Should the mentally disabled be allowed to stay in society?

[Raven]

I've had a few beverages tonight, and everything said since I last read this topic has - whoosh - gone over my head.

Whatever Revan says though, I will probably agree with. We are bros from other ho.

[Ring Wraith]

Well for starters there's the huge breach of human rights involved, appointing somebody to choose who can or can't procreate, the absurdity of trying to assess somebody's contribution to society before they're even born especially when considering how we all pale to insignificance in the grand scheme of things, how this regressive policy would re-implement a definite hierachy despite the alleged democracy our presses bang on about or the biological impracticality like dyspraxia being a recessive allele and after those reasons there's a lot of the stuff that's already been said here.

Also at the bolded bit do you mean we would be fine with this happening or that we just wouldn't dare speak up about it because if you'd done enough reading into the subject to know of Bishop Galen you'd also know that euthnasia wasn't exactly well-received in the Third Reich either.

But I like that "Nazi policies are only bad because they lost" argument, it makes him seem like a Scooby Doo villain

I also like how black and white it has been with "mentally disabled" as in there's been very little acknowledgement in the varying severity of special needs even within the same condition.

Your first point and second question go together. In time, (I'm guessing, considering how mainstream stupid ideas can become [/hipster], and based off of history; homosexuality, for example, is on it's way to changing from abhorred to acceptable) people would have a different opinion of human rights. Our ideas of human rights are governed by the government. If the Supreme Court were to interpret "human" rights differently (and they would have at least some reason to), then it would be irrelevant. It would be a long process, but eventually most people would agree with the ruling.

Nobody is saying it's bad because Hitler did it, people are saying it's bad because Hitler's actions in reference to the Holocaust were absolutely atrocious. And his attitude was not unlike the attitude of the OP either (although Hitler was just a racist nutcase...

Hitler (referring to the Jewish holocaust) was based on race, which ultimately makes little to no difference in a person. Being mentally disabled, however, is an entirely different thing due to it dealing with the mind, the core of a person.

If Hitler had won, it would be just like every other time someone violating human rights had come into power. Some people would be okay with his policies, and others would realize, this is not just, this violates peoples' rights. They would stand up against it, and being right, people would agree with them, and overthrow the Nazis. This is how injustices inevitably end.

You can't be certain of that. Justice is pretty subjective. As with all revolutions, the losing side was the wrong side.

And it is indeed an injustice. You have proposed, with no justification, denying mentally disabled people their rights as human beings nor for denying their family the right to have them as family (and for the mother to be essentially raped in the forced removal of what she wishes to become her child), nor a clear definition for how someone would be identified as so mentally disabled as to justify the denial of their humanity in the first place, especially before birth. These measures you propose are horrors that have no place in any civilized society.

The justification is that they (would not be considered) human. Going back to what I said earlier in this post, their mind, the core of a person, and indeed the very thing that makes us human, is incomplete. As for the forced abortions, the other possibility is to kill them afterwards, which is really not murder due to them (potentially) not being human, and it's just semantics of now or later anyway.

[eclipse]

The concentration camps held more than Jews. I know homosexuals were in there.

[Lord Raven]

Hitler (referring to the Jewish holocaust) was based on race, which ultimately makes little to no difference in a person. Being mentally disabled, however, is an entirely different thing due to it dealing with the mind, the core of a person.

There was no "Jewish Holocaust", Jewish people were one of many groups involved in the (receiving end of the) WWII Holocaust. They were half the people there, though. At any rate, race and mental disabilities are two things that you can't even control, so once again the race arguments applies in terms of "being punished for a trait that you had no control over." It's not like you choose to be mentally handicapped.

You can't be certain of that. Justice is pretty subjective. As with all revolutions, the losing side was the wrong side.

Clearly we live in a world where Hitler is wrong, so what is your point? Edited November 10, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Defeatist Elitist]

Your first point and second question go together. In time, (I'm guessing, considering how mainstream stupid ideas can become [/hipster], and based off of history; homosexuality, for example, is on it's way to changing from abhorred to acceptable) people would have a different opinion of human rights. Our ideas of human rights are governed by the government. If the Supreme Court were to interpret "human" rights differently (and they would have at least some reason to), then it would be irrelevant. It would be a long process, but eventually most people would agree with the ruling.

