Should people with an IQ below 90 be allowed to breed?

but if everyone is a kike then no one is

I'd have to agree with that. Prevents a lot of unnecessary suffering and saves a lot of government spending on taking care of them. Although it really depends which conditions that the policy would extend to. For example would somebody with aspergers or somebody in their family history with cancer be allowed to breed? Iceland has atleast put in a policy to terminate all pregnancies that result in down syndrome.

If everybody was a kike, then who would they try to take over? It would be pretty funny to see them begrudgingly have to work together or just destroy themselves.

Pollack mad cause pollack not allowed to breed now... Any right that God gives, can be taken by man.

Christcuck a will hang on rope day

End welfare and let anyone who can afford kids have them.

Attached: 1513022858407.png (1020x1020, 773K)

Yes, you need a local underclass to perform the hegemonic amount of manual labour a prosperous society need.

Should anyone whose so morally degenerate that they can ask in earnest the question "Should people with an IQ below 90 be allowed to breed?" be allowed to live?

Because one is far more dangerous than the other.

Ending welfare would be a bit excessive, but I agree that people who can't afford kids should definitely not be having them. Niggers and white trash having a bunch of kids and leeching off of welfare needs to stop. It really shouldn't be provided for a period longer than 2 out of every 10 years and only given to people looking for jobs, otherwise they'll have to join a government work program.

>muh morals

Absolutely. It's the former.

they maybe shouldnt breed but who are you suggesting has the authority to deny them? What makes you think people with actually high iq won't be eliminated accidentally, or even deliberately

No.

Everyone below 95 IQ should be sterilized world wide.
And the bottom 1% of those reaching puberty annually thereafter.

On July 14, 1933, the German parliament passed a legislation that allowed persons with hereditary diseases to be sterilised without their consent and against their wishes. From 1934 to 1939, an estimated 300,000 to 350,000 people with schizophrenia, manic-depressive syndrome, hereditary epilepsy and other conditions were sterilized.

In 1934, Adolf Hitler issued a secret order that initiated a national euthanasia programme to end the lives of the institutionalised, which he disparagingly described as ‘useless eaters’. This programme was introduced with the explicit aim of freeing up as many as 800,000 beds for expected war casualties. At around the same period, Hitler launched an anti-Semitic programme that sanctioned the state-sponsored mass murder or genocide of six million European Jews throughout German-occupied territory.

These horrific events have led the West, especially Europe and America, not only to reject eugenic ideas, but also to regard them as taboo. But in what is known as the Biotech Age (which began in the latter half of the 20th century), when the human imagination is bedazzled by the potentials of genetic research, eugenics has again begun to raise its ugly head, albeit in a different guise.

In the wake of the brave new world of bio- technology and medicine, the profound injunctions that were issued in the form of the Nuremberg Code in response to the atrocities of the recent past have become especially relevant and pressing, sixty years after they were originally formulated.

It was Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, who first coined the term ‘eugenics’ in the 1880. The modern eugenics movement received its inspiration from the social implications of Darwinism. For almost a century (1880 to 1945), eugenics sought to improve the human race through selective breeding based on the evolutionary theory broadly gleaned from Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Eugenicists in Europe and America have accordingly proposed to direct human evolution by increasing the frequency of ‘socially good genes’ in the population (‘positive eugenics’) and decreasing the proliferation of ‘bad genes’ (‘negative eugenics’). Some believe that utopia can be achieved if more biologically and intellectually superior people are produced and inferior ones are slowly eliminated from the population.

From its inception, the eugenics movement has wedded its vision of the future with the remarkable advances in the natural sciences. According to them, science (by which is meant the pseudo-science of ‘hereditarian biology’) has allegedly enlightened society on the genetic basis for social ills like poverty and criminality. And science has provided a method to rid society of the problem, in the form of eugenics sterilisation.

People below 120 IQ shouldn't breed, people below 100 IQ should be shot.

Christians, of course, should have no truck with eugenic ideas and programmes because the Bible provides us with a different vision of humanity. In the first chapter of Genesis, human beings are distinguished from the rest of God’s creatures because they alone are created in the ‘image and likeness of God’ (Genesis 1:27). This means that human life is a gift from God and the human being – regardless his age or health – must be valued and treated with respect.

As the gift of God, human life is sacred, and must be received with gratitude, cherished and protected. The individual is not only responsible for his own life, but also for the lives of others. That is why it is always wrong to take one’s own life or the life of another human being (Exodus 20:13).

I shouldn't breed because I have some serious inheritable disabilities. I'm constantly in and out of hospitals and life just consists of a lot of pain for me. I would expect a policy to extend to myself if it were instated and I don't consider myself above it.

