Angry mom sends letter to family of autistic child telling them to have him euthanized.

[Queen Michael]

snip

snip

snip

snip

My only comment about the entire eugenics debate is that I won't be able to take this kind of eugenics seriously until I hear it suggested by someone who won't be included among the people who would be deemed fit to survive and procreate.

 

[Caiphus]

Slightly surprised that the mods have let this one continue.

In any case, eugenics is a pretty dire means to an end. Earth's resources would have to be disastrously* low before I'd even contemplate killing people to save them. And even that would be a stretch.

*We're talking like Fallout 3 levels of resources.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Well... The reaction of the letter-writer being as horrific as it was, I can't help but sympathize, depending on how loud the kid is.

I support the use of eugenics in order to end genetic diseases. If you get pregnant, and the child's genetics show that they will suffer from a genetic disorder, then either science needs to find a way to fix that or the prospective mother should be given the mifepristone (the abortion pill). It is not fair to the child to be brought in to the world with such an inherent and un-fixable disadvantage or to society, which now has to dedicate resources to an individual who could not contribute to society instead of, say, buying new books for schools or fixing infrastructure.

Autism would be difficult, as there seem to be many different degrees and I am unsure if they can tell how bad it will be until the child is born. It's a difficult situation, but I know that I would rather be dead than unable to function at a higher level. I also never believed that human life is inherently sacred, murder is wrong because it violates the rules that society needs to function and other random death is horrific because despite what people may think, I do have empathy for people losing loved ones.

Well, since we're on the Eugenics trail... again... let's play this shit to conclusion - I've got a Kidney Disease which will eventually cause my kidneys to fail when I'm much older, requiring either Dialysis or a transplant. Thus, to keep me alive will require the sacrifice of someone else or the dedication or resources and people in regards to having the infrastructure to support Dialysis. It's also genetic, so there's a good chance my kids will have it as well. By your flawless and impeccable logic, I should have been killed at birth due to being a drain on society and having a genetic disease, despite the fact that I'm a functioning and contributing member of society.
But hey, what about people who only carry the gene but don't have it? Do those assholes get off scot-free? There's a chance their kids could have it, so... guess they can't have kids anymore, just in case. You know, instead of trying to actually cure the genetic disease, let's just be COMPLETE ASSHOLES and murder the fuck out of everyone 'cause they weren't born with the perfect, healthy genes, right?

Eugenics man, not even once.

Well, since you apparently didn't bother to read my post... Everyone who has the disease or the genetic markers to have the disease would be affected. And not at birth, but within a month of conception, or whenever they can test for that sort of stuff. I would also prefer if they could just go in and fix the faulty genes, and it is entirely possible that they could fix that in the future. But in the meantime, why should vast amounts of resources be spent on individuals who literally contribute nothing to society? It would be cool if waivers could be done for people who had manageable diseases, but at that point the entire system fails because it is meant to weed those things out of the human gene pool. Is it pretty? No. But it's not Nazi-style either. It recognizes that certain failings of the human body are bad and seeks to address the issue and has nothing at all to do with trying to kill off ethnic groups.

Oh no, I read your post. You used the word 'Eugenics' while suggesting it as an actual solution, and if the Nazi's and idiot internet posters have taught us anything it's that using Eugenics as a serious suggestion to something is... well, butt-fucking retarded.
Why? BECAUSE YOU ARE ADVOCATING KILLING PEOPLE BASED ON A SHITTY GENETIC DISEASE INSTEAD OF WORKING TO A) CURE SAID DISEASE OR B)LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE. I don't care if it's a solution, you are still trying to MURDER PEOPLE BECAUSE, as you yourself said, 'but I know that I would rather be dead than unable to function at a higher level'. Besides, I have the genetic markers for the disease myself (it's carried in the male genes - I don't have it myself but I have components of it due to Autism being caused by MULTIPLE genetic mutations), so in this 'glorious' system of yours I'm still right fucked because I've got the POTENTIAL to have autistic kids, and lord knows that shit just won't fly with the Fuhrer Eugenics Association.

