5 ms·

> Humans also have a right to live. Parents with better opportunities(whether through a better lifestyle or through better medicine) will be able to grant a bet

> Humans also have a right to live. Parents with better opportunities(whether through a better lifestyle or through better medicine) will be able to grant a better life expectancy for the child than the biological parents. The right to life doesn't confer an obligation on or a right to another person to interfere to maximize the length or quality of someone else's child's life. Kidnapping would be a grossly unreasonable means to achieve that end! > And who does exactly? For the sake of this argument the only thing necessary to establish is that an individual has no authority to decide what is best for someone else's child save for instances of grave and imminent danger which this scenario of merely longer life span does not describe. Whether it's the parents, the state, or the tribal leaders, etc, it is never random individuals! > Modern family structure gave this authority to the biological parents The authority of a mother and a father over their child predates civilization let alone modern society. There is an extremely high bar for denying natural rights. > I agree with this as taking children of people can cause significant distress for reasons I assume evolution related. It causes distress because the parents love their child and they have no idea what is happening to them or if they're safe. It's an absolutely heinous crime and it's why kidnapping is treated to seriously in all just societies.

Ansil849 5y ago
> The right to life doesn't confer an obligation on or a right to another person to interfere to maximize the length or quality of someone else's child's life. It absolutely does. This is why various child welfare social services exist in various countries, precisely so that someone can interfere to maximize the length and quality of someone else's child's life.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > child welfare social services Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger. Secondly they’re not acting as mere individuals but as agents of the government which gives them that authority.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger. Huh? What do you think is the result of protection from neglect and danger? It's like you're saying, doctors aren't there to extend lifespan either, just to protect from danger.

Ansil849 5y ago

> The right to life doesn't confer an obligation on or a right to another person to interfere to maximize the length or quality of someone else's child's life. It absolutely does. This is why various child welfare social services exist in various countries, precisely so that someone can interfere to maximize the length and quality of someone else's child's life.

nyokodo 5y ago
> child welfare social services Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger. Secondly they’re not acting as mere individuals but as agents of the government which gives them that authority.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger. Huh? What do you think is the result of protection from neglect and danger? It's like you're saying, doctors aren't there to extend lifespan either, just to protect from danger.