would be no death camps, just forced sterilization of those who are "undesirables" so they can not have children.

Definition of Sterilize - Deprive (a person or animal) of the ability to produce offspring, typically by removing or blocking the sex organs.
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 7 years ago
You seem to have forgotten to write a proper thesis for the arguments you put forth...

The topic of the debate appears to be "The means of state-sponsored & enforced eugenics are justified by the results of said policy", or something along those lines.

The position you officially put forth was just 'Pro' 'Eugenics', which would indicate a support for ANY form of the practice. Whether it is lower health-insurance premiums for healthy members of society or state-sponsored death camps and domestic genocide.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit leaving con with the last word... Plus the vegetarian counter point was brilliant... Plus con caring to actually research the topic (sources).