Abortion should be legal after birth

Kids like these are why abortion should remain legal for quite a long time after birth:
At first all seems well, but as time goes on the boy begins to display disturbing behaviour, spitting, hissing and kicking his new mother, threatening to kill family members, reacting violently when denied a new toy, attempting to beat a relative with a statue when asked to correct his math homework.

Finally, when the child not only threatens to burn down his house but draws pictures of the conflagration, the adoptive mother hatches a desperate plan. She puts the boy on a plane back to Russia with a note saying that he has severe psychological problems, she was lied to by the orphanage, [...]
Looking at some of the comments under this article, I am bewildered by the attitudes some of these commentators take:
This is a new variation on child abuse. The disposable child abandoned by airplane.
narcissistic single woman who should never have been permitted to adopt a child and now rightly deserves to be facing criminal charges of abuse and/or abandonment.
This selfish woman was unprepared to deal with a difficult child.
It is telling how far we have fallen that these attitudes are taken as self-evident and normal, rather than the insanity they are.

The following points lead me to believe such attitudes are insane.
  • The sum of a society's unamortized investment in a human being is not nearly maximum at age 7. It is when the said being has stopped studying and is about to start working. Depending on the country and the child's education, this could be anywhere from age 18-28.
  • When a person dies, the true cost to the world is (1) emotional, as in the sum of unpleasant emotions felt by others over the loss; (2) loss of investment, as in when the child has already undergone significant medical attention and schooling (especially when paid by taxes and others' contributions, rather than by family).
  • A severely damaged child is not going to improve and is only going to become a damaged, and quite possibly dangerous, adult.
  • We, humans, are animals. Our experience differs from the experience of animals in details, but not in its essence. We all experience life, thoughts, emotions. Only the degree of complexity differs.
  • We kill animals for joy and profit all the time. Our civilization is a lean, mean killing machine that you help propagate each time you bite into a sandwich.
  • Learning about the cruel nature of our civilization shocks many people, me included. But even knowing that meat in our sandwiches comes from slaughter, 95% of humans will not stop eating meat. Almost every one of us, most likely including you who are reading, silently endorse the slaughter we do on a daily basis.
See the disparity here?

On the one hand, we kill on a massive scale without blinking. On the other hand, the life of a psychotic child, one who's probably going to grow up to cause massive damage to life and property, that's sacred.

It's not sacred. It's an investment gone wrong. Investments like these should be terminated, before more resources are sunk, or possibly some innocent bystanders who are actually contributing get hurt in the process.


Anonymous said…
So you suggest to establish something like Action T4?
denis bider said…
The saddest legacy of WWII is that knowledge of its extreme and unjustifiable horrors made people unwilling to tolerate even necessary cruelty, to the extent that we are now too soft.

On the one hand, this is a good thing, because WWII did teach us that it is better to err on the side of softness rather than cruelty.

On the other hand, the degree of softness we are indulging in right now is excessive, to the point that it is at odds even with what we're doing every day for our existence.

I don't think euthanasia is a bad option for people who will otherwise be institutionalized for their entire lives, no.
Echo said…
I agree that human civilisation is getting to soft on some existential issues. This will, at some point, someday, bring to the next war.

But the kind of thinking you impose here is the exact beginning of insane philosophy which drives in masive killings. It is exactly the same mechanism that had driven nacist holokaust. Human life is sacred. If not sacred, stronger ones will start killing weakers.

To avoid this in long term, we must lose every prejudices on genetical management and birth controls. But in an inteligent and carefull way. People get into slaughter ideology way too fast (see all the totalitaristic regimes in history...)
denis bider said…
I disagree that there is a slippery slope that will immediately lead to a humanitarian catastrophe if the definition of sacredness is adjusted. There are countries which use different definitions of when and under what circumstances human life is sacred, and yet this has not led to a catastrophe. It is simply a different equilibrium.
Anonymous said…
Read this

denis bider said…
Anonymous: I replied to your comment before you even posted it.

Popular posts from this blog

When monospace fonts aren't: The Unicode character width nightmare

VS 2015 projects: "One or more errors occurred"

Thoughts on Bitcoin - and why I cashed out of BTC at $18k