North Korea has no disabled citizens

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsAr...RTH-RIGHTS.xml

I personally think this might be a little excessive. I am off the opinion that anyone who knowingly gives birth to a disabled child should receive absolutely no assistance from the state, ever, and that includes medical assistance, special schooling, home help or anything else. But I think that a parent should still be able to decide whether to keep a disabled child.

So what do you think? Is it a crippling financial cost for a society to support these children or is it a sign of our increasing maturity as a race of beings?

[tinybear]

I think North Korea's government is a barbaric regime.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday. http://today.reuters.com/News/newsAr...RTH-RIGHTS.xml

That is blatant tyranny.

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins I personally think this might be a little excessive. I am off the opinion that anyone who knowingly gives birth to a disabled child should receive absolutely no assistance from the state, ever, and that includes medical assistance, special schooling, home help or anything else.

So the governement should act with zero compassion? And let me guess: You think
the only job of the government is to protect property rights of those with money.
And that those wth money deserve special treatments and access to these things you mention because they represent some kind of virtue.
Am I right?

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins So what do you think? Is it a crippling financial cost for a society to support these children or is it a sign of our increasing maturity as a race of beings?

A reasonable question. I'd suggest it is more mature to have compassion than to just let children grow up uneducated, malnourished and without a chance in hell of accomplishing anything.

Grandpa h.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: grandpa So the governement should act with zero compassion? And let me guess: You think the only job of the government is to protect property rights of those with money. And that those wth money deserve special treatments and access to these things you mention because they represent some kind of virtue. Am I right? Grandpa h.

No, you are wrong, I think people should take personal responsibility for their decisions rather than rely on someone else taking responsibility for the decisions they make. Money has nothing to do with it. Imposing your decision on another is what I object too. If I buy a mansion on the beach front, should I expect you to pay for it?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins No, you are wrong, I think people should take personal responsibility for their decisions rather than rely on someone else taking responsibility for the decisions they make. Money has nothing to do with it.

So women who have children with birth defects want defective child? I doubt that's the case very often.

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins Imposing your decision on another is what I object too. If I buy a mansion on the beach front, should I expect you to pay for it?

Probably not. But that's not exactly relevant.

Grandpa h.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: grandpa So women who have children with birth defects want defective child? I doubt that's the case very often. Grandpa h.

Its nothing to do with want, simply a matter of choice, I doupt that anyone would actually want to have a disabled child over a healthy child, but many who do end up with them, will make the choice to keep them. Thats why its a personal choice.

As for the house analogy being irrelevant, I disagree again. Its the same thing, I am asking you to take financial responsibility for a choice that I made.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins Its nothing to do with want, simply a matter of choice, I doupt that anyone would actually want to have a disabled child over a healthy child, but many who do end up with them, will make the choice to keep them. Thats why its a personal choice.

But to suggest that disabled children should need no kind of accomodations is simply cruel and, quite frankly, unusual. This is just a matter of being able to put yourself in anothers' shoes.

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins As for the house analogy being irrelevant, I disagree again. Its the same thing, I am asking you to take financial responsibility for a choice that I made.

Buying a mansion is different than offering assistance to a disabled or sick child.

Grandpa h.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: grandpa But to suggest that disabled children should need no kind of accomodations is simply cruel and, quite frankly, unusual. This is just a matter of being able to put yourself in anothers' shoes. Grandpa h.

You misquote me again, where did I say they needed no kind of accommodations? In fact, I was at pains to stress that they require additional accommodations, hence my entire arguement of personal responsibility.

I am going to stick with my mansion analogy, it fits IMO. To ask the state to support your choice to give birth to a disabled child is akin to me asking the state to buy me a mansion by the sea. Both are unreasonable requests.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins You misquote me again, where did I say they needed no kind of accommodations? In fact, I was at pains to stress that they require additional accommodations, hence my entire arguement of personal responsibility.

Well, if a family can't afford accomodations, where are they going to turn? Well, probably to conditions of poverty, as that's one of the obvious options if you're not rich.
Unless they can find some compassionate help in a world where disabled children are mandatorily killed or have their births compared to buying a luxury home.

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins I am going to stick with my mansion analogy, it fits IMO. To ask the state to support your choice to give birth to a disabled child is akin to me asking the state to buy me a mansion by the sea. Both are unreasonable requests.

A human being's life is not the same as a luxury home. If you can't see a flaw in your analogy, I simply feel sorry for you.

Grandpa h.

[Rave7pt0]

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.

