Politics-Ethics Question

[David Sklansky]

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.

I've always thought that many political arguments are essentially about one basic axiom. Where do you stand on this question:

Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?

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?