Hitler (referring to the Jewish holocaust) was based on race, which ultimately makes little to no difference in a person. Being mentally disabled, however, is an entirely different thing due to it dealing with the mind, the core of a person.

You can't be certain of that. Justice is pretty subjective. As with all revolutions, the losing side was the wrong side.

The justification is that they (would not be considered) human. Going back to what I said earlier in this post, their mind, the core of a person, and indeed the very thing that makes us human, is incomplete. As for the forced abortions, the other possibility is to kill them afterwards, which is really not murder due to them (potentially) not being human, and it's just semantics of now or later anyway.

Sure justice and morality are completely subjective, I will give you that one. Forced eugenics is still a fucking terrible idea. Beyond that, the speculation about whether we would think it was fine if Hitler had won is largely irrelevent because there is no concievable way that Hitler could have "won" WWII other than maybe surrendering or just staying with some of his continental gains, MAYBE.

But let's say he did win. I highly doubt we would be espousing Nazi ideologies right now, because Hitler's government would have collapsed incredibly quickly (also the resentment by most of the world's population would be massive, just because you lose a war doesn't make you suddenly agree with everything the victor says). Fuck, the Soviet Union didn't even last that long, and I would argue most of it's leaders were far more competent and far less batshit insane than Hitler was, and their style of government was far easier to maintain over a long period of time.

[Othin]

Your first point and second question go together. In time, (I'm guessing, considering how mainstream stupid ideas can become [/hipster], and based off of history; homosexuality, for example, is on it's way to changing from abhorred to acceptable) people would have a different opinion of human rights. Our ideas of human rights are governed by the government. If the Supreme Court were to interpret "human" rights differently (and they would have at least some reason to), then it would be irrelevant. It would be a long process, but eventually most people would agree with the ruling.

Hitler (referring to the Jewish holocaust) was based on race, which ultimately makes little to no difference in a person. Being mentally disabled, however, is an entirely different thing due to it dealing with the mind, the core of a person.

You can't be certain of that. Justice is pretty subjective. As with all revolutions, the losing side was the wrong side.

The justification is that they (would not be considered) human. Going back to what I said earlier in this post, their mind, the core of a person, and indeed the very thing that makes us human, is incomplete. As for the forced abortions, the other possibility is to kill them afterwards, which is really not murder due to them (potentially) not being human, and it's just semantics of now or later anyway.

Or we recognize that humanity cannot be reasonably defined in such terms and leave them as they are. Certainly, some people might say that something other than mind defines humanity. Many earlier societies thought gender and race defined it just as much, and if you reject objective good and evil so much, how could you maintain that they could not be right?

After all, you still haven't even answered how a person would be conclusively determined to be entirely mentally disabled, such that they would be subject to different laws, and by whom. Without that,you have not even clearly defined the group of people who would be subject to this de-humanization, and indeed, I don't think you could never clearly define that group. So if you wish to maintain this standpoint, you must in your next response prove me wrong and explain how and by whom people could be conclusively determined to be mentally disabled or not. Particularly, before birth, as you suggest.

You also repeatedly ignore the impact on the people around them. It's unfortunate that I can't persuade you to sympathize with the people you are demanding be killed by the state, but if not, then consider the families who would see this as the murder of their children. You would not be able to convince them otherwise, and any government that would attempt to implement this policy as a requirement over a free nation would be overthrown immediately. And I believe you just said that the losing side was the wrong side.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Othin

[Anouleth]

People do not exist to make "contributions to society". Society exists to help people and ensure that they can live the best lives that they can.

[Defeatist Elitist]

People do not exist to make "contributions to society". Society exists to help people and ensure that they can live the best lives that they can.

Indeed. The entire reason we form societies is for mutual benefit, so it's sort of pointless if society doesn't contribute to the well being of its members.

[Ring Wraith]

As for my focus on the Jewish part of the holocaust, it was an example. You can't take the entire holocaust and say "BANZORZ" because there's multiple things going on. The mentally disabled part of the holocaust was based on more than just race, sexuality, etc. As for being mentally handicapped not being something you can choose, and thus equality should be given, a cow doesn't choose to be a cow, does that mean we should grant them human rights? No, because they aren't human.

Again, it comes down to defining what a human really is.