And I'm just going to explain briefly the big problems with Eugenics - it's literally deciding who lives and who dies based on the opinions of a small, secular group. Sure, it might start out with just straight up mass-homicide of people with shit like Autism, Aspergers and Downs Syndrome, but eventually someone's gonna go 'hey, why don't we clean up some undesirables' and start targeting people with 'less than perfect' genes or the potential to have genetic mutations, then someone will make a comment about population control and those 'damn jews/blacks/boat people' then BAM! Suddenly you're standing in a bunker with a gun to your head, responsible for the deaths of at least 11 million people through Eugenic-like policies with Russia and America putting aside their differences to rip you a new arsehole (the funny thing here is that I never brought up the Nazism in the first post, you just automatically defended against it - either you've had to do the Eugenics dance before or you know the flaw in this system but keep trying to ignore it).

So, I will reiterate - Eugenics man, not even once.

Objectively speaking Eugenics helps the human race, I mean naturally these people would die out and therefore stronger genes would prevail and be propagated, modern society stunts evolution by keeping these people alive when otherwise they wouldn't be. Nature doesn't have a conscience and that's what's helped humanity get to where it is.

But that's just objectively speaking, my problem with Eugenics isn't because of ethics but it's because if you bring Eugenics into the fray then that could lead onto other things, human experimentation, augmentation, suddenly we're using people as guinea pigs and then you're slicing them open while they're alive for 'science'.

I like the status quo, please don't turn my society into Rapture, but also don't deny that Eugenics and 'removing' those who have genetic defects would have it's advantages which I outlined above. And I should probably cover my ass by saying that if we were to adopt Eugenics I would probably be the first one on the chopping block.

 

[Caiphus]

Objectively speaking Eugenics helps the human race, I mean naturally these people would die out and therefore stronger genes would prevail and be propagated, modern society stunts evolution by keeping these people alive when otherwise they wouldn't be. Nature doesn't have a conscience and that's what's helped humanity get to where it is.

But that's just objectively speaking, my problem with Eugenics isn't because of ethics but it's because if you bring Eugenics into the fray then that could lead onto other things, human experimentation, augmentation, suddenly we're using people as guinea pigs and then you're slicing them open while they're alive for 'science'.

I like the status quo, please don't turn my society into Rapture, but also don't deny that Eugenics and 'removing' those who have genetic defects would have it's advantages which I outlined above. And I should probably cover my ass by saying that if we were to adopt Eugenics I would probably be the first one on the chopping block.

There are 7 billion people in the world. You'd have to kill an awful lot of people to have any kind of impact on the gene pool.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Objectively speaking Eugenics helps the human race, I mean naturally these people would die out and therefore stronger genes would prevail and be propagated, modern society stunts evolution by keeping these people alive when otherwise they wouldn't be. Nature doesn't have a conscience and that's what's helped humanity get to where it is.

But that's just objectively speaking, my problem with Eugenics isn't because of ethics but it's because if you bring Eugenics into the fray then that could lead onto other things, human experimentation, augmentation, suddenly we're using people as guinea pigs and then you're slicing them open while they're alive for 'science'.

I like the status quo, please don't turn my society into Rapture, but also don't deny that Eugenics and 'removing' those who have genetic defects would have it's advantages which I outlined above. And I should probably cover my ass by saying that if we were to adopt Eugenics I would probably be the first one on the chopping block.

There are 7 billion people in the world. You'd have to kill an awful lot of people to have any kind of impact on the gene pool.

But it would have an impact if it was done on a large enough scale, that's all I'm arguing.

 

[Lilani]

I earned all of that through hard work and making tough decisions.

NOTHING you have came from the privileges you were born to? You were born in a trash can with nobody to take care of you and worked yourself up from homeless babe to middle class citizen? Great job.

