Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosencrantz
What does this even mean? I can't tell if this is an insult or a backhanded compliment.
I think we should take this on a likely worst-case scenario - a family can only afford to raise one child but it's disabled. The second child is made to save the first and we're left with the problem of a life that's been created essentially as a tool, and is now effectively unwanted. Do we put it up for adoption? Can the system handle that?
I say it's technically okay as long as the family can support a second child. Morally? Love that's based on a child's use as a tool is inhumane. I don't know how the children then come from this will feel, so I'm inconclusive.
|
Why do I get the impression that this post is from the same camp as the thread creator?