The problem with the Hitler comparison would be it's a forced take over. If the people we elect were to enforce these things, it'd be an entirely different story, and much more gradual than the third reich, and more likely to be accepted by the mass majority.

As for defining what "mentally disabled" truly means, I don't know, I'm not an expert on the subject or anything.

There is a mutual affect on people around. They negatively affect others (example being Nestling), and others love the mentally handicapped and would hate to have them removed. You can't please them all, but taking society into account it would be better to get rid of them.

Society is composed of people. It's a mutual relationship.

[Lord Raven]

As for my focus on the Jewish part of the holocaust, it was an example. You can't take the entire holocaust and say "BANZORZ" because there's multiple things going on. The mentally disabled part of the holocaust was based on more than just race, sexuality, etc. As for being mentally handicapped not being something you can choose, and thus equality should be given, a cow doesn't choose to be a cow, does that mean we should grant them human rights? No, because they aren't human.

We're not giving a cow human rights. Then they wouldn't be human rights anymore.

Again, it comes down to defining what a human really is.

And a mentally handicapped person is a human.

The problem with the Hitler comparison would be it's a forced take over. If the people we elect were to enforce these things, it'd be an entirely different story, and much more gradual than the third reich, and more likely to be accepted by the mass majority.

... no, it's still not "much more likely to be accepted" by the majority especially in as skeptical a society as we live in now. Especially considering that internet.

There is a mutual affect on people around. They negatively affect others (example being Nestling), and others love the mentally handicapped and would hate to have them removed. You can't please them all, but taking society into account it would be better to get rid of them.

Society is composed of people. It's a mutual relationship.

You say this without reading what anyone above you is saying.

[Dr.Sholes]

Again, it comes down to defining what a human really is.

They're human too. You can't say that disabled people aren't human and be like, "Well that's just how I define a human." They still have the same DNA as the rest of the humans and they're still self aware. IMO "human" rights should apply to anything that's sentient/self aware.(supposing evolution ever gets other species that far)

There is a mutual affect on people around. They negatively affect others (example being Nestling), and others love the mentally handicapped and would hate to have them removed. You can't please them all, but taking society into account it would be better to get rid of them.

Society is composed of people. It's a mutual relationship.

Are you kidding? Why would society's "benefit" outweigh a persons life or freedom? Society isn't meant to make everyone the same it's meant to be a group of people. And society came after people did and was a human idea so it definitely doesn't outweigh a single person in the society.

[Agro]

People do not exist to make "contributions to society". Society exists to help people and ensure that they can live the best lives that they can.

Shouldn't society then be adjusting itself to help people like the OP?

They're human too. You can't say that disabled people aren't human and be like, "Well that's just how I define a human." They still have the same DNA as the rest of the humans and they're still self aware. IMO "human" rights should apply to anything that's sentient/self aware.(supposing evolution ever gets other species that far)

Proving that other animals are self-aware is another problem entirely.

And society came after people did and was a human idea so it definitely doesn't outweigh a single person in the society.

Completely wrong. Society came with people: the whole reason homo sapiens has evolved into what it has now is because even bloody Australopitheci were forming societies; forming societies is part of being human. I don't understand what you mean by the second part of the sentence; could you please elaborate?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Agromono

[Dr.Sholes]

Completely wrong. Society came with people: the whole reason homo sapiens has evolved into what it has now is because even bloody Australopitheci were forming societies; forming societies is part of being human. I don't understand what you mean by the second part of the sentence; could you please elaborate?

The other person was saying that it would be best for society to get rid of them. I'm saying that since society was made by humans it doesn't outweigh one humans rights to live or be free. Does that answer your question?

[Defeatist Elitist]

but taking society into account it would be better to get rid of them.

No, it wouldn't. First of all, mentally disabled people are hardly a burden on society. In some cases, like Nestlings, they might be a burden on some individuals, but I blame that on things like privatized medicine. Anyway, it really is hardly any effort on society's part to facilitate mentally disabled people. Because of this, there's no point in getting rid of them. However, even if they were a massive and overburdening strain, it would still be pretty hard for getting rid of them to be easier. Do you understand what a full scale, forced eugenics campaign would entail? Every single member of the population would need to be screened for genetic imperfections (or physical imperfections I suppose), despite us not being advanced enough to reliably determine every single disability based on genes alone. In addition, it would be even more difficult to determine whether somebody with a disability has a severe enough disability that they constitute a net drain on society. You would basically have to let them grow until they were like 18 before making a decision, and even then, most 18 year olds who aren't mentally disabled are still probably net drains on society for a while.

