Handicapped Children: Keep or Abort?

A few days ago I read about a conclusion the think tank of the Dutch Liberal party VVD has reached on the matter of who should pay for handicapped children. The phrasing was like this:

Quote:

---

When science makes it possible to accurately determine whether or not a child is handicapped the parents should be given the decision to keep it or not. But if they do decide to keep it then they are guilty, they know fully what they do and should pay for the consequences.

---

(Note that the "pay" is a purely financial "pay", the literally must pay for all the expenses without any governmental help)

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Yikes that's a hard one. Everything in me screams against it but I can understand it, and if abortion (which I consider murder) is allowed because people simply don't want it.. Gonna wait for what others think.

Guilty? What was the Dutch word they used? “Verantwoordelijk” (responsible) perhaps ? “Aansprakelijk” (idem, literally: accountable) ? VVD knows about sweet-talking they can make just about everything look reasonable if they want to. I doubt they'd be quite so crude to use “schuldig” (guilty/indebted/owing), although they might certainly mean indebted/owing.

I was going to espouse on what handicapped means, but after reflection it doesn't matter as the less of an issue something is, the less the parent's would have to pay for it.

But what about if the child has a genetic propensity to depression / drug use / alcoholism / anger / obesity / diabetes (you get the idea)? Would state support for healthcare be withdrawn or is there a cut off in term of likelihood?
Even the current screening for Down's and other disorders don't give a "yes" or "no", merely a ratio. Would amniocentesis be mandatory if one wants to avoid all benefits being withdrawn?

Enough questions - here are my views. Increasingly humans are creating a system that goes against evolution. Many handicaps are in essence genetic defects that should die out as the carriers have less children - but this is less and less the case. Certain classes breed like rabbits from a young age. In most species this trade off for this is higher infant mortality which would be the case if the State didn't support them with little if any tradeoff for their actions.

Hence I think that terming it as "guilt" is inappropriate, and withdrawing all aid is too draconian - but there should be less strident steps in this direction.

~:smoking:

I hope that each and every single one of the members of that "think tank" will one day be put for the devestating choice of keeping or aborting their own handicapped child.

Punishing people because they don't want to get rid of their own child? How insensitive (disgusting?) can one be? Not everything is measurable in money. Talking about money, let's spend more on healthcare and less on politicians and their "think tanks".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Guilty? What was the Dutch word they used? “Verantwoordelijk” (responsible) perhaps ? “Aansprakelijk” (idem, literally: accountable) ? VVD knows about sweet-talking they can make just about everything look reasonable if they want to. I doubt they'd be quite so crude to use “schuldig” (guilty/indebted/owing), although they might certainly mean indebted/owing.

---

no the dutch word used was actually Schuldig. which is directly translated into guilty. Verantwoordelijk is indeed responsible, which is something entirely else. it is possible that the think tank used another word, but in the article the world quilty was used.

here are my thoughts on the matter

The first objection I have against it is the phrasing that is being used. How can parents be found guilty for loving their children (not of loving their children, but for the love they bare for it). But more heavily weighs this objection that this idea, as so many of the Liberal party's ideas, will lead to segregation between rich and poor. Only the richer parents have the opportunity to love and keep their "handicapped" child because a poorer family could not afford to sustain that child without help from the government or in extreme cases a insurance company. This will lead to a lot of pain and suffering of parents who love their unborn child as much as any other but are not as fortunate to be so wealthy. In short, the poor love their children as much as the rich, why should they be punished while the rich can avoid the sentence.

Now look at the problem from another point of view, that of the child. The reasoning is pure discrimination, towards both child and its parents. The child is being condemned for being different and its opportunity for a good life is heavily decreased solely because he does not meet the common bodily standard. And the parents are being punished for being the parents of a handicapped child and are put in a situation no parent should be put in merely for the sake of money. Because that is the despicable thing about it, the life of a child is no longer judged from the sake of the child, but it is valued for how much money he will make or cost society. I am not for keeping alive every creature for the sanctity of life but I am against condemning to death any creature for not meeting a bodily (or mental) standard. Also if a child's parents decide to keep it, but are not so wealthy that they can afford the best care for the child, only the absolute minimum, than the child is being punished and this is something very strange. Again I think the argument forgets what is really important, it is not the health of society that comes first in a pregnancy, it is the health of the baby. If any decision is made at all concerning the life or death of an unborn child it should be done only in the sake of the child!

