It's not always "never too late."

Broad topic, so I’ll attempt to narrow things down. My thoughts may end up incoherent and ignorant, and I’ll accept whatever comes by. Feel free to skip to the last paragraph if you don’t wanna read through the incoming mess.

There seems to be general acceptance that every human life should be cherished and cared for; the government is expected to provide welfare and benefits to the less fortunate, no matter how poor their situation may be. No matter how screwed up that person is.

But…should this really be the case? The support provided is meant as a stepping stone for these people to eventually be able to integrate back into society as a contribution to the working world. What of those that simply refuse or deny this “expectation”? For the countries that do not support the death sentence (I am not offering my view on this), they expect the perpetrators to undergo remediation. Who’s to say that this will ever truly work for some? We can’t, but we must. After all, it’s a right…is it not?

What of those that harbour such a large number of children that they couldn’t possibly ever be able to support themselves? Those with disabilities so great that they will never be able to contribute to the world? Perhaps there are those that will never bother contributing at all, regardless of their well-being. Regardless, they expect support, because after all, they are citizens, and citizens deserve these rights.

It’s not always “never too late.” People may pass the point where they may never be able to turn around their lives. It would take nothing short of a miracle to “fix” them, but it’s not like people are REQUIRED to be self-sufficient.

In the end, I am simply asking for opinions. Are there some people that we should simply not (financially) supported? Am I completely wrong about this, and should be treated as scum for even dwelling in these thoughts? This may simply be my own prejudice in the works, so I ask for a remedy.

That’s not why I do not support the death penalty. I don’t support it because of the (currently pretty high) chance of killing an innocent person.

One problem with a system such as this is that somebody gets to decide if another human being deserves to live, based on some criteria.

Imagine you are a brain surgeon, technically proficient but not yet rich, and then you have an accident that leaves you paraplegic and certainly unable to operate from now on. Should we let you die? Does it depend on who’s at fault in the accident?

What if you had three children in your last year at university, just before you started operating on brains? Are you less deserving of help?

How about a public school teacher in the same situation? Less deserving?

The lady behind the counter at the car dealership? Less worthy?

And so on. Eventually you have to decide if Jean Valjean should spend his whole life in jail for stealing that loaf of bread.

I am so bookmarking this thread to post in 2 years from now.

Perhaps indirectly so, but I don’t really see it from that viewpoint; if someone does not provide aid to one in need, who eventually dies, is the blood on their hands? Do they (ex. the government) truely believe that supporting them for the rest of their lives is the only way to be considered humane, even if the only difference is an increased life expectancy?

I understand that it is a case by case situation, but does it really boil down to “we provide money to keep this person breathing, and not much more”? There are those ocassional stories of the disabled performing great feats through dedication, but that is the exception at best. I’m not advocating downright killing “less fortunate” people, but can there exist some sort of balance?