I actually don't understand how you can think that forced eugenics are a sound and workable idea.

[Phoenix Wright]

The problem with the Hitler comparison would be it's a forced take over. If the people we elect were to enforce these things, it'd be an entirely different story, and much more gradual than the third reich, and more likely to be accepted by the mass majority.

The day people vote to remove an entire race/ethnicity/nationality/type of people is the day "civilized" society dies. Just because the people voted for it does not make it an act of "justice."

[Esaka]

Well, actually considering economically, they do create jobs for caretakers. So that's something for society. This only considers they're taken care of by professionals however, which they all should.

[Ring Wraith]

The other person was saying that it would be best for society to get rid of them. I'm saying that since society was made by humans it doesn't outweigh one humans rights to live or be free. Does that answer your question?

Situation time! You discover plans of a terrorist group, who are planning on bombing a small town, and follow it up by nuking (their only nuke) New York City. You can stop the small town from destruction, but that would alert the terrorist group that you have discovered their plans, likely causing them to shift to nuking another large city, or you can foil the plot with the most destruction by letting the small town die. Obviously, it's better to stop the larger city from being destroyed. In the same way, you need to look at the majority of people negatively affected, namely society. Mentally disabled sucks money from people, and now with universal healthcare, that takes quite a chunk from the budget that could be used for the betterment of all of society. If that money was used for national security, we might save more lives than we kill.

No, it wouldn't. First of all, mentally disabled people are hardly a burden on society. In some cases, like Nestlings, they might be a burden on some individuals, but I blame that on things like privatized medicine. Anyway, it really is hardly any effort on society's part to facilitate mentally disabled people. Because of this, there's no point in getting rid of them. However, even if they were a massive and overburdening strain, it would still be pretty hard for getting rid of them to be easier. Do you understand what a full scale, forced eugenics campaign would entail? Every single member of the population would need to be screened for genetic imperfections (or physical imperfections I suppose), despite us not being advanced enough to reliably determine every single disability based on genes alone. In addition, it would be even more difficult to determine whether somebody with a disability has a severe enough disability that they constitute a net drain on society. You would basically have to let them grow until they were like 18 before making a decision, and even then, most 18 year olds who aren't mentally disabled are still probably net drains on society for a while.

I actually don't understand how you can think that forced eugenics are a sound and workable idea.

As shown above, universal healthcare actually makes the problem worse, as it causes an effect on all of society.

I'm guessing the government has pretty well documented who is and isn't mentally disabled. It wouldn't be that difficult. You make a good point about partially disabled people though, as I know a guy who has a slight case of autism, and it really doesn't effect too much. Again, I'm no expert on mental disabilities. It'd probably be best to have some sort of measure, or else let those who are alive live, but kill all the babies before they are self-aware. I'm guessing by the time they're 2 it's detectable how much of an impact it would be.

The day people vote to remove an entire race/ethnicity/nationality/type of people is the day "civilized" society dies. Just because the people voted for it does not make it an act of "justice."

I thought we'd already established that justice (and civilized) is subjective. Besides, we aren't arguing about race/ethnicity/nationality. "Type of people" depends on how you define it. Is a "serial killer" a type of a person? Let's not get into the death penalty though, but you see where I'm going with that. And don't say I'm stretching it, of course I'm stretching it, it's an exaggeration to make a point, which is that it's all a language game.

[Lord Raven]

What's wrong with universal healthcare? Private insurance industries are heartless little fucks and they blow in general.

[Life]

The concentration camps held more than Jews. I know homosexuals were in there.

Of course there were. Gays, Roma (the name for Gypsies), blacks, political prisoners... If you weren't Aryan, you were in there.

The problem was that:

1) The vast majority WAS Jewish (and we're talking about people who may have had only a single great-grandparent since Nazi Germany had this whole classification system). As in like 3 million people died in Austria and about 2.8 million or so were Jews.

