Stupak Half Right, There's Also The Eugenics Angle

In  the Wall Street Journal Best of the Web, James Taranto cites Bob Costa's NRO article about how Congressman Bart Stupak is getting the message from fellow Democrats:

"If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America?

Taranto doesn't think Stupak is connecting ALL the dots. People are generally a net asset to society; and in their working years they help support the older population. (Indeed, the decline in birthrate threatens Europe's future.) So money is only "saved" when the "less fit" are the ones aborted:

But as a matter of cold cost-benefit analysis, not all babies are equal. Some are costlier than others, and not all grow into productive adults. In particular, certain disabilities and diseases are very expensive to treat and limit productive adulthood by causing either early death or lifelong dependency.

In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an "improvement" in the "quality" (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born. This is known as eugenics.

If a woman is required to get prenatal testing (oh, that's hard to imagine) to qualify for coverage of her pregnancy, and if she is informed that the child has Downs Syndrome, and that she can have an abortion courtesy of the federal government, will the federal government also pay for her to carry the baby to term and for any subsequent medical expenses?

Comments

[Brad Evans]

Children who are pretested for chronic conditions should be aborted.
Children of those pregnant and under 20 should be encouraged to abort.
The cost of bringing such children to term versus their probable life chances is simply obvious.

[Christopher Hathaway]

We ahve already seen the evil effects of this economic calculation of life played out in Washington or Oregon state where government controlled health care would pay for a pill to euthanize terminally ill patients but not the more expensive treatments to keep them alive.

If a society values life economically rather than theologically there is little to no incentive to see any value in protecting the weak. It simple isn't efficient. No sound business would hire inexperienced and uneducated workers over experienced and educated ones. The time and money it would take to turn the former into the latter might make the business unprofitable.

God help us all when the government is empowered to decide who lives and dies using such cold equations. Can Soylent Green be really far behind?

Yesterday's satire becomes tomorrow's sensible plan.

[Peter J. O'Leary]

No sound business would hire inexperienced and uneducated workers over experienced and educated ones.

Key adjective here being sound. Businesses have been stubbornly trying to plug low-paid droids into positions while systematically unplugging well-trained, productive, and better paid employees. An extrapolation of this is rampant outsourcing. On a continental scale, manufacturers, with full aid of government, attempted to inject high-tech manufacturing into Northern Mexico in the late '80s with the maquiladora system. Now they're left with rotting factories, mass narco-trafficing murders, rape trees, etc. I digress.

If economic soundness is the criteria, then the benefit horizon should be set nothing short of eternity. Of course, this calculation is impossible. The calculus of Malthus is alive and kicking today. The good deacon thought that you could breed economic poverty out of the population, and based this on a theology of scarcity.

The pincer move of government now is to allow (promote) "dignified" end of life options, reducing costly entitlements; and to reduce birthrates of "those people", supposedly promoting a more productive population.

Soylent green? Don't scoff. A recent alternative energy convention had a very popular exhibit where the proposition to process dead humans for fuel was laid out. The men set up the exhibit as a stunt, so it was a hoax - for now. Predictive programming.

[Maureen]

The perfect RACE! finally Hitler's dream has been realized. No 'imperfects' only perfect specimens to produce 24-7 for the ruling class! AN UTTER UTOPIA FOR THOSE IN CONTROL!!!

Deliver us from evil, Father. In Jesus Christ's Name I pray...AMEN.

[Jess]

I was 19 when I had my first child. I was 21 when I had #2. I adopted my third when I was 25; his mother was 16. Their lives are so very worthwhile. Shame on you if you can't see that.

[Bull]

...and yet, while Jess appears to be single-handedly contributing to the value of humanity, Brad won't likely volunteer to lighten the load on the rest of us by making a graceful exit...

[Elizabeth]

Brad's comment is so sad -- and I found Bull's comment to be like unto it. Maybe I'm overreacting to what was likely a sarcastic comment, but however distasteful Brad's rhetoric, such that many would look on him as "other," he is still created in the image and likeness of God. Bull's comment reflects the same approach as Brad's, just with a different set of values at work in assigning worth.

[Christopher Hathaway]

I was wondering if Brad was really serious or being absurd to demonstrate absurdity. I took Bull's sensible comment as a clear critique of the selfish inconsistency of those advocating lower populations. After all, Bull wasn't saying Brad should be killed, but rather that Brad himself should take the initiative and volunteer. There is nothing distasteful in saying that it would be better and more honest to kill yourself than to advocate the killing of others if you think there are too many people in the world. Jesus said far harsher things about those who cause little ones to stumble.

Remember, even Judas was created in the image of God.

[brad evans]

No, I was serious. I saw the movie "Precious" and I wanted to shout "Abort!" at the screen at least a hundred times.

[Peter J. O'Leary]

I knew Brad was serious. Eugenics shorn of it's currently fashionable warm and fuzzy coat.
I might volunteer myself if expedience allowed that an incorrupt soul might live, and my rotten life swept into the dustbin.
Please know that none of us would likely be living to discuss such things, if it weren't for the fervent prayers of men and women more pious than us, so I'll stick around to attain to just a piece of that piousness.
Lord, have mercy on me and my world.

[Paul Williamson]

Japan offers a live study on the long term effects of declining births. Declining population. Aging population. A stagnant economy. Declining influence on the international stage. Fear of population growth is a product of modern leftist mythology. Add that to the health care mix and you get one more piece of the dark side clouding the thinking of American elitists.

[this]

Clearly, Brad is a pagan. Sacrifice disabled children to "cost" (Mammon) or to Moloch, it's all the same. And woe to our society if we continue to revert to paganism.

[Mike Melendez]

Apparently Brad wasn't aware that "Precious" was fiction.

I've never understood those who argue that a low quality of life is solved by setting the quality to zero.

[Marie]

Brad you will never have to endure the pain of abortion, both physically and emotionally. Shame on you for your insensitive comment.