When is it acceptable to let a child die?

Author: Ultracrepidarian
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 32
Topic's author
#1
Ultracrepidarian
Ultracrepidarian's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 141
0
2
6
Ultracrepidarian's avatar
Ultracrepidarian
0
2
6
Imagine, if you will, that you're walking through a park in some snazzy sneakers that cost $50, when you encounter a child drowning in shallow water. You can rescue this child, but you'll completely destroy your shoes. Is it your moral obligation to save the child, even though your shoes will be ruined? 

Now, imagine you want to buy a pair of shoes for $50. Simultaneously, a child somewhere is dying of Malaria. You can use your money instead to buy life-saving treatment for this child. Is it your moral obligation to do so? 

This is a thought experiment initially posed by Peter Singer. You'd be a monster for allowing the child to die in the first scenario, but what about the second? Every time someone spends money for themselves they are passively making a decision not to help someone who needs it far more, though is it really immoral to buy a cup of coffee with money that could have been spent de-worming a family?  
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,768
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
Take you shoes off.


And which child is the one dying of Malaria?

It is estimated that between 13000 and 16000 children die per day.

So times that by 50, and that leaves me with a daily moral obligation of between $650000 and $800000 per day.
#3
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,077
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
There is not much to think about. It is your moral obligation to donate some money to save lives. Now, I wouldnt donate all my money in either of two cases anyway.
#4
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,629
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
RemyBrown actually made this argument at least three separate occasions I saw.

I will tell you 1 thing. Right wing left wing doesnt matter if the right winger is a fool who would not push the billionaires to sacrifice it for others.

I am telling you I am more sure now than preconversion that if I won something like the lottery, I would sacrifice for family, community and outwards from there. You heard it correctly.

I would let those maybe starve further from me. It is realistic, nationalistic and a reality of life that many of both wings in Western world gaslight and pretend they don't believe nowadays.

Utilitarianism is a dangerous idea. Communism is dangerous, horrendous. We must be generous but those further from us must receive generosity of those closer to them.

I literally sacrifice money to feed animals near me now. I sacrifice for church. I sacrifice not nearly enough yet. I did volunteer work but stopped for a few reasons main one being moving and needing more hours of paying work.

Life is sacrifice and servitude. God, country, ethnicity, family, community/neighbours, all of it matters.

Denying it is from the devil. The Jews always favoured Jews and God approved of it. That is okay. Favouring your own is okay. Love your brethren and sisters and then also love others who do not wish ill on them. You belong to things. 'my country' is wonderful to say but only half true at most. You are its citizen. You belong to it. A North Korean that escapes belongs at least to South Korea. I am not hating races, I am not resentful. If people want a better life that is okay and natural. Then belong to the new nation. Surrender to it, conform!!!

If I am a refugee rescued by generous Germans, I have the duty to learn Deutsch and conform to their ways. That is the FACT. I must decide eventually deep down am I loyal to them or my old nation. Then if I raise a family I must raise them loyal to the regime that is not justbour country but which would say 'my people' to US also. Kneel, conform, embrace.

So to answer you I will to my level best to not let a neighbour starve. Unfortunately it is illegal to smash down their door and rescue the children if I hear abuse and if tbey mistreat an animal, I need severe evidence to bring justice. Such it is. Such it always will be.

We are often posers. We let the Ccp and North Korean leader treat their people like utter dirt. We dont fight our level best to free the people because it is unnatural to do so. We are not meant to demolish empires of others directly like that. We must erode by attrition. We must infiltrate Christianity into them, we must take over slowly and we are... Slowly. Christianity is in NK. Christianity is in regions of China. The Lord then decides the rebellion. The timing is his alone to decide. We pray for centuries and the crumbling happens.

🤫🤫🤫🤐🤐🤐🕊️👨‍👦✝️
#5
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,077
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
I literally sacrifice money to feed animals near me now. I sacrifice for church. I sacrifice not nearly enough yet.
Well, I too would sacrifice more money if I had more. I dont need much in life other than food, laptop and smartphone. But those require other expenses, like electricity and internet. Also, be careful with feeding animals. They multiply much more if they have too much food.
#6
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 106
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Your worldview is horrible: you see yourself as a slave to the needs of others, even to the needs of immaterial things like countries and imaginary things like gods. This is pathetic.