If this argument would be accepted and would be put in practice than we would find ourselves on a slippery slope. This line of reasoning won't be able to keep up with the technological advance. And when it becomes possible to detect also mental deviations of the psychological standard, such as schizophrenia, depression etc., we should also make parents decide whether or not they want to keep that child and if they do, they will have to pay for the consequences. (This will most likely lead to some kind of tax, and the parents will pay even if there are no consequences, but this is beside the matter now.) Or what about habits, such as obsessive eating which leads to obesity, or smoking. These are habits that costs society a lot of money, should the parents decide before birth whether or not they want to keep a child which has a high probability to become fat or ill, and if they do so they are left alone, excommunicated from society, condemned for loving their child as their own and left alone. The practice has the tendency to become something most people would outright reject, the Nazi-program, eugenetics etc. Only those children who don't have any detectable deviations from the desired standard will be given a chance to live, otherwise its chances will diminish considerably because only the rich can afford to keep it.

Also the matter should be separated. Whether parents should be given the option to know if their child is "handicapped" and then whether they should be given the option to abort it is an entirely different matter than who should pay for that child once it is born.

Finally there is another problem, that of definition. What is a handicap, when is someone handicapped? What standard should we apply to? Will we include "mental illness" or "bad habits"?

If you ignore the fact that they are poeple and have every right to a happy life and view it in pure cold logic, then you might be inclined to think that abandoning them is good for society as a whole, but you would be wrong. With the aid of modern science, and a little understanding and patience, there are very few disabilities that can't be overcome, resulting in a productive member of society. Spending time with, and helping disabled people is also good for the "soul". They have a unique outlook on life, talking to and helping them gives you such a profound sense of satisfaction with life. How we treat the less fortunate says EVERYTHING about who we are as people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

no the dutch word used was actually Schuldig. which is directly translated into guilty. Verantwoordelijk is indeed responsible, which is something entirely else. it is possible that the think tank used another word, but in the article the world quilty was used.

---

Schuldig as in schuldig aan, of verschuldigd? The mind boggles: members of the VVD thinkthank evidently have taken leave of their senses, if not any form of good taste and common courtesy.

On the ethics of the issue: I'm with Andres. Though I suspect they're rather too well paid to feel consequences of their little “ideas” were those made into policy or put into practice. We've found a new class of people more infuriating than lawyers: insensitive VVD thinkthank berks.

Money is not a thing you can hold in your hand. It is a token that is used to barter time and goods.

So, these cost more resources to society, or to the individual. Species weed out defective organisms as they can't function optimally which is bad for the individual but good for the species. This has been going on for the last 4 billion or so years.

The parents decided to have a child. They can now choose whether to have holidays every year and a new car every 3 or have a handicapped child an a trip to the caravan park and a second hand car every 10 years.

"How can you put a price on love?" - Let's see people make this choice. Currently others subsidise them, this method they take the responsibility. No one is being condemned - you merely choose one disabled child or two healthy children (this ratio might be even high for severe handicapped children).

~:smoking:

Nobody gets a choice when paying taxes, so caring for the disabled is a responsibility, quid pro quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

They can now choose whether to have holidays every year and a new car every 3 or have a handicapped child an a trip to the caravan park and a second hand car every 10 years.

---

It's a choice nobody asks for and it's unfair to take measures that (look at it how you want) punish those parents who have the bad luck of being confronted with that choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

"How can you put a price on love?" - Let's see people make this choice. Currently others subsidise them, this method they take the responsibility.

---

The state paying for most of the care of the child doesn't mean you're not taking responsibility. Parents of a crippled, blind or deaf child will still raise it and take care of it on a day to day basis. The extra costs of healthcare because of the disability being paid by society doesn't mean you can't be a responsible parent. You'll still have to take care of the child AND do the extra paper work and take all the extra problems that come with being the parent of a handicapped child. Being a parent of a healthy child is already a big task; can't even imagine how hard it is to be the parent of a handicapped child. Why shouldn't society help people who have a handicapped child? What else do we pay taxes for? Things like this should be priority. We need to cut in expenses, but please, let's not cut in the expenses of taking care of the disabled.

Also, some would argue that it is irresponsible and selfish to abort a child because it's not the perfectly healthy child you wished for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_uk_20

No one is being condemned - you merely choose one disabled child or two healthy children (this ratio might be even high for severe handicapped children).

~:smoking:

---

Nobody chooses to have a disabled child. It's just bad luck. The fact that somebody can't make the decision of aborting their own child, doesn't mean they have chosen to have a disabled child. Nobody choses that. The choice is not to have or have not a disabled child but to abort or don't abort. And nobody can make that decision for the parents. Nobody has the right to impose or stimulate the parents to take decision A or B. Just like abortion should not be forbidden, people who don't chose an abortion shouldn't be punished for making that choice. It's good that abortion is allowed, but punishing people because they have chosen not to abort is a step too far, imo.

