[starbird]

[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Euthanization would be humane in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP didn't say anything about these babies being born without brain stems. Assuming they're neurologically intact, for such a child born today, the technology will exist by the time she turns 18 to allow her to support herself by playing online poker.

The questions in the OP divide people into three groups:

1. Those who say "no" to the first question: the government has no duty of care to even a single limbless baby.

2. Those who say "yes" to the first question and "no" to some version of the second: the government has a duty of care to a single limbless baby, but if there are enough of them, the cost to society is too great and the answer changes.

3. Those who answer "yes" to both questions: the government should support all of 'em, no matter how many.

When I first read the OP, I thought it would be interesting to watch the folks in group 2 try to reason their way to the right place to draw the line. Instead, the thread mostly consists of groups 1 and 3 yelling about why the other is wrong, thereby nicely illustrating DS's original point:

[ QUOTE ]
People disagree about things either because they disagree about initial axioms or because they agree about the axioms and disagree about their implications. Unfortunately many debates don't bother to distinguish between those two types of disagreement.


[/ QUOTE ]