In other news, I wasn't questioning that. I was pointing out that you seem to be pretty certain about "impending ecological disaster" while contributing to it just as much as every other middle-class citizen in a first world country. You seem to be convinced we're bringing about our own destruction, but you also don't seem interested in doing anything to abate it.

It's simple really

Can they survive independently?

If yes, they're fine. It's easy to filter out without an executive action.

Whelp, no more babies then, I guess.

 

[Isaac_GS]

Hmm... Sending hate mail is hardly the right way to act in such situation. Your very first action should be talking to the parents of this child and explaining your position. If they manage to successfully calm him down, then problem solved.

If not, however, then she should have filed an official complaint, backed by petition of other people, living in this zone (sorry, I don't know how things work in USA, but you get the idea). Then court, because needs of many are far more important then needs of a few, rules that this child is to be sent to special institution for special people. Neighbours are sattisfied, parents can visit their kid whenever they want, everybody wins.

This is the USA. The only special institutions for special people they have are called prisons.

And that wouldn't even be needed if basic mental health care was provided. Screaming outside isn't all that severe for low-functioning autism, chances are fairly high that with the support of a cooperative and affordable mental health care specialist you can see great improvements.

But this is the USA. Mental health care is at a third world level.

So, most likely you've made a somewhat accurate prediction. People in the area will file an official complaint of some misbehavior of the child, committed not out of any ill will but as a simple symptom of his disorder, the courts will get involved and he'll be send to a special institution for special people, jail.

You are so wrong it hurts.

Ignoring the fact that the kid in question is Canadian, the fact remains that in the US, you are incredibly wrong. Prime Example: My brother is a low functioning autistic, and while he didn't scream quite as loudly or as constantly as the kid in question apparently did, I know from first hand experience that very good care for those with severe autism like my brother and this kid exists in the USA.

There are day camps and specially-trained babysitters to lighten the family's load, and when he was seven, we sent him to the nuns, at a convent where the nuns there were generous enough to take people like him in since the 50s. He received education, learned how to read (which to be fair is the biggest educational success in his life), and when he was too old, we took him to another year-round school where he lived and learned some more. Now that he aged out of school, he lives in a private group home (with a little bit of state funding) with people like him and "normals" paid to take care of them 24 hours a day.

So US mental health care may be lacking in some areas, or maybe it isn't, but you have NO RIGHT to say human beings like my brother and this Canadian kid would be sent to jail just because you think there is nowhere else.

PS: the only time the courts got involved, was for a parking ticket. My brother ran off on his own, as he is wont to do, and the handicapped parking tag fell to the floor of the car because we were in a hurry to catch him. the ticket was for parking in a handicapped space without that tag visible. When the matter went to the judge, my mother pleaded her case, and EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN THE TOWN backed her up, because they helped us so many times before.

So yeah. Its a bit of a stretch to hope you'll get banned for that post, but you deserve it.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

This is despicable. Autism comes in many forms, and even kids who appear to be severely taxed can at least become autonomous and win some form of wage for themselves. Being disabled, I'm of the mind that everyone - yes, absolutely everyone - deserves a fighting chance. If I had a severely handicapped autistic kid, I'd work my ass off to support it and give it decent living conditions. I'd do that because it would be my flesh and blood, and that it would give me something more precious than all the articulate talks between a child and his parents.

That would be love. Plain and simple love.

