CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered? I'll never understand it. But you're welcome to try to make me. I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.
Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.
Children are an investment. They are inconvenient. No excuse.
I recently performed my nursing clinicals at a rest home. There were several individuals of advancing age and health. Many were experiencing some degree of dementia. They all contributed nothing to society. They no longer have any reproductive ability to carry on the species. They suck resources from tax payers and possibly their families. They add unnecessary stress to their family's lives. They are living reservoirs of disease that can easily be transmitted to their care providers. Economically speaking, our country would be better off if they were simply euthanized. Healthwise, we would be far freer of disease if the pathogens' greatest ongoing source of sustenance were destroyed and incinerated. For the health of their family, think of the reduced stress, their own lack of exposure to these elderly creatures' diseases, the times when they have to care for them in the home themselves and are exhausted from being the caregiver. Why don't we just give every family member the option to terminate the person's life? Because we are talking about people. The thing that separates us from the animals, whether you are religious or not, is that we have the capacity and the desire to save each others' lives, and equally are morally obliged to do so.
Would you pull the plug on a comatose patient, especially one you knew would ultimately revive?
Would you end the life of a 2 week-old child, who may be outside the mother's body, is hardly less damaging to physical and emotional health?
Would you put down a child who is mentally retarded and will never have an IQ greater than that of a 3 year old? That can represent an even greater investment than 20 years, he/she will get even more in the way and take even more work. I'm happy to say, by the way, that my 33 year-old brother with Down's syndrome (not normally so handicapping, but his mentality is truly about that of a 3 year-old) is still being cared for by my parents, and he may not be looked at as much of investment as he provides little tangible return.
This response is not just to you, but to all. Many people are a long-term investment, and many of them provide little more back than love. But human life is sacred, and as long as I claim to be human, I see it my duty to protect the life of all other humans.
There are fates worse than death, to use a cliche. The developmental childhood years are extremely pivotal in an individual's life. You screw those up, you screw up the person. At this point we have layers upon layers of screwed up people in this country, prepared to make layers and layers of more screwed up people. If some of these people chose to "opt out" of at least one of their contributions to the screwed up masses...
I've seen some kids in some really heartwrenchingly awful situations thank to parents who were never fit to be parents. There are so many situations like this we can't even track or contain them all. If they are willing to undo what their irresponsible behavior created, by all means, let them spare that poor child from that fate.
Would you rather millions more children be born to parents who didn't really want them in the first place and who are not willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be even the lousiest of parents?
I think the option for adoption raised by Warbler is a perfectly good one. The government does its best to assure the child goes to a healthy family, and for a guy who is involved in social work, I've seen just how much effort goes into this. CPS is legally obliged (at least here in AZ) to provide a huge amount of services and resources and chances for a removed child to return to his/her parent(s). Meanwhile, the foster parents and other potential adoptive homes are required to be far more perfect and stable to even have a chance. Many people who would care well for children are unable to have them.
What's worse about this argument is that you wish to spare someone who has no choice as to how they ended up in his/her shoes a fate worse than death? Oh no, my friend. Could you honestly look at that child once born, knowing it was going to go to an abusive home, and therefore give it a lethal dose of medication? You have no right, no right to end that life, regardless of the circumstances. If anything, you are morally obliged to preserve that life to the best of your ability and seek a means of altering that child's fate.
I am not one for big government, but in response to your last question, I'd rather have the government more willing to remove children from lousy homes and less willing to return them. I've seen how damaging our current laws are. I have a front row seat in my job.