Point is champ. I dont agree to it regardless of the cost per capita. You do so you stump up the money. The line is clear. If you cant support children you should not have them. Again, you stump up the money to fund families on welfare. I will not. Your argument is woke and inane. I actually suggest you visit a home for the disabled and donate money. But you wont because your type wants collective funding for your virtue signalling.so, again - how much money do you think you are being put out? this tens of millions - how much does that boil down to for you, per year, say?
Do you think it's more than 5 dollars? more than a thousand? how much are we talking here?
Humans are social animals, mate. This idea that to care about people who can't easily contribute to the economy you're espousing here, is pretty extreme. It's deep within the human condition to care about and make efforts to support others who can't otherwise support themselves. Where does your idea draw the line? Does anybody who isn't likely to get a job or "contribute" count?
There are plenty of people who are considered "contributing members" of society who are invesment bankers specializing in market domination or environmental destruction or currency devaluation. These people knowingly inflict more harm on the common good than a million people with down syndrome ever could.
Final point. Downs syndrome parents would likely want 10 children. Where do you draw the line. It would be inhumane and hypocritical of you to deny them this humanity.