Quote:
|
Originally Posted by You Are Gay
For the sake of argument a baby is a child up to the age of 2 where they are still a "blank slate" (i don't know if that is scientifically correct but we'll just use age 2 as the example for this argument)
|
I think you are missing the point here... Im gonna steal some arguments from Singer and pretend to be mine:
The main purpuose of doind anything on these lines is to decrease the ammount of suffering in this world. In the grand plan, that should be the objective of mankind. Should a man and a woman stranded on a deserted island conceive a child with brain palsy, would it be wrong for them to kill it? If no one is going to miss it, why not? The kid isnt really going to feel anything anyway.
On the other hand, Should this happen on a broader family, and lets say, grandpa has a lot of love for this children, things change drastically, because killing the infant would add to the suffering of the world.
You are basically focused on the resources bit, but they are merely means to an end: Bring confort, stability and wellbeing to other people.
Government money invested in people with DS is a dead end. It is solely for the pleasure of the family, as they will never give anything back to society, and personally i agree with proposition #2, albeit i think that the family should earn half of the benefits, or less.