Much of life we are faced by choices we'd not like to have in an ideal world. That's tough. Complaints can be registered with your nearest priest.

The state spending money on a handicapped child is depriving the aid to others. Others will die who would have lived.

Others will argue that it is irrisponsible. That is of course their right to do so. If they want to set up a charity to help provide that's fine.

If they chose not to have an abortion of course they chose to have the child! Merely that this is not a choice they wished to face changes nothing. If you're religious take it up with a priest. Personally I think it's a cruel universe and merely squealing that it's not fair changes nothing.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Schuldig as in schuldig aan, of verschuldigd? The mind boggles: members of the VVD thinkthank evidently have taken leave of their senses, if not any form of good taste and common courtesy.

On the ethics of the issue: I'm with Andres. Though I suspect they're rather too well paid to feel consequences of their little “ideas” were those made into policy or put into practice. We've found a new class of people more infuriating than lawyers: insensitive VVD thinkthank berks.

---

schuldig als in schuldig aan (guilty of instead of owing to) but like i said, the article i read didnt use a direct quote iirc. so it is possible that the thinktank didnt use that exact phrasing.

I'm with Andres, isn't being totally devoid of compassion a bit of a handicap anyway, the human calculator. I can understand the reasoning behind it, just as I can understand the reasoning behind the euganics-program that the Swedish used to run, sterilising people deemed unfit for reproduction. But such thinking disgusts. A disabled kid can cost tons a year, this is a non-decision. I'll happily take my part of the burden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

It's a choice nobody asks for and it's unfair to take measures that (look at it how you want) punish those parents who have the bad luck of being confronted with that choice.



The state paying for most of the care of the child doesn't mean you're not taking responsibility. Parents of a crippled, blind or deaf child will still raise it and take care of it on a day to day basis. The extra costs of healthcare because of the disability being paid by society doesn't mean you can't be a responsible parent. You'll still have to take care of the child AND do the extra paper work and take all the extra problems that come with being the parent of a handicapped child. Being a parent of a healthy child is already a big task; can't even imagine how hard it is to be the parent of a handicapped child.

Also, some would argue that it is irresponsible and selfish to abort a child because it's not the perfectly healthy child you wished for.



Nobody chooses to have a disabled child. It's just bad luck. The fact that somebody can't make the decision of aborting their own child, doesn't mean they have chosen to have a disabled child. Nobody choses that. The choice is not to have or have not a disabled child but to abort or don't abort. And nobody can make that decision for the parents. Nobody has the right to impose or stimulate the parents to take decision A or B. Just like abortion should not be forbidden, people who don't chose an abortion shouldn't be punished for making that choice. It's good that abortion is allowed, but punishing people because they have chosen not to abort is a step too far, imo.

---

lets be realistic, its not yet a common choice. and it is not at all a natural choise to keep it in line with rory's idea of darwinism within modern society (which i agree with till a certain extent) but for severely handicapped children there are certain payments that are required for equipment or operation that no modal family can affor without insurance or goverment funding. however when the goverment retreats and says we will have nothing to do with this then the responsibility will fall solely to the family because i dont see why the insurance companies will not follow the same line of reasoning of the government and say, well youve chosen for this child (as if it is possible to chose a particular child and not another) so you must pay for the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Much of life we are faced by choices we'd not like to have in an ideal world. That's tough. Complaints can be registered with your nearest priest.

The state spending money on a handicapped child is depriving the aid to others. Others will die who would have lived.

Others will argue that it is irrisponsible. That is of course their right to do so. If they want to set up a charity to help provide that's fine.

If they chose not to have an abortion of course they chose to have the child! Merely that this is not a choice they wished to face changes nothing. If you're religious take it up with a priest. Personally I think it's a cruel universe and merely squealing that it's not fair changes nothing.

~:smoking:

---

the same can be said the other way around. thats just bad luck for those who died their complaints can be registered with the nearest priests, they died because money was spent on an infant who would otherwise have died.

hehe though it comes scarily close to my own ideas on healthcare for the elderly XD or animals... its a miracle, i actually come close to agreeing with rory!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If they chose not to have an abortion of course they chose to have the child! Merely that this is not a choice they wished to face changes nothing. If you're religious take it up with a priest. Personally I think it's a cruel universe and merely squealing that it's not fair changes nothing.

