I disagree. Rather than have the Brazilian government use coercion and 'haul them out' it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out. It's clear many within that community don't agree with this already (like the parents who committed suicide rather than kill their children) and if they could know they could escape that would preferable than forcing views on to other people.
What if our views change about this in the future? Then should they be forced to kill their children even though they don't want to? I know that sounds insane but this happens. There's the classic example of when British colonialists were horrified that homosexuality was not considered a crime in India and they introduced a new law. Well here in the UK that view has completely changed but India still has the law (although it's not enforced), now should we go and tell them they're bad again and force them to change it back? No, they need to understand for themselves and do it themselves. Interference in this way is not a good idea, it just builds resentment. This is true for any argument, rather than force people to do it your way, let them realize on their own why your way is the better way.
Also I don't see why them not being able survive in modern warfare matters. Canada wouldn't survive in modern warfare against the USA but that doesn't mean the Canadians be hauled out. ISIS could be destroyed today by nuking the towns they are in but that would kill innocent people too. If you think coercion is wrong why not apply it consistently. Remember also that if you want them to stop killing their disabled children then someone will have to pay for them, probably Brazilian tax payers, are they willing to do that, also that starts a whole other debate about aborting of disabled children too, this is a hugely complex issue and hauling anyone out to impose one view I think is not necessarily the best way. I would advocate providing support to those who want out of the tribe.
”it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out.”
So, how are you going to let newborns with a disability know there is a way out before their society kills them?
If you think letting the parents know is sufficient, you’re at odds with much of modern thinking, which says it can be necessary to take children out of the care of their parents.
Also, suppose the would-be victim suspects what’s coming and wants to get out, but doesn’t manage to escape, would you punish the killers? If so, you’re interfering with another nation’s sovereignty.
As always when fundamental rights collide, there is no easy answer to this.
But it would turn into some kind of "eugenics experiment" then, where you have a pool of genes that evolves naturally, except the bad genes are moved to an external population.
On the one hand, I'd like to see humans continue to evolve naturally, far into the future. But this approach seems a little weird.