But that is Christianity for you, a philosophy of slaves and cowards. Kings and churches have robbed you blind with this stuff for millennia - and made you feel guilty over not being robbed enough. Well played!
#7
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,629
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@MayCaesar
As somebody who grew up enslaved to impulses, the devil and egomania, I am happy to be enslaved to these other concept.

#8
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 39
Posts: 8,974
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
A utilitarian has to work and do his best to achieve a very high salary while living in poverty. Peter Singer is actually consistent as he seems to live very humbly while advocating for utilitarianism. 

If you take utilitarianism to its logical conclusions though than it comes to some terrifying realizations. Such as the fact that you shouldn't discount future people from the equation and you might find it justifiable to start genociding some groups if it leads to the betterment of society and for more people thousands of years into the future. 

Now this gets problem you suggest. We are  obligated to save the drowning child because we are there and it has been made our duty to do so. We have no duty for those in some other parts of the world. For various reasons. One being is that they kind of set up their societies to be at the bottom of the economic freedom index. With policy adjustments that would straight up just lift western laws. Say United States laws and implement them there in whole than you would get the same exact results. 

Societies really can merely solve their problems by finding societies doing better and just copy pasting their societies onto their own. Businesses don't with success every day.
#9
ultramaximus2
ultramaximus2's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 77
0
1
2
ultramaximus2's avatar
ultramaximus2
0
1
2
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
First situation you are probably the only person who can save the kid and kids fate seems certain. There are billions of people with $50 dollars in the second situation and theres a lot less certainty that the decision will actually save the child.
#10
MayCaesar
MayCaesar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 106
0
2
3
MayCaesar's avatar
MayCaesar
0
2
3
-->
@AdaptableRatman
That is even sadder: you were unhappy with being enslaved by your impulses, and the only way you found to escape that condition is to resign to another slavery.

That is a very common story among Christians: they come to Christianity seeing some kind of redemption, escape from something. This is a philosophy of slaves, as I said earlier, of people who cannot find a way to deal with their problems in a healthy way and have to join a cult and outsource their problems to their new masters.
Topic's author
#11
Ultracrepidarian
Ultracrepidarian's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 141
0
2
6
Ultracrepidarian's avatar
Ultracrepidarian
0
2
6
The second section of this video goes into it more deeply, it's what got me thinking about the subject.

I promise it's not  a rick roll 
#12
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,629
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
You cant save everyone 

Lets say one donates literallt over 100 dollars to an ethiopian based Charity Okay. And then?

akways more can happen. 

The good does matter but proximity and kinship lead to priority on who you as an individual will help more.
Topic's author
#13
Ultracrepidarian
Ultracrepidarian's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 141
0
2
6
Ultracrepidarian's avatar
Ultracrepidarian
0
2
6
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Help me understand your argument. Are you saying because someone is closer to you it is your duty to help them and not others? 
#14
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,238
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
imagine you want to buy a pair of shoes for $50. Simultaneously, a child somewhere is dying of Malaria. You can use your money instead to buy life-saving treatment for this child. Is it your moral obligation to do so?
It costs more than $50 to save a child. Top charities do it for around $4500. Not sure how to justify spending $4500 on a pair of shoes. Opportunity cost aside, it's basically throwing money away.
#15
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 693
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
It's a false framing of the issue, like many philosophical dilemmas. 'Letting a child die' implies that each person has an absolute moral responsibility to every other human being that they can somehow fail to maintain. This is just absurd - nobody even has knowledge of every single person in the world. It's the sort of lazy, sloppy thinking that people often accept without even examining it.

The reality is that humans are living beings in a natural world which is hostile and must be tamed to some degree for them to survive. This taming, if undertaken by a single person, is a lifelong endeavor that will often take up most of their waking hours. And, alone, they will likely die early, like an animal, as soon as they are too weak to provide for their own continued existence. Similarly, an infant would never even get the chance to live if left to their own devices. So human life is immediately, from the outset, conditional on and contextualized by family life, which provides for its members both before they are able to and after they are able to. Within the family, the elderly who can no longer physically capable of contributing can contribute mentally, through their lifetime of experience. The children are raised with the expectation that they will continue the collective model and provide for the older members as they age.

