I’d agree with you if it weren’t for herd immunity and immuno compromised people. It’s like allowing people to drive cars with old, dry, tnt bombs if they feel like it, they’re not the only ones who will get hurt for doing something stupid.
Like in the example a parent is free to decide for a child that food is bad for them, and even when the child dies of starvation it is no problem because it should be seen as an expression of the parents freedom to choose to do so?
Sure it’s kind of a crazy example… But it is not as ridiculously far removed as you think from parents choosing to let their kids die of preventable diseases.
It really just comes down to the fact that you think it’s a part of the parents freedom to withhold something that could prevent their child’s needless death at no cost.
It’s just Darwinism at it’s finest. As a species, the increase in brain matter/intelligence led to the survival of Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens with higher intelligence can pass those traits to their offspring, and are more likely to be able to rear their offspring to the point of adulthood. Homo Sapiens with lower intelligence are less likely to successfully breed and rear children to adulthood. Science doesn’t doesn’t give a fuck about the innocence of the offspring.
Actually, it’s the less intelligent humans that are doing the pro-creating these days. The smarter ones know the perils of raising kids in today’s world economically, politically and environmentally and are choosing not to.
We live in a free society and this is one of the costs of freedom. I may not agree with their choices but I respect their ability to make it.
I’d agree with you if it weren’t for herd immunity and immuno compromised people. It’s like allowing people to drive cars with old, dry, tnt bombs if they feel like it, they’re not the only ones who will get hurt for doing something stupid.
Even if their kids die as a result?
Absolutely
So parents should be allowed to kill their kids?
Like in the example a parent is free to decide for a child that food is bad for them, and even when the child dies of starvation it is no problem because it should be seen as an expression of the parents freedom to choose to do so?
That is not a realistic example and only demonstrates how ridiculous you are.
Sure it’s kind of a crazy example… But it is not as ridiculously far removed as you think from parents choosing to let their kids die of preventable diseases.
It really just comes down to the fact that you think it’s a part of the parents freedom to withhold something that could prevent their child’s needless death at no cost.
Your immuno-compromised kid or spouse - who can’t get a vaccine - may die as a result too.
It’s just Darwinism at it’s finest. As a species, the increase in brain matter/intelligence led to the survival of Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens with higher intelligence can pass those traits to their offspring, and are more likely to be able to rear their offspring to the point of adulthood. Homo Sapiens with lower intelligence are less likely to successfully breed and rear children to adulthood. Science doesn’t doesn’t give a fuck about the innocence of the offspring.
Actually, it’s the less intelligent humans that are doing the pro-creating these days. The smarter ones know the perils of raising kids in today’s world economically, politically and environmentally and are choosing not to.