I knew a severely impaired kid who could do nothing but howl all day long, and he lived right next door. Did I flip out and send an angry anonymous letter? Fuck, no. I understood it was his means of communicating, and I knew he would've piped down on his own if he'd only been able to. In the best of days the hourly shrieks became part of the background noise. In the worst, I pulled out my MP3 player and drowned him out. That's it. He wasn't mine to take care of, but he wasn't mine to hate, either. Hating someone who's down and out in some capacity (such as severely impaired folks), is enough to wind those spreading that hate onto my personal shit list.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I support the use of eugenics in order to end genetic diseases. If you get pregnant, and the child's genetics show that they will suffer from a genetic disorder, then either science needs to find a way to fix that or the prospective mother should be given the mifepristone (the abortion pill). It is not fair to the child to be brought in to the world with such an inherent and un-fixable disadvantage or to society, which now has to dedicate resources to an individual who could not contribute to society instead of, say, buying new books for schools or fixing infrastructure.

Try it. I DARE you!! She will turn you into some tiny cubes on the floor because she will come at you with a katana (while being pregnant no less). I may join in on the fun with my bayoneted trench-shotgun as well. Because lets make something VERY clear: NO ONE IS TAKING HER BABY AWAY FROM HER!!!!!!!!!! FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!! And if you think you can beat her, I just want to point out that she has the blood of the Polish, the Irish, the Hatfields [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield?McCoy_feud], and the Sicilians flowing in her veins. Meaning, You do NOT want to piss her off.

We dont care if our child will have a disability. We will still love him/her just as much as if they were normal. Hell, if they end up having Aspergers (which we both have), that will be a good thing, because Aspergers is really not that bad, more helpful than bad (<-----opinion), and will allow me to feel even more in touch with my child.

End Rant: Screw your Eugenics (see page 4 and 5)

 

[Nopenahnuhuh]

Am I the only one who actually thinks this was a seriously tasteless trolling attempt? As heartless as the world may seem I honestly think this is a very immature prank pulled by some kid who jotted this letter as a joke and slipped it under a door while signing it as a "pissed off mother" to hind behind the ****storm smokescreen and giggle as news spread.

 

[xdiesp]

Bad Samaritans have to be the biggest hypocrites of them all: they are killing you, for your own good. Cue to family talk about saving the children. Cue to feminist talk about rights being protected and someone feeling so bad inside.

By the way, it's so cool to act unreligious nowadays, but religion as in dogmas without ifs and buts is the only counter to the amount of trash that can come out of some people's feels and wants.

 

[MorphingDragon]

So, I will reiterate - Eugenics man, not even once.

Well that's the thing, we haven't stopped being subject to Evolution as a species despite what some people claim (As long as we have DNA, we are subject to evolution's mechanics). For our species to survive we need a large spectrum of traits, not people deciding which traits to destroy or not. "Excess production" is a required part of evolution. Eugenics works against that.

 

[Audey_hevey]

All I hear in this letter and some of these comments is "me, me, me". "His uncontrollable "whaling" is annoying me, poor me". What about the kid? He's the one that has to live with it the rest of his life. Does that not matter to people? No matter how much you "think" you're "suffering" because of his "whaling", I can guarantee he is suffering 1,000x as much as you are. Not only because of the frustration of the autism, but then you add in all the staring and talking about him behind his back and now apparently some "mother" telling him he doesn't deserve to live. Are you really that bitter about your own life that you find it necessary to mock a (autistic) child and so much of a coward that you would sign the letter as "one pissed off mother" instead of using your real name? Instead of acting like you and your kids are the only ones on the planet that matter, explain to your kids that its not right to mock people who are different than you and explain how words can hurt. You're supposedly a "grown woman" and mother, why don't you start acting like it? That includes not being a jerk to a child that has autism (or any kid for that matter), instead STICK UP FOR HIM AGAINST SOMEONE WHO MOCKS HIM. You may be a grown up and a mother, but honestly you still have a lot of growing up to do. I would hate to see what would happen if she had a kid with a disability.

There is such a thing as freedom of speech.... and then there are cases like this (which is clearly based off of hate). Find out who wrote it and convict them of a hate crime, because that is what it is... a hate crime. i heard that (even if they find out who wrote the letter) they can't convict them of a hate crime because that letter is considered "free speech" and not a hate crime. If that's the case (which I hope not), I think someone needs to look up the word "hate crime", so here is the definition...

hate crime: "In both crime and law, hate crimes occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of such groups include but are not limited to: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity or gender identity.