[rmnunez]

The DPRK's case is a fine example of a humanitarian justification for military intervention. Here we see a tyrant perpetrating atrocities solely within the bounds of sovereign territory and without impact beyond his borders. Since we don't recognize that level of sovereignty, the DPRK should be attacked and its ruler removed.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins I personally think this might be a little excessive. I am off the opinion that anyone who knowingly gives birth to a disabled child should receive absolutely no assistance from the state, ever, and that includes medical assistance, special schooling, home help or anything else. But I think that a parent should still be able to decide whether to keep a disabled child. So what do you think? Is it a crippling financial cost for a society to support these children or is it a sign of our increasing maturity as a race of beings?

Seeker_of_Sins I think you are radical ahead of your time.
It is more likely that abnormalities in a new born will in the future be dicovered in the fetus, then through bio/nano/surgery be corrected before birth.
However it will probably become the norm too terminate those without value to society.
Ah those of you with a high moral code will be outraged, rightly so. It won't be done for economic reasons but most likely for the ability to sustain the species under severe pressure from being able too feed and provide clean water for the billions of others.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 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. .

Now thats an interesting debate topic, the poor tend to have more kids, meaning that they are likely to remain poor because they have more kids. Therefore their kids are also poor, meaning that they will tend to have more kids as well and therefore they also will remain poor. Do you see a pattern emerging here? A continuosly growing pool of poor people in constant need of financial assistance, leading to a continuosly growing liability, leading to a welfare dependant society and it is the welfare that is the kicker. The welfare actually enables the poor people to scrape by therefore perpetuating the cycle. There is no way out because you have trapped everyone in and closed the door.

Abortion is nothing more than a birth control method, somewhat more effective than a condom or a pill, but a birth control method nontheless. It is a legitimate answer to a time constraint problem. The debate on this subject will never end because there will always be two camps.

If financial assistance causes an increase in abortion rates, then one has to seriously question the motives of the parents in the first place. If the only thing making them keep a child is the knowledge that someone will pay them to do so, then they are having children for all the wrong reasons anyway.

Lastly, you did a Godwin, poor form indeed

[weasel]

it should be noted that this is exactly what Hitler was trying to do: create a race of ubermeinch ("supermen") through selective breeding and killing off the weak. there is no question that this was / is morally and ethically wrong.

however, for the sake of arguement and to play the devil's advocate for a moment, what if korea is doing handicapped people a favor by sparing them from a life of misfortune and discrimination? again, I do not support korea's actions. there is that "what if" factor though that I would like to raise.

[Morgan_Freeman]

This policy is a natural consequence of North Korea's political system. Just like China's one-child policy was a consequence of theirs. When all costs are socialized and the state has to pay the costs of every child's upbringing, naturally it is that state that gets to decide which children to keep or not. Calling this policy itself "tyrannical" is absurd -- you're missing the forest for the twigs.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 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.

Does this mean that you oppose abortion? Or that you are a hypocrite?

Quote by: Rave7pt0 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.

Yes, that would be a common-sense solution. In the days prior to massive government social programs, guess what happened to disabled children? Most likely they died.

If you don't like that state of affairs, no one is stopping you from putting money into a charity designed to assist low-income children. But what right do you have to steal money from me in order to pay for them?

Quote by: Rave7pt0 What I'm saying is that because your policy will tend to cause a higher abortion and infanticide rate, you are talking eugenics, period.

Do you have a problem with eugenics?

Quote by: Rave7pt0 Is there an IQ cut off where children are no longer useful to the state therefore they receive no funding?

No, there's not a cutoff. State money should not go to children, period.

Quote by: Rave7pt0 Maybe we should just start killing kids who don't have above average intelligence, that way we can 'improve' our race.

Or rather, preventing them from being born in the first place. Sounds like an excellent idea to me; why don't you agree?

Quote by: Rave7pt0 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?

Classes in public schools that expand minds? Sure, just like I love going to the DMV.

Quote by: Rave7pt0 If Stephen Hawking had been born the way he is, under your system he would be dead and gone.

... and you know this because you've spoken to his parents?
:eek:

Quote by: Rave7pt0 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.

Because of insurance companies? Aren't you forgetting the State and Federal Governments??

Quote by: Rave7pt0 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.

Seeker of Sins set it up? Wow, I had no idea....

Quote by: Rave7pt0 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.

And if that's what you believe, you're perfectly free to personally subsidize all the Down's Syndrome children you want. It's perfectly clear that you are the elitist here, not us.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 For a group of people of any size, like the 400 million living Americans for example, one has to consider decisions statistically.

But it isn't happening in America, and what if statistically they're better off being killed as Morgan Freeman says? The PRNK policy doesn't sound good, but if the alternative is being kicked out by the families and dying in the streets, that doesn't sound more humane to me.