~:smoking:

---

that is not an argument. just because something is doenst mean it ought to be. the fact that the state of the world is a cruel one doesnt mean that it ought to be or that it can't change or that you must go along with it. defaitism...

just because a person is sick doesnt mean he ought to be or that you must do nothing to change it...

also i want to stress the point that actually we need to pose 2 different questions.

1) should people have the choice to know and if they do know should they get the choice to abort (and on which terms are they allowed to do so?)

2) when a handicapped child is born, REGARDLESS of whether or not the parents knew about it before it was born, who should pay for the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Much of life we are faced by choices we'd not like to have in an ideal world. That's tough. Complaints can be registered with your nearest priest.

The state spending money on a handicapped child is depriving the aid to others. Others will die who would have lived.

Others will argue that it is irrisponsible. That is of course their right to do so. If they want to set up a charity to help provide that's fine.

If they chose not to have an abortion of course they chose to have the child! Merely that this is not a choice they wished to face changes nothing. If you're religious take it up with a priest. Personally I think it's a cruel universe and merely squealing that it's not fair changes nothing.

~:smoking:

---

I'm not exactly religious, rory.

The state has money. Our tax money. How they spend it, is a matter of priorities. Cut in something else, not in this.

And I still disagree that having a disabled child is a choice. It isn't. Maybe you are able to say "Oh, Down syndrom. What a pity, abort and better luck next time", a position I would respect and I would fight for your right to have the abortion. Maybe you have a high paying job and you could easily afford taking care of a disabled child. Other people can't make that choice or don't have a high paying job (some people work hard and do not earn massive amounts of money) which makes it doable to pay for a disabled child. I don't think I would be able to chose the abortion (and I'm far from religious, in case you think only religious people would chose not to have an abortion). Has nothing to do with responsibility.

I would keep the child, even if society would say "bad luck, but it's your own fault!" and show me the middlefinger. I would of course kindly show my middlefinger back to such a kind of society.

How is this different to the rich getting a greater diversity of treatments than others with greater success rates? Or the rich can afford a great sports car which will protect them from high speed crashes far more than the poor sods they might hit? Or being stuck with a CPS lawyer and not a QC? Of course money affects what realistic options one has. Or one can "pay" with time.

The money that a severely handicapped child requires is multiples of my salary, or my wife could stay at home the whole time and we could not have any other children. We could move back to be close to my parents and they could help too. That is a choice I would not make.

Adoption is still an option that avoids abortion and upkeep.

There are many things I would wish for the state to spend money on rather that lost causes such as this.

~:smoking:

Everyone should pay the costs, a disabled person is a burden of course but not everything is a matter of money. What are you really asking from these people, it's forcing them to kill what they want to take care for. Healthcare is incredibly expensive a night in the hospital can run into thousands, it's not a choice at all.

Money is the current best abstract means to allocate resources and balance wants / needs. How else can you compare 5 minutes of time to a beefburger. Everything is always about the money - but how it is allocated can vary.

To say it's not about the money is as meaningless as saying "I'm not a statistic"

~:smoking:

But it's not about the money. It's about people.

Ever heard of economics? Popular subject. Might be best to get a primer and have a quick glance. You might learn something.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Money is the current best abstract means to allocate resources and balance wants / needs. How else can you compare 5 minutes of time to a beefburger. Everything is always about the money - but how it is allocated can vary.

To say it's not about the money is as meaningless as saying "I'm not a statistic"

~:smoking:

---

All business is about money, but not everything is business. We have a healthcare system for everybody and everybody pays it, the idea of insurance is sharing the risk, so in money terms people should get what they payed for, the best care for their disabled child.

Of course, there's no net gain in economic terms. So what?

So the Netherlands will give you welfare if you sit on your ass all day and toke up but they won't help cover the costs of handicap children many of whom will become better people than the drug addict whores and scumbags who are causing the state to be in the red.

logical

my gut says this is wrong...

But punishment isn't the best word to describing ceasing to give benefits. And it is true that money spent somewhere isn't spent somewhere else. On a vaccine for some disease for example. I think the argument against it has to take that into account.

This kind of thing seems like an unfortunate side effect of public health care. I remember a recent 60 minutes about whether hospitals should run dozens of expensive tests on patients who were near death or if they should be let die. It sounds terrible, and you would automatically say no normally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, these cost more resources to society, or to the individual. Species weed out defective organisms as they can't function optimally which is bad for the individual but good for the species. This has been going on for the last 4 billion or so years.