2) A lot of these camps (a great majority) were actually designed for humiliation, not slaughter (only the death camps were built for that). In Yad Vashem, there's a small bit on the live testing that Nazi doctors did on the Jews living in concentration camps. Probably the single thing that hits me the most since it brings up the thought "how can a human being do that to another human being".

But that's off topic.

I personally disagree with Nestling (surprise surprise) but I have serious problems with a lot of people who are attacking Nestling's character rather than the issue itself. It may seem like more of a rant about having a mentally disabled sister but that doesn't give you the right to start calling him selfish for proposing an idea that could ease the lives of many people (and I'm not talking about the mentally disabled). He may be the only vocal person out here with that view but I'm sure many people share similar thoughts. They just don't want to say them out loud out of fear of the rocks that may pour through their windows.

[Phoenix Wright]

I thought we'd already established that justice (and civilized) is subjective. Besides, we aren't arguing about race/ethnicity/nationality. "Type of people" depends on how you define it. Is a "serial killer" a type of a person? Let's not get into the death penalty though, but you see where I'm going with that. And don't say I'm stretching it, of course I'm stretching it, it's an exaggeration to make a point, which is that it's all a language game.

OK, so it's subjective. That does not make an argument invalid. Eugenics is not entirely objective, yet here we are.

It doesn't matter what it is--what matters is that people vote on it. If it were voted into policy to get rid of all mentally disabled people, then it would be a morally incorrect move, as well as an economically bad move (those that worked with them no longer have a job).

It's also pretty obvious that mentally disabled people don't bring down society, because they've always been a part of society. Anything that brings society down to a great degree would probably be gotten rid of by society itself.

[Defeatist Elitist]

As shown above, universal healthcare actually makes the problem worse, as it causes an effect on all of society.

I didn't say it would have no effect, I said it's effect was negligible. I live in a country with socialized medicine, and I have never, ever noticed my life being affected adversely by caring for the mentally disabled, and I would bet that nobody except those who are actually related to them could even rationally argue it. Sure it costs some money, but the amount is so small, that by the time you find out how much each person is paying, it's practically nothing.

I'm guessing the government has pretty well documented who is and isn't mentally disabled. It wouldn't be that difficult. You make a good point about partially disabled people though, as I know a guy who has a slight case of autism, and it really doesn't effect too much. Again, I'm no expert on mental disabilities. It'd probably be best to have some sort of measure, or else let those who are alive live, but kill all the babies before they are self-aware. I'm guessing by the time they're 2 it's detectable how much of an impact it would be.

Even if the government has documented who is and isn't mentally disabled (which I'm really not sure of), it would still be almost impossible to discover, early in developement, how significantly disabled an individual is. I know people with severe autism who weren't even diagnosed until like 4, and that's with high severity. The costs of this eugenics system would probably equal or exceed those incurred from just keeping the mentally disabled around.

[Othin]

People do not exist to make "contributions to society". Society exists to help people and ensure that they can live the best lives that they can.

Precisely.

The problem with the Hitler comparison would be it's a forced take over. If the people we elect were to enforce these things, it'd be an entirely different story, and much more gradual than the third reich, and more likely to be accepted by the mass majority.

Doesn't sound like most people are electing people who want that.

As for defining what "mentally disabled" truly means, I don't know, I'm not an expert on the subject or anything.

Then all you have is guesswork to determine who would be impacted by it. In a situation where lives are at stake, that is not enough.

There is a mutual affect on people around. They negatively affect others (example being Nestling), and others love the mentally handicapped and would hate to have them removed. You can't please them all, but taking society into account it would be better to get rid of them.

Society is composed of people. It's a mutual relationship.

The cost is eliminating countless peoples' lives, destroying countless peoples' happiness, and setting a precedent for further horrors that could just as easily be directed at other groups. What could possibly be "worth" this, what would make such a step into barbarism "better"?

Situation time! You discover plans of a terrorist group, who are planning on bombing a small town, and follow it up by nuking (their only nuke) New York City. You can stop the small town from destruction, but that would alert the terrorist group that you have discovered their plans, likely causing them to shift to nuking another large city, or you can foil the plot with the most destruction by letting the small town die. Obviously, it's better to stop the larger city from being destroyed. In the same way, you need to look at the majority of people negatively affected, namely society. Mentally disabled sucks money from people, and now with universal healthcare, that takes quite a chunk from the budget that could be used for the betterment of all of society. If that money was used for national security, we might save more lives than we kill.