As the family grows it evolves into a tribe or clan or the tribe, which contains many subsidiary families. And the clan or tribes can come into conflict, and it is from these conflicts that nations and other polities evolve. At no point do any of these situations of mutual obligation include all of humanity. Each of them owes loyalty to its own members and rightly views the others with some degree of suspicion, as the loyalty that they rightly hold towards their own can always engender conflict over resources. If your tribe has excess food that they could either store or give to a rival tribe which had a difficult harvest and was weaker, there is always the possibility that said rival tribe might then occupy a stronger position and then come to threaten yours. This is why such deals usually involve safeguards to ensure loyalty and quiescence from the tributary party if such aid is given.

To strip human beings of these realities and conditions of their existence and to treat them like atomized things floating in the ether with perfectly equal responsibilities to one another isn't deep or wise, it's puerile. Giving to people is noble precisely because it holds a degree of risk, and is praised because any amount of risk taken to be a good person is admirable. Someone who goes 'you're not actually virtuous because you didn't give them your shoes as well' is just a moron who is incapable of parsing these infinitely complex human realities, and wants the world be simpler than it actually is so they can feel fully 'in charge' mentally. They lack wisdom, which is a perspective of each of our profound limitations both mentally and physically.

Camus wrote of this tendency among modern moralists and philosophers in one of his essays and had some very astute insights into the insidious destructiveness of threads of thought guided by supposedly pure utilitarian 'values':

We have exiled beauty; the Greeks took arms for it. A basic difference but one that goes far back. Greek thought was always based on the idea of limits. Nothing was carried to extremes, neither religion nor reason, because Greek thought denied nothing, neither reason nor religion. It gave everything its share, balancing light with shade.

But the Europe we know, eager for the conquest of totality, is the daughter of excess. We deny beauty, as we deny everything that we do not extol. And, even though we do it in diverse ways, we extol one thing and one alone: a future world in which reason will reign supreme. In our madness, we push back the eternal limits, and at once dark Furies swoop down upon us to destroy. Nemesis, goddess of moderation, not of vengeance, is watching. She chastises, ruthlessly, all those who go beyond the limit.

The Greeks, who spent centuries asking themselves what was just, would understand nothing of our idea of justice. Equity, for them, supposed a limit, while our whole continent is convulsed by the quest for a justice we see as absolute. At the dawn of Greek thought, Heraclitus already conceived justice as setting limits even upon the physical universe itself: “The sun will not go beyond its bounds, for otherwise the Furies who watch over justice will find it out.”

We, who have thrown both universe and mind out of orbit, find such threats amusing. In a drunken sky we ignite the suns that suit us. But limits nonetheless exist and we know it. In our wildest madness we dream of an equilibrium we have lost, and which in our simplicity we think we shall discover once again when our errors cease—an infantile presumption, which justifies the fact that childish peoples, inheriting our madness, are managing our history today.

Since ideas differ as to what these values will be, since there is no struggle which, unhindered by these same values, does not extend indefinitely, we are now witnessing the Messianic forces confronting one another, their clamors merging in the shock of empires. Excess is a fire, according to Heraclitus. The fire is gaining ground; Nietzsche has been overtaken.

It is no longer with hammer blows but with cannon shots that Europe philosophizes. Nature is still there, nevertheless. Her calm skies and her reason oppose the folly of men. Until the atom too bursts into flame, and history ends in the triumph of reason and the death agony of the species. But the Greeks never said that the limit could not be crossed. They said it existed and that the man who dared ignore it was mercilessly struck down. Nothing in today’s history can contradict them.

Both the historical mind and the artist seek to remake the world. But the artist, through an obligation of his very nature, recognizes limits the historical mind ignores. This is why the latter aims at tyranny while the passion of the artist is liberty. All those who struggle today for liberty are in the final analysis fighting for beauty.