---

So you think all those brain cells we developed are ultimately useless and should not be put to any use except behaving exactly like organisms did 4 billion years ago?
Despite that, your reasoning could also be used to not punish a murderer if he murdered an unemployed or elderly person because those are pretty much unproductive, and also often defective.
The next question one would have to ask is whether VVD thinktanks actually benefit society financially or not, I could have come to the same conclusion they did but I'm a lot cheaper, so maybe we should shoot them and put me in their place, I'm sure that would net the Netherlands a nice profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

There are many things I would wish for the state to spend money on rather that lost causes such as this.

~:smoking:

---

Jesus, to be this cold you'd have to be a doctor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Jesus, to be this cold you'd have to be a doctor.

---

He's also somewhat undermining his own job now that I think about it. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So the Netherlands will give you welfare if you sit on your ass all day and toke up but they won't help cover the costs of handicap children many of whom will become better people than the drug addict whores and scumbags who are causing the state to be in the red.

---

Not quite. Fortunately not nearly everyone voted VVD. Cliché, I know, but the way the VVD would have it all money is spent on property speculation & building more roads.

Severly handicapped..... Abort, God forgive me for saying that.


If only miniorly handicapped, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

my gut says this is wrong...

---

My gut says this is about “justifying” rather more harsh spending cuts in one place, whilst maintaining spending levels elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

How is this different to the rich getting a greater diversity of treatments than others with greater success rates? Or the rich can afford a great sports car which will protect them from high speed crashes far more than the poor sods they might hit? Or being stuck with a CPS lawyer and not a QC? Of course money affects what realistic options one has. Or one can "pay" with time.

The money that a severely handicapped child requires is multiples of my salary, or my wife could stay at home the whole time and we could not have any other children. We could move back to be close to my parents and they could help too. That is a choice I would not make.

Adoption is still an option that avoids abortion and upkeep.

There are many things I would wish for the state to spend money on rather that lost causes such as this.

~:smoking:

---

why is a disabled kid a lost cause? lets say richard dawkins (dont know his name for sure, but the dude that sits in a wheelchair and talks with the help of a computer) he is a severely handicapped person, but certainly not a lost cause. he has made some very important contributions to modern science and through that our culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Severly handicapped..... Abort, God forgive me for saying that.


If only miniorly handicapped, no.

---

but there is the problem of definition. when is someone severely handicapped and when is someone only minor handicapped? ofcourse the extreme cases (completely disabled and mentally retarded vs missing a leg or being blind) are easy, but what about the bordercases? what about a person who can barely move on his own but is extremely intelligent and capable of producing the most astonishing art? and that leads to another question, why should the life of an intelligent handicapped person be valued higher than that of an unintelligent one. To whose interests do we look first in such a case. my intuitions would be that of the child, but apparantly the vvd think tank disagrees and thinks we should look at the interest of the state first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

why is a disabled kid a lost cause? lets say richard dawkins (dont know his name for sure, but the dude that sits in a wheelchair and talks with the help of a computer) he is a severely handicapped person, but certainly not a lost cause. he has made some very important contributions to modern science and through that our culture.

---

Stephen Hawking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Stephen Hawking.

---

i always mix them up :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Jesus, to be this cold you'd have to be a doctor.

---

Being close to the reality of situations might help gain perspective in what is a zero sum game.

There will always be the ill. Reallocating would not reduce the number of doctors that could have gainful employment. Besides, I'm a Consultant Pharmaceutical Physician - I'm in drug development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

why is a disabled kid a lost cause? lets say richard dawkins (dont know his name for sure, but the dude that sits in a wheelchair and talks with the help of a computer) he is a severely handicapped person, but certainly not a lost cause. he has made some very important contributions to modern science and through that our culture.

---

...and if Stalin / Hitler / Mao were found to be irreparably damaged as babies imagine the lives that would have been saved. A sample size of one isn't a valid sample size.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Being close to the reality of situations might help gain perspective in what is a zero sum game.

There will always be the ill. Reallocating would not reduce the number of doctors that could have gainful employment. Besides, I'm a Consultant Pharmaceutical Physician - I'm in drug development.



...and if Stalin / Hitler / Mao were found to be irreparably damaged as babies imagine the lives that would have been saved. A sample size of one isn't a valid sample size.

~:smoking:

---

that is a different point all together. why is a person who is physically handicapped a lost cause?

btw since when do you care about saving lives? i thought the world was a cruel place XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Ever heard of economics? Popular subject. Might be best to get a primer and have a quick glance. You might learn something.

~:smoking:

---

I think there has to be a balance between the protection a state owns its citizens on the one hand, and economic realities on the other. You seem to be concerned only with the latter from the way you have argued here, I'm sure Miotas was aware of the realities of the situation.

