Good call.

Now when dealing with Eugenics... How is it 'morally' right?

I would say that instead of doing it the Eugenic/Genocide way, why not provide adequate educational sources so those who truly want to learn and help themselves and society, can. While those who just want to sit back and be 'retards', can as well.. Of course, you then have to deal with Welfare and such of those 'retards' but that's when you establish a system to where if they didn't even try to go get an education, they don't get Welfare, and such things as those.

You don't have to mindlessly kill individuals to help the betterment of society (who wants society to get better anyways??).

Getting back on tipic... Well, I personally divide it in to categories, generally starting with the easier calls (for me) and ending with the tougher ones. From a completely agnostic perspective, here's what I would say concerning Eugenics itself, without regarding the divine implications.

In the case of people who are useless to themselves and to others, ie vegetables, or people born with such terrible conditions that they would be unable to develop higher brain function before dying a painful death at a young age, I tend to find it morally sound to remove them immediately, as to end their suffering, end the suffering it brings to others, and lighten the load on society. If the only positive points are extremely unlikely "what if"s or the fact that the half-vegetable person is able to drool and look around, keeping them alive can only be detrimental.

The next sort of category, is people who are genetically useless to society. They may have some higher order function, such as language, but by birth, they are unable to function as anything but dependants. The problem with this point, is that it's difficult to decide what we would have wanted done in their position. Not many would choose a life of pain and inability, but it's hard to say that incapability is enough to make life useless. From the perspective of economics and society, yes, but the problem is that we keep eight year olds alive, and when we observe that a particular individual might never pass that point due to genetic flaws, it is difficult to make the call. I am personally of the opinion that in this case, it would be legitimate to end the life at birth, in order to supply the parents with another chance at a normal parenthood, and to spare the person a life so inferior to the ones others are capable of having. If there are to be a limited number of people in the world, "re-rolling" the dice for those who are disadvantaged at the start seems to be a rational choice.

Now, since this reeks of "playing god" as it is, I would state that if there is a benevolent god, then (at the risk of intentional fallacy on god, if that even works) I would care to guess that it would be rational, and thus understand that if whatever meaning there is to human life would be acheived, we must strive to make sure that the limited space in the world is used for those who are able to fulfill whatever this meaning may be. From a Nietzchean standpoint, we of course see that those incapable of human expression do not have purpose, and from a materialist perspective it's largely similar to any argument showing that the greatest amount of happieness for the population can only be found when the population is made entirely of contributing members. That being said, concerning the idea of supposed inability to comprehend the divine, or to judge other people, I simply say that by letting someone live, we make as much judgment as we would by killing them. I know that the obvious counter argument is that we disrupt natural order by eugenics, but considering that we may choose when or with whom we reproduce, making an unlucky choice need not cost humanity as a whole. As a point, arguments such as "you could have killed the next ----" are inherently flawed because of the fact that the replacement to such an individual (which would inevitably be desired) would have the same probability of excelling.

As a note, once we hit the "wellfare class" I believe that before Euthanizing them all, it would be a better idea to impose harsher laws and get rid of the free ride for those who don't deserve it, instead of going so far as to kill people.

JaBoK, the problem with killing people with a serious disability is you end up killing brilliant people like Stephen Hawking. He was paralyzed from birth, but he grew up to be a brilliant scientist and an asset to society. I know you say not to use this argument, but I can't help it. Another problem is that you can't "replace" a person. Each person is his own individual. One major problem is that I can't judge when a life isn't worth living. I believe everyone would want to live, however. Any extremely stupid person would not have the brains to be unhappy, and someone with a physical disability would want to live. If they wanted to die, they would all have killed themselves. In addition to this, I believe any normal parent would want their child to live. There are many articles I have read on abortion. No mother wants to have an abortion, but they sometimes do. They almost always feel absolutely horrible afterwards. Also, who are we to judge who is an asset to society?

Shadow-Fox, you said you find anyone that wears an animal is despicable. What about meat? What do you feel about people eating animals? I feel that it is fine to wear something like leather because people eat the meat, and it would be useless to waste the leather. You should start a topic on this.

Good job necroing the topic.

Not uncommon. Your brain has less things to worry about, and you probably have less social aspects to worry about, so you have more time to ponder thoughts.

Eugenics isn't far off.

Ending one's life proves a solution to one's problems, but causes burdens on those that surround them. Unless of course, you're screwed and have no one and nothing.

I assume you mean that physical disability makes people sadface.

Not true. You're too self absorbed into Western Culture that you neglect what happens elsewhere.

You're putting thoughts into a person's mind, instead of letting them conjure the thought themselves.

The amount of value they bring to society? If they have no positive influence in any way, they're not an asset and expendable. Remember when we used to be like that? Remember when we actually got stuff done?

People don't wear animals. We kill, skin, process, refine and then wear their furs/skins/hides.

Chickens are consumed. We don't use the feathers.
Pigs are consumed. We don't use the skin (not most cultures anyways).

And aside from that, Leather is processed. Otherwise it'd just be hide.