Of course, no one thinks of defending beauty solely for its own sake. Beauty cannot do without man, and we shall give our time its greatness and serenity only by sharing in its misery. We shall never again stand alone. But it is equally true that man cannot do without beauty, and this is what our time seems to want to forget.

We tense ourselves to achieve empires and the absolute, seek to transfigure the world before having exhausted it, to set it to rights before having understood it. Whatever we may say, we are turning our backs on this world. Ulysses, on Calypso’s island, is given the choice between immortality and the land of his fathers. He chooses this earth, and death with it. Such simple greatness is foreign to our minds today.
Excerpts from 'Helen's Exile'
#16
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,629
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I dont fully support tribalism but I have ended up realising truths of proximity and kindness.

I am still open to helping otber nations even with lots of 'our money'. I just think in the case of Ukraine it is becoming a lost cause.

I wonder if I were Ukraini since Id be male and trapped there what I would do, would I try at some point to risk surrendering and betraying in hopes of Russia taking me in?

Would I be loyal to the natio  and waste all these years without seeing my wife and kids? risk death over a probable drawn out loss?

Idk. 
#17
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,629
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Idk if you read what I posted but I wonder if we disagree on how to operate, you seem more literal on tribalism. 
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,281
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Hmmm, When is it acceptable to let an old man die?
#19
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 693
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I agree mostly with you, the only thing I would disagree with is the idea that God approved of 'Jews favoring Jews'. When Christ came, the Jewish powers-that-be thought Him to be a fraud and sought his execution. They did this because they expected their Messiah to come bearing a sword, to destroy the Romans, and to reestablish a new Jewish Empire in Israel. The idea that God would send the Messiah to die for all of mankind, and not to set Jews above the rest of humanity, was so offensive to them that they literally committed deicide. Those Jews who accepted Christ and were counted among the first Christians are those who accepted that God was above ethnic loyalties and established a universal church.

While I accept tribalism as a reality that needs to be understood, contextualized, and accepted as part of a larger framework, the ancient Jews are the perfect example of a group who elevated it far too highly. Christ even predicted the absolute desolation that would be visited on those who rejected Him and their city, something that came to pass when Titus razed Jerusalem to the ground and destroyed the Temple (the abomination of desolation) just a few decades later:

And as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: Master, behold what manner of stones and what buildings are here.
And Jesus answering, said to him: Seest thou all these great buildings? There shall not be left a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.
And as he sat on the mount of Olivet over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him apart:
Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall begin to be fulfilled?
And Jesus answering, began to say to them, Take heed lest any man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and they shall deceive many.
And when you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, fear ye not. For such things must needs be, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and famines. These things are the beginning of sorrows.
But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.
And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached.
And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death.
And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.
And when you shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not: he that readeth let him understand: then let them that are in Judea, flee unto the mountains:
And let him that is on the housetop, not go down into the house, nor enter therein to take any thing out of the house:
And let him that shall be in the field, not turn back to take up his garment.
And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days.
 But pray ye, that these things happen not in winter.
For in those days shall be such tribulations, as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, neither shall be.
What came out of the utter destruction of Jerusalem, and with it the old religion and its conceits of ethnic domination, was a ferment of faith spread throughout the very cosmopolitan, heathen Empire which the Jews at the time wanted destroyed. The seeds of faith worked within the heathen empire like yeast in dough, as Christ had also once predicted, and through centuries of persecutions it was eventually converted. The at first sight very tribal, ethnocentric promise given to Abraham in Genesis was fulfilled in the least ethnocentric way imaginable.

Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed.
I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and IN THEE shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed

 I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies.
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.
What this goes to show is that while tribal loyalties and family loyalties are part of life and are fine, there are also higher things above them (loyalty to God being the main one). Christ's death itself was a lesson in this vein - there were those among the Jews murdered their own Messiah because they were so wrapped up in ideas of their own ethnic superiority. In the Talmud to this day there is what is meant to be a 'lesson' about a necromancer resurrecting the soul of Jesus to ask Him whether he should convert to Judaism. Christ is depicted in this story as repentant, imploring the necromancer to seek the wellbeing of the Jewish people above all others, and is depicted as being punished by God via boiling in excrement for his 'crimes'.

Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy. Onkelos said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Jesus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them in this world? Jesus said to him: Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye (see Zechariah 2:12).

Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages.
#20
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 465
2
3
8
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
2
3
8
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
You can’t save everyone. Anyone that thinks otherwise has a savior complex. 

Yes, a monster you’d be to think your shoes are worth more than a drowning child’s life, and an idiot you’d be to hold both variables in equal comparison until you should conclude the child’s life is more important. 

I think it’s good to donate money to help children get a meal. But why would someone be a terrible person for wanting to enjoy a cup of coffee occasionally or even every day? Again, u can’t save everyone. 

Imo, if you have enough resources and wealth to indulge in superficial wants then you are rich. Some people are more wealthy than they think, and so maybe there are a ton of people that could do with donating more and being more generous.

But I will say after growing up in U.S. for 2 decades it’s been my experience that the mindset is to grab more and more for yourself. I think at least some of it is caused by generational and cultural impact, and we can’t always hold the son completely responsible when he was raised by a bad father or by a bad community that developed in him a greedy and covetous mindset 
#21
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,077
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Moral person would donate 10% to 20% of his income to charity. Moral person wouldnt donate all he has to charity, because then moral person would suffer in poverty.
#22
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 465
2
3
8
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
2
3
8
-->
@LucyStarfire
I think it’s a good idea for societies especially wealthy societies to promote donating and philanthropy 
#23
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,629
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Ill debate later on this.

Jesus was not nearly as egalitarian as people think, based on even the holy Gospel of Matthew among other books. Jesus chose all 12 Jews as apostles representing 12 tribes and he chose 69/70 all Jewish overall apostles with the exception Luke ending up as a Hellenised Jew anyway.

Jesus presents himself in Gospel of Matthew, multiple times, as the one encouraging the Jews to lead the gentiles better and be better than them. He literally criticises the Pharisees not for their superiority complex but because they act just as superficial and 'earthly' concerned as the Gentiles and other criticisms along those lines.

I realise I'd need to be a lot more careful typing this as a Jew but since I am not one, I can simply say it how it is. He genuinely was not quite what many Christians think imho. He was Zionist just that the Zealot brand was directly opposed to Pharisee and Sadducees mentality in how to lead the gentiles best. Zealots were there to lead all into the Kingdom of the Lord, Sadducees were the total isolationist ethnic supremacist hardline tribalists and Pharisees were the more higher functioning variant of what Sadducees were, more interested in balancing Tribalism with pragmatic extraversion to the Romans etcm as well as more knowledgable of scripture.
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 80
Posts: 4,316
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
$50 sneakers are "snazzy?" I don't think so. 
Of course, 86 the shoes; they're worthless compared to saving a child's life. If anyone disagrees, I just hope it isn't my kid, when that respondent doesn't. He may find my respect for his life just went into the trash.
#25
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,486
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
This moral obligation absolutely does exist, and if God exists we'll more likely than not be punished harshly one day for all of the surplus that we consume rather than giving to the needy.

The only thing I'd add is that we must be free to make that choice in this world, even if it damns us in the next.
#26
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,281
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Remember that Trump sells $399 Gold Sneakers.
#27
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 441
Posts: 2,527
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Ultracrepidarian
It's acceptable by whomever accepts it like unborn children. Each has their drawn line.
#28
Skipper_Sr
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 465
2
3
8
Skipper_Sr's avatar
Skipper_Sr
2
3
8
-->
@FLRW
Remember that Trump sells $399 Gold Sneakers.
I won’t buy them because I don’t want to have them ruined when I go in the pond to save Fauxlaw’s child 
#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,281
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

When is it acceptable to let a child die?   That is a question we should ask God.
I became an atheist when I was 12 when my 7 year old cousin died from leukemia.
#30
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,433
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
My blunt intellectually honest response is people let children die 24/7/365. No real outrage other than next of kin if in fact they weren't the ones that killed or let the child die. Human life for the most part is completely expendable, no real fucks are given if someone dies child or adult, except of course those closet to the person if in fact they didn't kill or let them die.