|
|
|
|
|
|
by wpietri
2825 days ago
|
|
|
That's one way to look at it, as if children are some sort of luxury good like a BMW or a labradoodle. The other way to look at it is that all adults were once children, so anything we do to support all children is fair. I think the flaw with your framing is it's essentially ahistorical. The only way we all got here is by having ancestors. We all consumed quite a lot of resources getting to adulthood. If you're all that concerned about improper subsidies, surely you're eager pay back, with interest, the large one that you've received? |
|
|
One: Your parents taking time off benefits them a lot more than you. It might benefit you a bit but it doesn't benefit you to see your dad from 0-3 months and not your mum, you're too young to know. People assume that it's a big benefit but actually I'd imagine having your parents somewhat around from the ages of 1-3 is far more important than constantly around from 0-1.
The other flaw is bigger really, basically it's a logical fallacy. Read my point to the other comment with this argument, it doesn't actually make sense. You can't expect people to be in favour of the conditions that lead to their existence, if you were the product of rape you should be pro rape? What if we were a species where all birth was via the rape and murder of the father, you'd still be telling people they're ethically obliged to be in favour of reproduction? Just because someone has benefited from something which had something else in the chain of causation doesn't mean that they have to be in favour of that thing. I benefitted massively from the colonial history of my country, for example.