So what if we lose out on some of our earning in the tax, that could have been more 'efficiently' spent from a purely materialistic viewpoint? It is worth it to know that if I ever had a disabled child, I could expect help in return. That's one of the main foundations for society and the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

...and if Stalin / Hitler / Mao were found to be irreparably damaged as babies imagine the lives that would have been saved. A sample size of one isn't a valid sample size.

---

0? Historical forces and all that...

Wow, I would usually just read and say nothing but it is quite a cynic statement. Handicapped people also have the right of helfcare, right to contribute to the society and etc. Their parents should not be punished for the fact they decided to give them a chance to live. It's a matter of choice, not a matter to save money. You won't save enough from that, btw!

i may have used the term punishment wrongly, this because they came with the term guilty, and therefor punishment is the association i make. but perhaps it should more be viewed as changing the entire nature of society, instead of the group taking care of all its members, everyone will take care only of themself. the parents of handicapped children are not really punished they are merely not treated any different then parents who have a normal child. both will have to pay for the descision that they wanted a child. however this will mean that the entire dutch society needs to be changed, because then why should i pay taxes to let someone else kid go to school, for medical treatment etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i may have used the term punishment wrongly, this because they came with the term guilty, and therefor punishment is the association i make. but perhaps it should more be viewed as changing the entire nature of society, instead of the group taking care of all its members, everyone will take care only of themself. the parents of handicapped children are not really punished they are merely not treated any different then parents who have a normal child. both will have to pay for the descision that they wanted a child. however this will mean that the entire dutch society needs to be changed, because then why should i pay taxes to let someone else kid go to school, for medical treatment etc etc.

---

Ah, I see. I would dare to turn slightly left (which is not very typical for me) but I fear this may lead to breach in the social solidarity principle. I fear that there will be some people who will drop out of the system and thus, we may create a base for social instability. Of course, this may require certain sacrifices but it is for the sake of stability of the system. Well, I agree some people abuse the system (for various quite complexed reasons) and live on the back of the ordinary taxpayers. But this is a totally different problem that needs to be adressed with other measures, not by dissolving the social solidarity.

Killing unborn children due to a handicap, resembling some of the very arguements of Nazi belief systems and morality.... make me horny...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So the Netherlands will give you welfare if you sit on your ass all day and toke up but they won't help cover the costs of handicap children many of whom will become better people than the drug addict whores and scumbags who are causing the state to be in the red.

logical

---

Dear oh dear...

Me, I would love it if more of my tax money went to helping 'drug addicted whores'. It is not exactly what these poor women dreamed of when they were six year olds. They played princess with her mother's clothes and make-up. Then something went horrible astray in the next ten-fisteen years.

What's with the agression towards them? Too long in Texas, where the drug addict is scum, to be hunted down, rather than a social-medical problem, to be helped with recovering?


Edit: I myself am a duck-addicted whore though. For a fiver you can tickle my webby toes while I loudly quack for you....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Dear oh dear...

Me, I would love it if more of my tax money went to helping 'drug addicted whores'. It is not exactly what these poor women dreamed of when they were six year olds. They played princess with her mother's clothes and make-up. Then something went horrible astray in the next ten-fisteen years.

What's with the agression towards them? Too long in Texas, where the drug addict is scum, to be hunted down, rather than a social-medical problem, to be helped with recovering?

---

Many poor personal choices are involved in becoming a drug addicted whore in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Many poor personal choices are involved in becoming a drug addicted whore in America.

---

I too am a firm believer in personal responsibility. However, even the person of poor foresight and weak character deserves compassion, respect for the person.

What is the difference between the drug-addicted whore and the drug-addicted doctor? Mostly that the latter has a firmer social base, limiting the extent of damage of the irresponsible choices.

dunno i think a drug addicted doctor is worse than a drug addicted whore... since the doctor has a much larger responsibility and the errors of judgment made in his practice are more likely to be fatal than that of a whore... though lets no stray too far from the subject :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So the Netherlands will give you welfare if you sit on your ass all day and toke up but they won't help cover the costs of handicap children many of whom will become better people than the drug addict whores and scumbags who are causing the state to be in the red.

logical

---

It's just a think-tank all party's have them, libs think tank is composed of hardcore libertarians, party itself is much more moderate I would give this zero chance of passing in the parlement, but creepy thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's just a think-tank all party's have them, libs think tank is composed of hardcore libertarians, party itself is much more moderate I would give this zero chance of passing in the parlement, but creepy thoughts.