Hate crime is a category used to describe bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, disability, different nationality, different language, different religion."

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or OFFENSIVE graffiti or LETTERS (hate mail)."

...free speech my butt...


PS-- what some people don't understand is the fact that if this lady wouldn't have written such horrible things like the kid should basically be killed, this wouldn't have made news. Not to mention, the letter never said anything about the lady talking to them about it before, if they talked about it before she would have mentioned it in the letter somehow, so people wouldn't think it had something to do with hate. THAT is why people are taking the kid's family's side and why it has been taken to the news.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Objectively speaking Eugenics helps the human race, I mean naturally these people would die out and therefore stronger genes would prevail and be propagated, modern society stunts evolution by keeping these people alive when otherwise they wouldn't be. Nature doesn't have a conscience and that's what's helped humanity get to where it is.

But that's just objectively speaking, my problem with Eugenics isn't because of ethics but it's because if you bring Eugenics into the fray then that could lead onto other things, human experimentation, augmentation, suddenly we're using people as guinea pigs and then you're slicing them open while they're alive for 'science'.

I like the status quo, please don't turn my society into Rapture, but also don't deny that Eugenics and 'removing' those who have genetic defects would have it's advantages which I outlined above. And I should probably cover my ass by saying that if we were to adopt Eugenics I would probably be the first one on the chopping block.

ehhh... still no. As MorphingDragon put it above, humans are still being affected by evolution - we might scream and shout and rage against it, but in the end what is and what isn't a strong or 'beneficial' genetic trait is determined entirely by the environment around us, not by humanity itself. If we went out and say, eliminated all the 'weak' genes, it's entirely possible that our environment could change so that those 'weak' genes were actually the best option for us to survive.

The best thing for a species, funnily enough, isn't strength - it's adaptability and variability. Eugenics spits in the face of this; a bastardized version of natural selection that's determined by what a small group of people believe is the 'best' traits but don't actually know what these best traits are. If anything, Eugenics is harmful to humanity because it limits the genepool; that and it's decided by a small group, who could just pick traits that they don't like rather than those that are best (like, kill all the redheads because they burn easily), working to further their own goals rather than those of humanity (and, as we all know, with Great Power comes Great Responsibility, but Power also Corrupts Easily).

So, for the third and final time - Eugenics, not even once. It might *sound* like a good idea on paper, but in reality it's a flawed concept that would only function on small scale, is prone to abuse of power by people and does nothing but harm humanity in the long run. Instead of deciding whether or not to kill people who are 'defective' by Eugenics standards, how about this - leave them the fuck alone. Let them live their lives the way they want to while you try to come up with a way to help humanity that doesn't involve mass homicide.

Well shit, I don't see how autism or the variety of physical/mental conditions is 'adaption'. That's the thing I was pointing out about society, it stunts natural selection. Eugenics isn't a good substitute but it's that or nothing.

Now there is the 'theory' (I use that term lightly, it's probably just crazy Joe Rogan stoner talk) that autism and these social disorders are side effects of humanities' changes in interaction, I mean face to face conversations is really being phased out and I'm willing to wager the majority of interaction and exchange of ideas is taking place on the internet not in the 'real world'. But I'm digressing, I don't see how Eugenics would ever limit the genepool to the point where we were say, inbreeding, I mean there is 7 billion. Even if it does go hogwild blonde hair blue eyes only white etc. Although I'm not advocating Eugenics, I'm just merely pointing out the possible benefits of Eugenics.

But fuck, we didn't get the atom bomb without 'bending' a few morals right?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Objectively speaking Eugenics helps the human race, I mean naturally these people would die out and therefore stronger genes would prevail and be propagated, modern society stunts evolution by keeping these people alive when otherwise they wouldn't be. Nature doesn't have a conscience and that's what's helped humanity get to where it is.

