| Seeker, what you're saying is ridiculous on several levels.
First there's the emotional level of bringing a human being into existence. I feel guilty when I kill a mosquito, do you think I could say "Oh, it's broken, get rid of it"? Not likely, and not much of a choice.
But you want play it cold, I understand -- that whole 'rationality' thing you've been indoctrinated into.
Let's talk about the ethics of eliminating "undesirables." I hope we can agree that Nazi Fascism isn't acceptable, but let me preempt your counter of "We're not eliminating them, the parents have a choice." That's a bullshit copout. For a group of people of any size, like the 400 million living Americans for example, one has to consider decisions statistically. Measuring trends is the only way to have a clear view of the effects of a decision made on such a scale. Telling parents who are bound to be low to average income (birthrate is higher among lower income), that they will receive no assistance for their child, is the same as telling them to get an abortion because their baby is disabled.
What I'm saying is that because your policy will tend to cause a higher abortion and infanticide rate, you are talking eugenics, period.
Your idea is especially heinous when one considers how much cash goes into "normal" children... but where does it stop? Is there an IQ cut off where children are no longer useful to the state therefore they receive no funding? Do they have to have a certain syndrome to be disqualified? Maybe we should just start killing kids who don't have above average intelligence, that way we can 'improve' our race.
Let's pretend you didn't think of a sharp cut off of funds, and ignore the fact that you're now seriously considering 'improving the race.' Let's say you meant no ADDITIONAL assistance. Disabled children won't get any MORE funding than anyone else. Wouldn't that be grand if everyone got the same amount of money. If children with behavior issues couldn't get special needs counseling -- because of course, it's all the 6-year-old's fault that he has issues. Let's make sure he continues to have issues and ends up in prison early, after all, there's plenty of money earmarked for THAT.
And what about gifted children? Forget gifted education, that would be extra... how are we to indoctrinate all our good little soldiers if they have special classes that expand their little minds?
What about the children who are brilliant in their own right, but have severe handicaps? You could argue from your cold, logical perspective that it would be 'worth it' to take care of those for the sake of society. If Stephen Hawking had been born the way he is, under your system he would be dead and gone.
Then there's the separate problem of not having reliable means of telling parents what is wrong with their child before the abortion window closes. What if a parent finds out their child is severely autistic when the child is 2? Stat e funding cut off at that point? Now where's your choice? You want to get into the quagmire of determining which parents knowingly gave birth to their undesirable, and which didn't know before hand?
Further, medical costs are in what economists call a third party payer market. Essentially that means that because of insurance companies the demand curve meets the supply curve at a higher level than it would if people paid directly for the products on the curve. You're suggesting that we leave parents to fend for themselves in a system that you set up to disable people from paying their medical bills on their own. It would simply be impossible, again amounting to eugenics.
And who the hell are you anyway? Maybe in this complex universe, WE are the broken ones. Maybe Down's Syndrome represents the next evolutionary stage in humanity -- a more connected, less petty version of us.
There are just too many problems and questions with what you're saying. |