Many things cost money for the sake of bettering society. That's a good thing; that's what money is for, spending it on things that improve peoples' lives. "National defense" has no need for half the money it already has, let alone anything more.

I'm guessing the government has pretty well documented who is and isn't mentally disabled. It wouldn't be that difficult. You make a good point about partially disabled people though, as I know a guy who has a slight case of autism, and it really doesn't effect too much. Again, I'm no expert on mental disabilities. It'd probably be best to have some sort of measure, or else let those who are alive live, but kill all the babies before they are self-aware. I'm guessing by the time they're 2 it's detectable how much of an impact it would be.

Except for the fact that it isn't the government's business. It's hilarious how much you're thinking from the perspective that everyone is fine with numerous liberal things: abortions, universal healthcare, letting the government know and decide every detail of peoples' lives. I mean, I consider myself quite liberal, and I'm very much fine with the first two (and when necessary, the third), but if you think this idea would ever get much acceptance in today's society, you're sorely mistaken.

Killing two-year-old babies is very different from forced abortions. Certainly, there's much more of a question of self-awareness by that time, and yet even then whether or not you could conclusively determine anything is questionable. And then there's the human impact: You are not only ripping away the child growing in a mother's womb, but the child she has been raising for two years since then, that the whole family likely has an emotional attachment to. You're justifying murdering this human and traumatizing all of these people... for what? Money? Disgusting.

A hypothetical situation: Say someone, under your proposed tyranny, is not found to be mentally disabled at the age of two, but instead some time later: maybe they're five, maybe they're 30. Maybe the disability was believed to be an underlying condition that did not manifest or was not apparent earlier, maybe it was due to some incident since then resulting in brain damage. In each of these situations, what would you propose doing? I can't imagine your system would allow for a good answer for any of them.

Another thing to keep in mind: In order to test everyone, you would need to have the government hire many psychologists to develop a test to measure mental disability nearly perfectly at the age of two, then to administer the test to every human registered as being born in the United States. Parents would be unwilling to comply, so you would need to force them to do so. All of this would cost money, the same thing you intend to save, and certainly far more money than would be saved. So all you're doing is advocating murder for no purpose at all.

With that, I believe I have said all I need to say on this matter.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Othin

[Raven]

It'd probably be best to have some sort of measure, or else let those who are alive live, but kill all the babies before they are self-aware. I'm guessing by the time they're 2 it's detectable how much of an impact it would be.

Some of the things people are saying in this thread are making me question their own mental health; perhaps it should be them who should be removed from society.

[Lord Raven]

It may seem like more of a rant about having a mentally disabled sister but that doesn't give you the right to start calling him selfish for proposing an idea that could ease the lives of many people (and I'm not talking about the mentally disabled)

What? Early on he was suggesting out-and-out exile, only later on did he suggest something that was a lot more tolerable- and his tone was what got to people more than his points.

[Ring Wraith]

What's wrong with universal healthcare? Private insurance industries are heartless little fucks and they blow in general.

It would be much easier and cheaper to regulate private insurance, thus causing the mentally handicapped to make a far smaller impact.

OK, so it's subjective. That does not make an argument invalid. Eugenics is not entirely objective, yet here we are.

It doesn't matter what it is--what matters is that people vote on it. If it were voted into policy to get rid of all mentally disabled people, then it would be a morally incorrect move, as well as an economically bad move (those that worked with them no longer have a job).

It's also pretty obvious that mentally disabled people don't bring down society, because they've always been a part of society. Anything that brings society down to a great degree would probably be gotten rid of by society itself.

Eugenics can be entirely objective. On things of race, of course not, but something like this is a much different senario.

Subjective again. Morals are constantly changing. I point to homosexuality again.

As far as the job thing goes, that's a good point, but again, it's sucking less money from other people. The mentally disabled can also have jobs, so it's a trade off. Making new technology destroys jobs, but it's not like it's not an improvement overall.

So, what you're saying is, "It's always been that way...if it affected anything, we would have changed it by now..." That's essentially what you just said. As if there can be no improvements to society. Obviously nobody believes that.