---

Liberal? Hardcore Liberal? They are plain Nazi, just plain Nazi with all their eugenics....

Of course, another way is pull out all social welfare system, and let everyone have a chance purely on their feet (symbolically), but did have social care for handicapped persons, like what they do here, we have no social welfare system and this kind of crazy tought don't spawn because no greedy people try to got more money for themselves.

They aren't nazi's, and this isn't about social-darwinism, they are free-market anarchists who believe every tax is legalized theft.

But it's much easier to throw around emotive / divisive terms than address the issue. "Play the man, not the ball" as Sir Humphry would say.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They aren't nazi's, and this isn't about social-darwinism, they are free-market anarchists who believe every tax is legalized theft.

---

tell them to leave the country and fetch up for themselves. a man who avoid paying taxes without economical poverty reasons, needs fate worse than death because they are the vampires of the society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

But it's much easier to throw around emotive / divisive terms than address the issue. "Play the man, not the ball" as Sir Humphry would say.

~:smoking:

---

Emotional arguments are valid arguments here as it's an ethical issue, it's reducing a human being to a net benefit. I am guilty of doing that as well in immigration debates, but comming here is a choice being born disabled isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

tell them to leave the country and fetch up for themselves. a man who avoid paying taxes without economical poverty reasons, needs fate worse than death because they are the vampires of the society.

---

Can I live, I am very fond of the libertarian idea's on society, remember it's a think-tank, they are supposed to take it to the extreme. It's brain-gymnastics, purily theoratical wizardry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

tell them to leave the country and fetch up for themselves. a man who avoid paying taxes without economical poverty reasons, needs fate worse than death because they are the vampires of the society.

---

Off on a tangent are we, or just misunderstood? It's about allocation of resources, not paying less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Emotional arguments are valid arguments here as it's an ethical issue, it's reducing a human being to a net benefit. I am guilty of doing that as well in immigration debates, but comming here is a choice being born disabled isn't.

---

No they're not, as I could easily reply that they are killing many others unnecessarily due to reduced funding...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Off on a tangent are we, or just misunderstood? It's about allocation of resources, not paying less.



No they're not, as I could easily reply that they are killing many others unnecessarily due to reduced funding...

~:smoking:

---

actually it is about paying less. the goverment wont spend money on it, cuz they will spend it on something else, they wont spend the money cuz the wont charge the taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

No they're not, as I could easily reply that they are killing many others unnecessarily due to reduced funding...

~:smoking:

---

But we can easily afford it, do we want to. When the morality of something is questioned its an ethical question, morality is emotion, or instrumental to emotions of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Dear oh dear...

Me, I would love it if more of my tax money went to helping 'drug addicted whores'. It is not exactly what these poor women dreamed of when they were six year olds. They played princess with her mother's clothes and make-up. Then something went horrible astray in the next ten-fisteen years.

What's with the agression towards them? Too long in Texas, where the drug addict is scum, to be hunted down, rather than a social-medical problem, to be helped with recovering?


Edit: I myself am a duck-addicted whore though. For a fiver you can tickle my webby toes while I loudly quack for you....

---

I have never understood why (recoverd) addicts get lavished with such praise.

Being so addicted to something that it makes a pesron useless to socitey is something 99% of the population can avoid doing. Instead of lavishing praise on them we should hand them a card that says "Welcome back to the baseline" and give them a drive through walkie

It is utterly disgusting to see people piss there lives away and it is even more disgusting to see these people still sucking at the tit of the nanny state while a think tank proposes that to put less stress on the government payroll we abort retarded babies.

If unborn children could vote I suspect this would be a different story.

Now this does not mean I am opposed to abortion or some form of a government saftey net but I beilive the government saftey net would be much better if it was geared toward the working poor instead, including retards who bag groceries and are happy to be there.

A genuis drug addict is worth less to society than an imbecile. It is much better to allocate rescources to him

Let's kill all the people on welfare for more than 6 months. Crack open there skulls, scramble there brains, and throw them in a dumpster. That'll releive stress on the goverenment dole to.

European logic is literally ass backwards

Really recoverin from a drug addiction is worthy of praise. They won't get it from me because I kinda agree with you. But again this is a think-tank, it's impossible to pull of. For actual policy it has just as much weight as our conversation here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I have never understood why (recoverd) addicts get lavished with such praise.

Being so addicted to something that it makes a pesron useless to socitey is something 99% of the population can avoid doing. Instead of lavishing praise on them we should hand them a card that says "Welcome back to the baseline" and give them a drive through walkie

It is utterly disgusting to see people piss there lives away and it is even more disgusting to see these people still sucking at the tit of the nanny state while a think tank proposes that to put less stress on the government payroll we abort retarded babies.