Well, at this rate, theyre the only ones breeding at all...so if they dont breed, society will totally collapse now that the higher iq people are all angerly sucking nigger dicks and refusing to have babies.

Some supported the movement because of its connection with Darwinism, which was seen as a scientific account of the development of living organisms. To reject Darwinism is to reject science, and to reject science is to be anti-progress – a charge which these Christians tried hard to avoid. Others were sincerely longing for a better society and believed that the eugenic method is the way in which this reality can be achieved.

That is why some churches even invited eugenics advocates to preach in their pulpits. For example, the Baptist Tabernacle in Raleigh, North Carolina, invited professor William Lovis Poteat to speak at their services. Poteat described evolution as the ‘divine method of creation’ and postulated that Paul may have been a theistic evolutionist. It was reported that his sermons were accepted with ‘enthusiasm equal to that which greeted his scientific ideas at college’.

In her study of the Christian reception of eugenics in the early years of the movement, Christian Rosen observes that ‘Protestants proved the most enthusiastic and numerically powerful group of religious participants’.

There were, however, distinct Christian voices that opposed the eugenics movement. One of the most eloquent was that of the Catholic writer, G. K. Chesterton, who offered perhaps one of the most scathing assessments of the movement. Chesterton argued that contrary to the claims of its proponents, eugenics was not really supported by solid scientific evidence. He questioned the role that eugenicists gave to hereditary in shaping human societies and determining their future.

But the true evil of eugenics lies in its distorted understanding of what it means to be a human community. It fails to appreciate the value of human life and the responsibility that members of society have for each other. Eugenics signals the utter failure to see that the moral substance of any society can be acutely gauged by its attitude towards its members, especially the most vulnerable: the unborn, the very young, the aged, the disabled and the very sick. And this distortion has in turn led to the perversion of the very society that eugenics hopes to improve.

if everyone's "smart" you won't have enough people to do retard jobs like factory workers or garbage collecting.

Until we get better at robotics that is.

that wasn't my question

who has the authority? Wanna give a government the right to just deny people reproduction? I just think that sounds kinda dumb

‘Hooray for eugenics!’
How American Bible-rejecting churches supported Nazi-like policies
by Russell Grigg

Many people have said or thought this since Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, invented the term ‘eugenics’ in 1883.1 Since then, the cheerleaders for this offspring of evolution have included racists of many different nationalities, such as Hitler’s Nazis, as well as enthusiasts for the ‘right’ to abortion, euthanasia, and now in the 21st century, human destruction for embryonic stem-cell research. This is of course consistent with the belief they all share, namely that people are all just evolved animals.

Attached: 6958-eugenics.jpg (660x354, 58K)

The many violations of human rights, and the killings and genocides which are the result of eugenicist beliefs are well documented and so are well known.2 What is not so well known is that, in the early 20th century, eugenics was promoted with almost evangelistic fervour in American élite circles, leading to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 US citizens3 and even euthanasia.4,5 Even worse, it was ardently promoted by many of the liberal ‘mainline’ churches in America.6,7

Eugenics to the rescue?
The end of the 19th and early years of the 20th centuries was a time of social problems in America, with the ‘arrival of staggering numbers of new immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, increased industrialization, urbanization, economic depressions, and labor upheavals … . Declining birth rates, rising divorce rates and the widening scourge of syphilis prompted many observers to fear for the fate of the American family and, by implication, for the nation as a whole.’8

Eugenicists believed they had the answer to this situation. Poverty, disease, prostitution, alcoholism, and crime were not evidence of man’s moral failing, but problems to be solved scientifically. The scientific solution was to promote the breeding of large families by the allegedly superior humans, like white middle-class Anglo-Saxons, and simultaneously to restrict the size of families of the allegedly inferior humans, i.e. those regarded as racially and mentally deficient.

Religious leaders who embraced this supposed support for their social-gospel programs and who became involved in eugenics ‘included Protestants of nearly every denomination, Jews and Catholics, and they overwhelmingly represented the liberal wings of their respective faiths. … They were the ministers, priests, and rabbis who were inspired by the developments of modern science and accepted much of the new historical criticism of the Bible. … Supporters ranged from high-ranking clerics to small-town ministers in the Methodist, Unitarian, Congregational, Protestant Episcopal, Baptist and Presbyterian churches.’9

