[QUOTE=lgirl;768338]Absolutely! If one of those children is healthy and fit, with little or no physical defects; and the other child has severe physical problems, the kinds of problems which would result in multiple surgeries and years of intensive care to allow that child to live a life of pain and anguish, a life which is almost certainly going to be short and unproductive; then yes, one child has more value.
I have seen these kinds of defects, seen the amount of resources devoted to keeping children alive for just one more day, one more week. Children who should have died immediately after birth, who would never even leave the hospital. Some who had even been, finally, abandoned by their families because they were not going to survive, yet kept alive simply because medicine can keep them alive.
In this kind of case, I would expect that my family, or hers, or both, would step in and take over the raising of my children. And if there is no family, then yes, the state would take over.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'm not talking about genetic problems which may or may not appear later in someone's life, but genetic problems which appear at birth, physical and/or mental deformities which preclude a child from living any kind of meaningful life. Admittedly, there is a fine line there. Who decides. I don't claim to know the answers. I just know that there are serious problems with the system as it stands.
Absolutely! They deserve just as much chance as I was given by my parents, and as much chance as I was able to provide my children. Just don't expect me to subsidize their chances.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?