If unborn children could vote I suspect this would be a different story.

Now this does not mean I am opposed to abortion or some form of a government saftey net but I beilive the government saftey net would be much better if it was geared toward the working poor instead, including retards who bag groceries and are happy to be there.

A genuis drug addict is worth less to society than an imbecile. It is much better to allocate rescources to him

Let's kill all the people on welfare for more than 6 months. Crack open there skulls, scramble there brains, and throw them in a dumpster. That'll releive stress on the goverenment dole to.

European logic is literally ass backwards

---

i think there is some confusion. It is not about spending money elsewhere and not on aborted babies. it is about lowering taxes so that people who have no responsibility for the child of another person doesnt have to pay for it. if it was for them all schools and hospitals would be private and only those who can afford would benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i think there is some confusion. It is not about spending money elsewhere and not on aborted babies. it is about lowering taxes so that people who have no responsibility for the child of another person doesnt have to pay for it. if it was for them all schools and hospitals would be private and only those who can afford would benefit.

---

So cut spending for people who take and take and take....Of course that would mean losing votes which would mean losing power and we can't very well have a good solution get in the way of losing office

-_- u have no idea what you are talking about. if it was for the liberal think tank all those people would be left to die. but i wont defend that. cuz i dont agree with it. nor do i agree with the proposed argument about handicapped children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Enough questions - here are my views. Increasingly humans are creating a system that goes against evolution. Many handicaps are in essence genetic defects that should die out as the carriers have less children - but this is less and less the case. Certain classes breed like rabbits from a young age. In most species this trade off for this is higher infant mortality which would be the case if the State didn't support them with little if any tradeoff for their actions.

---

The lower class (aka those who breed like rabbits) getting genetically defective children will spend more of their own resources on that child, thus getting fewer children. Also, that child will have reduced probabillities to get children of his/her own. See evolution wins again. :book:

Anyway, humanity is currently mainly genetically diversifying itself (6 milliards different genetical codes), most pruning will probably be from diseases, which have harder patterns to predict.

And the suggestion really sounds like subversive anarcho-capitalism. Thread down that patch and you'll end up with something that makes anarcho-capitalism sound like a reasonable alternative (since it will only make you cynical/borderline cruel and not cruel with a eugenics theme).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The lower class (aka those who breed like rabbits) getting genetically defective children will spend more of their own resources on that child, thus getting fewer children. Also, that child will have reduced probabillities to get children of his/her own. See evolution wins again. :book:

---

That is a load of cobblers man have you ever seen a properly destitute family they have loads of kids taking away support structures may save cash in the short term but it wont save it forever.

He's right actually, if a couple has a disabled child then they need to spend all of their time and money (even with government support) looking after that child and they usually don't have any further children because, as much as they love their child, they just couldn't cope if they happened to have another with the same problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

He's right actually, if a couple has a disabled child then they need to spend all of their time and money (even with government support) looking after that child and they usually don't have any further children because, as much as they love their child, they just couldn't cope if they happened to have another with the same problem.

---

What if their 24th child is disabled and they already have 23?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What if their 24th child is disabled and they already have 23?

---

and how many families in europe since the 1980 do you know that have more than 5 children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

and how many families in europe since the 1980 do you know that have more than 5 children?

---

You obviously didn't grow up in the bible-belt, not that uncommon at all.

actually... becoming more and more uncommon. my dad came from a 11 kid family. but thats baby boom.

It would surprise you, but it's getting less yeah, life expectancy used to be bad because vaccinations are EVIL since a certain death after a long and excruciatingly painful sickbed is what the lord really wants for you

nah its not just that... ppl get families at later age, get less children cuz they want to pamper those they get. and besides they want to have a career too and you cant have one if you are pregnant all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

nah its not just that... ppl get families at later age, get less children cuz they want to pamper those they get. and besides they want to have a career too and you cant have one if you are pregnant all the time.

---

Heh you -obviously- didn't grow up in the bible-belt these griffo's are assembly-lines they breed like rabbits, squeezing out the annual hatchling is as much a constant as Disney releasing a new classic at christmas.

im not just talking about christians XD but apparantly you are. i mean the west as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

and how many families in europe since the 1980 do you know that have more than 5 children?

---

I don't know that many families in Europe so my numbers wouldn't be representative anyway. It wasn't me who complained about the poor having way too many children, ask those who did.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attac...tachmentid=904