Thus, in the early decades of the 20th century, ‘clerics, rabbis and lay leaders wrote books and articles about eugenics, joined eugenics organizations … and adopted eugenic solutions to the social problems that beset their communities.[10] They explored the eugenic implications of the biblical Ten Commandments and investigated the hereditary lessons embedded in the parables of Jesus.’11 Many churches ran eugenics education classes. In 1910, psychologist Stanley Hall, wrote in the journal Religious Education, ‘The entire Old Testament from the myth of Eden to the latest prophets needs a new eugenics exegesis.’12

Eugenics
Eugenics is the attempt to improve the physical and mental characteristics of the human race by encouraging the reproduction of the ‘fit’ and by decreasing or preventing that of the ‘unfit’. In evolutionist terms, this means superseding the blind slow process of evolution with the intelligent purposeful guidance of humans. It has rightly been called the most destructive medical movement in history. For example, eugenics was the justification and stimulus for the Holocaust, as well as for the many other ‘ethnic cleansings’ that have been perpetrated in the 20th and 21st centuries.

In the early 1900s, more than 30 States in America enacted laws enforcing sterilization of those considered to be mentally unfit. These laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1927 (Buck vs Bell) and were not abolished until the mid-20th century.* Nazi administrators at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II defended their sterilization program by citing the United States laws as their inspiration.

*In Vermont, sterilization laws were not repealed until 1973.

In 1912, the Rev. Walter Sumner, Dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul in Chicago, required that couples wanting to be married in the cathedral must produce a eugenics health certificate.13 A physician had to attest that they were ‘normal physically and mentally, and have neither an incurable nor communicable disease.’14 Some denominations approved and copied this procedure; others e.g. some Presbyterians, did not. Catholics mostly did not, as they regarded marriage as a sacrament to be regulated only by the church. In 1926, hundreds of preachers took part in a ‘eugenics sermon contest’ sponsored by the American Eugenics Society.11 Rosen comments, ‘In eugenics, these men found a faith stronger than their Christianity, fulfilling Francis Galton’s hopes of replacing religion with eugenics.’15

During this time, conservative Christian pastors were defending their faith on several fronts, such as refuting the philosophy of evolution, the existentialism of Paul Tillich, the documentary (JEDP) hypothesis of Julius Wellhausen,16 and the ‘demythologizing’ of the Bible (i.e. removing the miracles) by Rudolf Bultmann. Churches that rejected Darwinism and held to a biblical/creation worldview opposed eugenics. ‘Evangelical Protestants were skeptical of the methods of a science that challenged Biblical doctrine on matters like the Virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ.’17 ‘Those who clung stubbornly to tradition, to doctrine, and to biblical infallibility opposed eugenics and became, for a time, the objects of derision for their rejection of this most modern science.’18

Today—cosmological and biological evolution
In the 1940s, the world saw the horrible consequence of the eugenics philosophy—the Holocaust, in which over 11 million people considered by the Nazis to be inferior, were murdered to promote the evolutionary progress of the Aryan-German race.19 Today we are seeing two other inevitable consequences of evolutionary thinking:

Cosmological evolution is the theory that everything began with an uncaused big bang, and so God the Creator is unnecessary.

Biological evolution teaches that man is just an animal; and so, because nothing is morally wrong or right for animals, let’s all do what the animals do.20

Incredible as it may seem, many churches and theological colleges today follow these beliefs of atheistic scientists instead of the Word of God.21 They teach that God used both cosmological and biological evolution to create the heavens, the earth and all life, including mankind. Thus they have effectively abandoned the fundamental doctrines of creation and the authority of the Bible.

The inevitable consequence is that people today are leaving the church in droves, while others are never entering it at all.

90 is too low....a would only allow above 110

Conclusions and comparisons
Rosen’s conclusions about Christians who put more faith in the words of scientists than they do in the authority of the Bible are worth pondering with regard to today’s situation. She makes the point that these leaders ‘acted overwhelmingly in good faith’ and ‘genuinely believed that eugenics would increase human happiness’, but then says:

‘Looking back one might expect to find a little more hesitation from religious leaders before they offered their support to a movement that … replaced God with science as the shaper of the human race.’22

‘[L]iberal religious leaders allowed their worldviews to be molded by the promise of the new science of eugenics’23, i.e. by the latest science of their day.

Today many Christian leaders have adopted the worldview that says scientists, not the Bible, are the authority for how the universe, Earth and life began. Thus, Eden has become a myth, and the account of Creation in six days by God is, in many churches, subject to a new eisegesis24 based on the beliefs of atheist scientists.

