But it’s not an arbitrary restriction, I don’t think.
A child in neglect would be removed from the ‘caretaker(s)’ who are allowing them to live in squalor, assuming CPS isn’t as underfunded etc. as it is in actuality, etc. And even that isn’t a full solution, it’s just the first step to getting that kid into an environment that at least reaches some minimum standard.
Isn’t not creating that life until/unless you’re able to provide a ‘better than squalor’ environment for that child just a more proactive, and arguably better since there is no suffering child in the meantime, version of the exact same ‘intervention’?
I see a lot of people saying things like what you’re saying above, while also agreeing with the kind of ‘intervention’ described in the first paragraph of this comment. How is that not doublethink?
But it’s not an arbitrary restriction, I don’t think.
A child in neglect would be removed from the ‘caretaker(s)’ who are allowing them to live in squalor, assuming CPS isn’t as underfunded etc. as it is in actuality, etc. And even that isn’t a full solution, it’s just the first step to getting that kid into an environment that at least reaches some minimum standard.
Isn’t not creating that life until/unless you’re able to provide a ‘better than squalor’ environment for that child just a more proactive, and arguably better since there is no suffering child in the meantime, version of the exact same ‘intervention’?
I see a lot of people saying things like what you’re saying above, while also agreeing with the kind of ‘intervention’ described in the first paragraph of this comment. How is that not doublethink?