Dude, how about a beer? I’m buying!
Oh, and another beer for the first mod that kills this thread, ASAP. 
It would be a shame if the thread does not reach a round 2000 posts. So close, people! 
No, I think it’s time for this thread to die. Keyboard cat, play us off.
You must be confused. I haven’t co-signed with anybody, and if we post in tandem it just happens because we both happen to be online at the same time. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion but venom? No? Then stifle yourself.
Yes, yes, and yes (she survived). It’s a shame when people split up because of dead babies, but that’s not the fault of the kid. I can’t imagine two people who really truly love each other and want to make it work breaking up over a miscarriage. It seems to me that if they did, they didn’t have such a great relationship going in the first place.
But the child will never know what he missed, and therefore will feel no sorrow because of it. I can see that it’s a tragedy for the kid’s parents, but not for the kid himself. In the case of the adult, the loss is felt not only by the person’s kids and spouse, parents, friends, coworkers, etc. but by society as well, who has invested in that person. Nobody’s tax dollars have yet gone to the infant, except with the possibility of medicaid for checkups and ultrasounds and whatnot.
I don’t base my feelings of sorrow on hearing of a person’s death on how many tax dollars they have contributed to society.
starwarsfreek, you seem like a nice kid, but you’ve got some really twisted ideas about how the world works.
“Not the fault of the kid”?!?! Come on! Who’s saying it is? Fucking preposterous. And just because you can’t imagine that something like that could tear apart a real, quality family doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It does.
Again: What are you talking about? It’s not a tragedy for a child to be dead? Or, what you said: the child doesn’t know it’s tragic? First: the child knows nothing because, you know, IT’S DEAD. You’re disgustingly flippant about this. If I’m using your soulless logic of taxes and the like, you don’t think that the grieving parents might have some trouble going about their regular lives? That these events don’t ripple out? Show some fucking compassion.
Oh, neither do I. What, did you think I was keeping track or something? No. I’m just making the argument that there are plenty more actual reasons to grieve for the adult than for the child.
I bet you love that cat more than kids.
…
And I’m saying that number of tax dollars contributed by the individual is not one of those reasons.
I also want to point out that while people often have a more visceral reaction to hearing about the death of a child, due to the aforementioned issue of the child not having had the chance to live his/her life, and also because people have sympathy for the overwhelming grief of the parents involved, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people think a child’s life is actually more valuable than that of an adult. I certainly don’t think that, at any rate.
No, the number of tax dollars that person has contributed does not make that person’s death more tragic. The number of tax dollars spent on that person’s education makes a difference though. As far as value, we can say that the 35 year old’s life was literally, actually, worth more than the infant’s when we consider how much money has been spent on them by society and how much they have given back in tax dollars and work and producing their own children.
Personally, I don’t think it’s sad that the kid never got a chance to live. They also didn’t spend a lifetime suffering from disease or disability. I would rather a badly malformed or sick child die quickly than face a life like that. Now assuming it was a case of SIDS or shaken baby or something… ok, I’ll give you that those cases are sad. But not more sad than a wife/mother of 2 being killed in a car accident.
What? WHAT?! How dare you compare a CAT to a CHILD!
There is no such thing as someone’s life being “literally worth more” than someone else’s life, unless you’re talking about some kind of monetary valuation, which I reject, as I refuse to agree that, say, Paris Hilton’s life is inherently worth more than mine.
So there.
The Cat’s more valuable. After all, it can play keyboards. How many newborns can do THAT?
…
That’s not quite what I meant, but I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly. Adults are more valuable to society than children–to a point, obviously, because we need people to replace those that retire. It’s not about how much money you have or earn, but about how much time and money society has put into raising and supporting you.
And again, you’re wrong. That’s not how society works.
Yeah?! Well, when the child grows up, I hope he plays all your keyboards!
Pray tell, how does society work? Now that sweatshops and child labor are no longer the norm, and disregarding mere potential, how exactly is a 2 year old worth the same to society as a 35 year old?
To put this in the most dispassionate terms, a child is worth all the money he will make one day. An adult is not worth all the money he/she will make one day plus all the money he/she has already made, because society derives no further benefit from stuff that already happened.
From a pure utility standpoint, it would be ideal if everyone dropped dead right at 64; even if they would have continued to work, they will almost certainly cost more than they earn from that point forward, as a group.
So the taxes that were taken out of my paycheck last month aren’t benefiting someone on social security, welfare, disability, or who is taking advantage of the public education system right now? Sorry, not buying it.