Kelsi Sheren

It's none of that.

It's eugenics.

It's a eugenics program.

I mean, great question.

There's a technical term, and then there's the terminology where you basically get rid of all the difficult eaters, all of the mentally disabled, all of the vulnerable, all of the people that are a burden on the system.

That's just a really plain-based way to put it.

when you cost the government a lot of money, when you cost society a lot of money, when you're basically not an everyday well-rounded person, somebody with ALS, somebody with Down syndrome, somebody with spinal bifida, somebody who's a quadriplegic like a friend of mine in a wheelchair, a friend of mine who has a degenerative disorder gets offered mate every day, he's in a hospital.

So it's less about what does the UN call it and what does it actually mean for a society?

Absolutely.

And they're just not what society wants as a whole because they become a burden.

Think of World War I. It was veterans.

It was shell shock veterans.

It was the women that were difficult.

So people like me definitely would have been lobotomized for sure.

And then you have the children that were born with some form of ailment, right?

And if you take a look at the way that Canada has been discussing it, and we'll go back to what your question is, is that even the College of Physicians is suggesting zero to one, we should be able to euthanize for things like Down syndrome, for things that are born with a malformality that are going to cause...

A lifelong of suffering, even though we don't know that to be true because they can't consent, they have no free will, and they're zero to one years old.

So we're already suggesting that.

That's very, very open topic.

It's been in the media now for the past few weeks.