But that's just objectively speaking, my problem with Eugenics isn't because of ethics but it's because if you bring Eugenics into the fray then that could lead onto other things, human experimentation, augmentation, suddenly we're using people as guinea pigs and then you're slicing them open while they're alive for 'science'.

I like the status quo, please don't turn my society into Rapture, but also don't deny that Eugenics and 'removing' those who have genetic defects would have it's advantages which I outlined above. And I should probably cover my ass by saying that if we were to adopt Eugenics I would probably be the first one on the chopping block.

ehhh... still no. As MorphingDragon put it above, humans are still being affected by evolution - we might scream and shout and rage against it, but in the end what is and what isn't a strong or 'beneficial' genetic trait is determined entirely by the environment around us, not by humanity itself. If we went out and say, eliminated all the 'weak' genes, it's entirely possible that our environment could change so that those 'weak' genes were actually the best option for us to survive.

The best thing for a species, funnily enough, isn't strength - it's adaptability and variability. Eugenics spits in the face of this; a bastardized version of natural selection that's determined by what a small group of people believe is the 'best' traits but don't actually know what these best traits are. If anything, Eugenics is harmful to humanity because it limits the genepool; that and it's decided by a small group, who could just pick traits that they don't like rather than those that are best (like, kill all the redheads because they burn easily), working to further their own goals rather than those of humanity (and, as we all know, with Great Power comes Great Responsibility, but Power also Corrupts Easily).

So, for the third and final time - Eugenics, not even once. It might *sound* like a good idea on paper, but in reality it's a flawed concept that would only function on small scale, is prone to abuse of power by people and does nothing but harm humanity in the long run. Instead of deciding whether or not to kill people who are 'defective' by Eugenics standards, how about this - leave them the fuck alone. Let them live their lives the way they want to while you try to come up with a way to help humanity that doesn't involve mass homicide.

Well shit, I don't see how autism or the variety of physical/mental conditions is 'adaption'. That's the thing I was pointing out about society, it stunts natural selection. Eugenics isn't a good substitute but it's that or nothing.

It's Eugenics or the well studied mechanics of evolution.

Society doesn't stunt Natural Selection, Society itself contributes to the environment around us. Society itself is a result of natural selection by favouring traits that allows us to be a social species.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Objectively speaking Eugenics helps the human race, I mean naturally these people would die out and therefore stronger genes would prevail and be propagated, modern society stunts evolution by keeping these people alive when otherwise they wouldn't be. Nature doesn't have a conscience and that's what's helped humanity get to where it is.

But that's just objectively speaking, my problem with Eugenics isn't because of ethics but it's because if you bring Eugenics into the fray then that could lead onto other things, human experimentation, augmentation, suddenly we're using people as guinea pigs and then you're slicing them open while they're alive for 'science'.

I like the status quo, please don't turn my society into Rapture, but also don't deny that Eugenics and 'removing' those who have genetic defects would have it's advantages which I outlined above. And I should probably cover my ass by saying that if we were to adopt Eugenics I would probably be the first one on the chopping block.

ehhh... still no. As MorphingDragon put it above, humans are still being affected by evolution - we might scream and shout and rage against it, but in the end what is and what isn't a strong or 'beneficial' genetic trait is determined entirely by the environment around us, not by humanity itself. If we went out and say, eliminated all the 'weak' genes, it's entirely possible that our environment could change so that those 'weak' genes were actually the best option for us to survive.

The best thing for a species, funnily enough, isn't strength - it's adaptability and variability. Eugenics spits in the face of this; a bastardized version of natural selection that's determined by what a small group of people believe is the 'best' traits but don't actually know what these best traits are. If anything, Eugenics is harmful to humanity because it limits the genepool; that and it's decided by a small group, who could just pick traits that they don't like rather than those that are best (like, kill all the redheads because they burn easily), working to further their own goals rather than those of humanity (and, as we all know, with Great Power comes Great Responsibility, but Power also Corrupts Easily).

