Again, I don't agree with or condone eugenics, but I want to chime in here. I at least partly see both sides here. He said earlier that he would leave those to die that couldnt survive on their own even if provided with food water and shelter. This doesn't apply to someone that lost their legs and works at a bar or someone in a wheelchair that requires a ramp. This applies to the catatonic, guadriplegic, non-responsive/non-verbal retardation. For those of you that don't know, I'm a male nurse currently working ltc. I work with these types of people every day. You would be surprised how often these people beg for death and morphine. They have zero quality of life. And often resources and help is so short that they don't get the full care they require on a daily basis.
As for the point of "leaving them to die" being worse than "extermination". That's basic human rights. The current law requires leaving them to suffer and die. There was a woman I read about (dont remember who or when, sorry) had a set of twins that went catatonic in early childhood for some reason. They spent 20 some years stuck in a bed with feeding tubes, caths, and ostomy bags. They were nothing but hunks of unmoving flesh and trapped minds.
The mother fought for years to have them euthanized but because of the " simple, bitch" human rights laws, she could only remove forms of life support, ie. feeding tubes. And let them suffer for weeks until they died of starvation.
Like I said, I don't agree with eugenics, controlled breeding or genocide, or whatever weird standards
@guicrith would have, but some of societies standards for kindness and "human rights" are a bit fucked up. Because of my experience I can at least partly see where he's coming from. I would challenge you to question your own standards of morality as well.