‘In the first few decades of the twentieth century, religious leaders still had to answer this human need for assurance, of course, but they felt much greater pressure to do so in the language of modern science.’23

Nope. Then every year increase the threshold by 0.5 points duch that 2038 only 100iq+ will breed and so on

Also paying UBI to ppl so long as they provide proof they are sterile would work well.
If we are gonna have an authoritarian goverment at least it could be like this

In doing this, they failed to see that the ‘supposedly impeccable empirical evidence’ proffered by the scientists of the day was faulty. No less today, those church leaders who base their biblical teaching on evolutionary presuppositions (and thus on false premises) are making a shipwreck of their faith and that of their followers.

The remedy is obvious. God’s Word, far from needing updating by the latest humanist theories, is His revelation to us about Himself and how He created the heavens, the Earth, and life itself. It is the Manufacturer’s Instructions on how we should live in harmony with God and with our fellow humans. It is God’s Blueprint which when followed ultimately sets us free.

no

Kikes have caste-system. Educate yourself.

Most jobs aren't necessarily decided by intelligence. They are instead decided by the opportunities the worker is given to get them through their economic disposition, knowledge, social status, etc. I'm not saying that their needs to be geniuses working as garbage collectors, but their also shouldn't be a bunch of people running around who can barely read at a 3rd grade level.

Wrong question OP. You should be asking if people with IQs below 110shouod be allowed to breed.

''smart'' people who go to university, pass, then realize they cant get a job end up factory workers and garbage collecting, theres no such thing as a ''retard'' job in this day and age. job is a job, appreciate what youve got.

Attached: 1535629291969.jpg (799x765, 57K)

>Holocausts on demand!
Good. I'll take 20.

Eugenics is the purpose of civilization.

society needs ditchdiggers too
t. some movie
you can be a ditchdigger op for making such a dumb thread
saged

Set that requirement to "family iq average" or even one step further if you want, to "racial iq average" then I agree.

Letting a freak 120 iq nigger breed is fucking stupid because they carry a bunch of dumb nigger genes and the likelihood of their kid being as smart as them is practically nil.

This probably gives asshurt to the high iq shitskins itt

We dont need millions of them though

No

Yes, for the 42nd time, Pablo, we ARE bringing mandatory sterilization to your country

People breeding with each other based on traits in their partner that they find attractive is practically already eugenics. We've done it with every species of animal and plant we've domesticated and continually encourage it.

>120 iq nigger
do you have them in your country? all we have are disgusting 20iq niggers who huff gas and complain about white people and beg for change of those same white people.

It would be much easier to sterilize everyone and let whoever can afford fertility treatments have as many children as they want.

No.

Everyone has a caste system. The kikes just enforce theirs through seedy subversion.

They do exist. Jay Carter (The Short Nignog) has an IQ of 150 and went to school for business. Although these types are a massive minority.

Attached: jaycarter.jpg (640x400, 38K)

Yes.

The basis of the united states is natural law. Which in essence means we are governed by a law of the universe greater than law under any man. Thus, all life deserves respect and an opportunity to grow and better itself.

You should realize that living in hate and contempt for other people is a Jewish trait. The synagogue of Satan. People are supposed to live with their own people, in their own countries. When they try to exert control on other people, that's when you have divine right to send them to their maker.

Attached: 1539280455867.png (701x743, 358K)

That at that round nigger ass.

I would munch on that all afternoon.

im surprised Turkey has even a 90 estimated avg. IQ

Of course the German wants to munch on nignog ass.

Attached: 1469174654356.jpg (240x270, 9K)

But a parasite without a host dies.

Make it 95 & we have a deal.

Only the top 0.1 should breed

People below 140 shouldn't breed.

This actually makes the most sense. Life is precious but stupid people should not be allowed to breed.

Lets face it

you bring children into the world because you are all selfish and think your genes should be passed on

they shouldnt

>Should people with an IQ below 90 be allowed to breed?
No. Breed from the best, sterilize the worst. Eugenics is the way.
youtu.be/npWA1VgaXvw

Yes you need basic workers.

I knew you were a christcuck after the first couple words. You will be the downfall of the face because of this type of attitude. Ffs do you love jews and how they screw over your people too, trying to make them extinct? Turn the other cheek amirite guys? Open the boarders too, i mean we're all gods children.

Dangerous thinking user, but then again you think I'm going to "hell" for this post and you are going to "heaven"

Yeah i guess all the smart people go to marxist indoctrination factories. No smart people would just start their own business, or avoid (((university))) all together in pursuit of a more advantageous means of making a living.

Aspergers can managed, and can live a very regular life. They would end up as the techies for the white race. Cancer is just a way of population control.

Christcucks can't into eugenics because of feels.

Pity the head of their organisation Plato believe in abortion

No, last time i took a proper IQ test in 2016, i scored 112. 90 or below is simply too low. kill them all