So, for the third and final time - Eugenics, not even once. It might *sound* like a good idea on paper, but in reality it's a flawed concept that would only function on small scale, is prone to abuse of power by people and does nothing but harm humanity in the long run. Instead of deciding whether or not to kill people who are 'defective' by Eugenics standards, how about this - leave them the fuck alone. Let them live their lives the way they want to while you try to come up with a way to help humanity that doesn't involve mass homicide.

Well shit, I don't see how autism or the variety of physical/mental conditions is 'adaption'. That's the thing I was pointing out about society, it stunts natural selection. Eugenics isn't a good substitute but it's that or nothing.

Now there is the 'theory' (I use that term lightly, it's probably just crazy Joe Rogan stoner talk) that autism and these social disorders are side effects of humanities' changes in interaction, I mean face to face conversations is really being phased out and I'm willing to wager the majority of interaction and exchange of ideas is taking place on the internet not in the 'real world'. But I'm digressing, I don't see how Eugenics would ever limit the genepool to the point where we were say, inbreeding, I mean there is 7 billion. Even if it does go hogwild blonde hair blue eyes only white etc. Although I'm not advocating Eugenics, I'm just merely pointing out the possible benefits of Eugenics.

But fuck, we didn't get the atom bomb without 'bending' a few morals right?

The human race has been reduced to a couple thousand people globally on a couple occasions after extreme distasters left most of the Earth uninhabitable (there's a reason everyones related a little bit - we have the genes of a 'Genetic Adam' and 'Genetic Eve' somewhere in the mix); 7% of all Asians are related to Ghengis Khan after his various wars and campaigns thanks to all the rape he committed; the Black Death killed 75-200 million people throughout Europe, a deathtoll so high for the time that it caused the global population to dip by a sizable portion. There might be 7 billion of us, but we are VERY easy to kill en masse. Killing our own people in large numbers based on genetics isn't that smart a move - especially if it reduces all of us to having similar genes, as that just makes us more vulnerable to environmental shifts.

If you're really looking for 'best for Society' bullshittery that most Eugenics Advocates spout on, there's other less-morally fucked up ones out there - mandatory work, set pay for everyone, rationing food... seriously, healthy people are super useful and far more numerous than people with genetic diseases, why not focus on them instead? Get a hell of a lot more benefits from making them do shit than just killing people who don't even make up a percent of the population. Hell, forcing everyone into mandatory labor would make more than enough to support all of us bastards who need medical care, eh? Two birds with one stone right there - solve the unemployment problem AND the apparently titanic cost giving people medical or psychological aid(in reality it's actually not much of a social or economic burden to take care of Autistic people if they need care).

And seriously, just because the Nuclear Bomb was powerful and arguably made World War II end faster doesn't mean it was a smart move in the long run - the fact that most nations are currently eyeing one another with the finger on the trigger just in case they fire theirs first! is pretty damning evident of the whole 'Good short term, bad long term' thing I said about Eugenics. There are better, less morally fucked up and more efficient plans than killing everyone who can't socialize properly.

Oh I wasn't saying the A-bomb was good, I'm just saying that a cut throat attitude and morals being thrown out the fucking window can lead to innovation and 'progress', depending on your point of view.

You're also making the argument that humanity is worth saving, that humanity is somehow a special snowflake.
Apart from the fact that the universe is infinitely huge and possibly expanding there are 7 billion humans and humans are intrinsically flawed. We are blood thirsty sex craved slaves to our own instincts and compulsions, civilization will never work because somewhere down he road there will be someone who fucks it up, some dictator, someone looking to profit off of the misery of others. So maybe that is why I give some credence to the idea of genetics,not because mass slaughter of your fellow man would make any positive change but because I don't regard humans highly in the first place.