[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If you answered yes to that question, my second question postulates that ten percent of all children are all of a sudden born that way. Same answer? If so what would the percentage have to be for you to change your answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was gonna ignore it, but I feel the need to point out that this is an artificial scenario. Human actions, and amongst them the formation of governments, is a result of our genetic makeup and our nature. It could be said that government is an evolutionary aided defense mechanism. Occasionally producing babies born without arms and legs is not a possible result of our nature. So asking what government would do in this instance would be like asking the spider what it would do if flies didn't stick to its web. It would no longer be a spider. There's no way to guess what government (as we know it and recognize it today) should or would do in the instance where 10% of its population was born with no arms or legs, because if this instance occurred, something about our nature would have changed and "government" would no longer exist (at least as we know it).

Government is really nothing more than an instrument to act upon our instincts. If 10% of the babies were born without arms or legs, maybe the dominant instinct and thus the social norm would be to casually discard the baby. "Oops, bred another no-legger. Maybe the third time will be the charm, honey." Maybe people would love them and empathize with them anyways, and influence society (and thus government) to protect their opportunity and care about their happiness. Who knows.

You can't answer this question and assume that our biological and sociological nature will not change. There is no way to know exactly what that change would be, but to assume there would be none (just because it's easier to answer the question) is to make a bigger error.