[QUOTE=Thorne;767924]
And just one more rock to throw into that socialist pond: I know it's not politically correct, but I don't believe that every life is sacred or deserving of being saved. Some people should just be allowed to die off naturally, hopefully before they can pass on their defective genes.


As far as i know the concept of every life being sacred isn't unique to any political creed.

Before there were organised welfare states church run charities took care of people in extreme need. True, you might have been able to opt out, but until the 19th century there was enormous social pressure to be active in your local church and also to tithe - and those tithes helped look after people who had fallen on hard times.

Do you really believe that, at say 2 weeks old, one babies life is of more value than another? What if you and your wife had died in a car accident when your children were young. Would you expect your kids to be left to starve to weed out genes for risk taking driving behaviour?

I am not a socialist, but i really really don't think this argument is about politics anymore, if it ever was.

It is a huge leap to go from arguing that adults who can earn their own living shouldn't receive tax payer subsidy to arguing that some babies and children who are incapable of looking after themselves should be condemned because of the circumstances of their birth.

You seem to believe in free agency. Don't you think the children of the poor, teenage mothers, even the majority of the earths population living in the third world that you are willing to dismiss to quickly, deserve the chance to grow up to practice theirs?