"It's not about "forgetting Reagan," who actually, didn't do quite a good job at rolling back government, other than lowering taxes. It's about valuing life at all its stages."
While I agree re:Reagan, you still haven't actually taken a stand as to what you think should be done. Are you in favor of more gov't to care for these kids or are you in favor of breaking the parents?
Please answer this question - you've done a fabulous job of dodging it in every response.
My bottom line: I disagree with your sentiment to get rid of the "nanny state" in this situation. If our laws reenforce the sense that life is to upheld, then if parents aren't able to pay for the costs of a severely-handicapped person, then the government, whose primary duty is to protect life, should assist. This is not a "quality of life" issue (welfare), but a case of protecting life itself.