I didn't say it would have no effect, I said it's effect was negligible. I live in a country with socialized medicine, and I have never, ever noticed my life being affected adversely by caring for the mentally disabled, and I would bet that nobody except those who are actually related to them could even rationally argue it. Sure it costs some money, but the amount is so small, that by the time you find out how much each person is paying, it's practically nothing.

Rationally argue against it? Rational arguments are objective. Those arguments are mostly emotional.

It does effect how much the government has though. My country is going more and more into debt. The negligible amount taken from everybody would be much better put towards getting out of debt than helping people who really don't care.

Even if the government has documented who is and isn't mentally disabled (which I'm really not sure of), it would still be almost impossible to discover, early in developement, how significantly disabled an individual is. I know people with severe autism who weren't even diagnosed until like 4, and that's with high severity. The costs of this eugenics system would probably equal or exceed those incurred from just keeping the mentally disabled around.

Certainly not in the long run, and short term is debatable. This is all guesswork though, and I'm no expert.

Doesn't sound like most people are electing people who want that.

It's not a big issue right now. It's entirely possible some people in congress are working on a plan but keeping it quiet until they can convince others.

Then all you have is guesswork to determine who would be impacted by it. In a situation where lives are at stake, that is not enough.

Again, that just depends on your definition of human.

The cost is eliminating countless peoples' lives, destroying countless peoples' happiness, and setting a precedent for further horrors that could just as easily be directed at other groups. What could possibly be "worth" this, what would make such a step into barbarism "better"?

Their happiness is found solely in their mentally disabled children? Again, it would be easy to let those currently living to die, and prevent more from popping up. If nothing else, at a minimal degree. As far as the slippery slope argument goes, there's no comparison between mentally handicapped and race (taking the common example), depending on how you define human.

Many things cost money for the sake of bettering society. That's a good thing; that's what money is for, spending it on things that improve peoples' lives. "National defense" has no need for half the money it already has, let alone anything more.

I really haven't looked into it, so I can't really argue it.

Except for the fact that it isn't the government's business. It's hilarious how much you're thinking from the perspective that everyone is fine with numerous liberal things: abortions, universal healthcare, letting the government know and decide every detail of peoples' lives. I mean, I consider myself quite liberal, and I'm very much fine with the first two (and when necessary, the third), but if you think this idea would ever get much acceptance in today's society, you're sorely mistaken.

Maybe not now, but eventually people could see the light. People are often way too subjective. Besides, that's not an argument for why it'd be a bad idea.

Killing two-year-old babies is very different from forced abortions. Certainly, there's much more of a question of self-awareness by that time, and yet even then whether or not you could conclusively determine anything is questionable. And then there's the human impact: You are not only ripping away the child growing in a mother's womb, but the child she has been raising for two years since then, that the whole family likely has an emotional attachment to. You're justifying murdering this human and traumatizing all of these people... for what? Money? Disgusting.

Certainly, it is viewed as a horror now, but abortions have been legalized, and not too long ago they too would have been abhorred.

A hypothetical situation: Say someone, under your proposed tyranny, is not found to be mentally disabled at the age of two, but instead some time later: maybe they're five, maybe they're 30. Maybe the disability was believed to be an underlying condition that did not manifest or was not apparent earlier, maybe it was due to some incident since then resulting in brain damage. In each of these situations, what would you propose doing? I can't imagine your system would allow for a good answer for any of them.

Let the parents or guardian decide. A few could slip through and it would have negligible effect on everybody else due to universal healthcare no longer covering the mentally disabled. Those who would have to take care of them should decide.

Another thing to keep in mind: In order to test everyone, you would need to have the government hire many psychologists to develop a test to measure mental disability nearly perfectly at the age of two, then to administer the test to every human registered as being born in the United States. Parents would be unwilling to comply, so you would need to force them to do so. All of this would cost money, the same thing you intend to save, and certainly far more money than would be saved. So all you're doing is advocating murder for no purpose at all.

Can't doctors do a simple test? I read something somewhere about somebody who was having a baby with down syndrome, and considered an abortion. Psychologists aren't needed, doctors are needed. A bit of money to make the test simpler in the long run would be better

With that, I believe I have said all I need to say on this matter.

Me too. We've pretty much covered everything except practicality, and I know nothing of that.

And just so people don't think I'm a monster, on my very first post I stated that I was putting my own beliefs aside.