This is sort of a shitpost so I bolded only what's worth reading. Also, it's sort of about two different topics: rape and Idiocracy.
Rapists would make good parents because they put children and reproduction first ahead of even their own freedom because rape creates life at the price of prison time. The act of rape shows that they're willing to make the necessary sacrifices to be a parent. Also, there shouldn't be rape exceptions to abortion bans because rape victims have superior genes given that the rapist found her pretty(prettiness means good genes) enough to risk prison time over just one night with her. Therefore the child conceived in rape will have superior genes too. Rape exceptions to abortion bans are therefore contrary to eugenics. She might have superior genes but a negative view of breeding and prefer to remain childless. Therefore parenthood should be forced onto her. Also, sometimes the rapist has superior genes too. Imagine if Albert Einstein, the supposedly smartest man ever, had been a rapist. That would be right because it's eugenic. His children could have grown up to further science and other subjects.
Sure, some rapists may be inferior stock They might be short, ugly, and stupid. Therefore their children might be subhuman too. According to Google, "Yes, a paternity test can be performed before a baby is born using a non-invasive prenatal paternity test (NIPP)." A paternity test can be done and if the rapecel is indeed the father, I guess the preborn child can be aborted. Frankly, some people believe environment matters more than genes. As I said above, rapecels are willing to provide a good environment to their children. Frankly, I'm against eugenics.
Also, according to the movie Idiocracy stupid people are reproducing a lot and smart people aren't. The solution to this is for men to be allowed to rape smart women and to also let high IQ men rape women.
I don't really believe in the movie Idiocracy. I'm low IQ and I want to reproduce yet I'm not reproducing at all. Low IQ people should reproduce more because the mudsill theory says that there must be people to do menial labor, which the high IQ won't want to do. I don't believe it should be low IQ vs high IQ. We need both in society. Not only is the movie Idiocracy based on a myth, but it shames the few low IQ people who do in fact have children by saying that dysgenics make soyciety worse. After all there was forced sterilization of intellectually disabled people in the past so how can you say soyciety is dysgenic. Another example that contradicts Idiocracy is that Google says, "While males with Down syndrome are generally reported to be infertile, there are documented cases of males fathering children. Females with Down syndrome are often fertile and can give birth. Females with Down syndrome are often fertile and can give birth." Low IQ people are sometimes infertile. Not only that, but reproductive toxins like lead can also reduce IQ, so low IQ people are sometimes less fertile. I'm going to guess and say we live in neither a eugenic nor dysgenic society. It's not dygenic as I noted. It's also not eugenic since people like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking only had three children each. I think they should have had more.
Rapists would make good parents because they put children and reproduction first ahead of even their own freedom because rape creates life at the price of prison time. The act of rape shows that they're willing to make the necessary sacrifices to be a parent. Also, there shouldn't be rape exceptions to abortion bans because rape victims have superior genes given that the rapist found her pretty(prettiness means good genes) enough to risk prison time over just one night with her. Therefore the child conceived in rape will have superior genes too. Rape exceptions to abortion bans are therefore contrary to eugenics. She might have superior genes but a negative view of breeding and prefer to remain childless. Therefore parenthood should be forced onto her. Also, sometimes the rapist has superior genes too. Imagine if Albert Einstein, the supposedly smartest man ever, had been a rapist. That would be right because it's eugenic. His children could have grown up to further science and other subjects.
Sure, some rapists may be inferior stock They might be short, ugly, and stupid. Therefore their children might be subhuman too. According to Google, "Yes, a paternity test can be performed before a baby is born using a non-invasive prenatal paternity test (NIPP)." A paternity test can be done and if the rapecel is indeed the father, I guess the preborn child can be aborted. Frankly, some people believe environment matters more than genes. As I said above, rapecels are willing to provide a good environment to their children. Frankly, I'm against eugenics.
Also, according to the movie Idiocracy stupid people are reproducing a lot and smart people aren't. The solution to this is for men to be allowed to rape smart women and to also let high IQ men rape women.
I don't really believe in the movie Idiocracy. I'm low IQ and I want to reproduce yet I'm not reproducing at all. Low IQ people should reproduce more because the mudsill theory says that there must be people to do menial labor, which the high IQ won't want to do. I don't believe it should be low IQ vs high IQ. We need both in society. Not only is the movie Idiocracy based on a myth, but it shames the few low IQ people who do in fact have children by saying that dysgenics make soyciety worse. After all there was forced sterilization of intellectually disabled people in the past so how can you say soyciety is dysgenic. Another example that contradicts Idiocracy is that Google says, "While males with Down syndrome are generally reported to be infertile, there are documented cases of males fathering children. Females with Down syndrome are often fertile and can give birth. Females with Down syndrome are often fertile and can give birth." Low IQ people are sometimes infertile. Not only that, but reproductive toxins like lead can also reduce IQ, so low IQ people are sometimes less fertile. I'm going to guess and say we live in neither a eugenic nor dysgenic society. It's not dygenic as I noted. It's also not eugenic since people like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking only had three children each. I think they should have had more.
