Judge Orders Couple not to reproduce.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Telle

Are you actually arguing that we should let children die if their parents can't/won't provide for them??

Not saying that at all. Read the post again.

To clarify (so I don't sound snippy) : What I'm asking is whether or not the state is *obligated* as a function of the state apparatus to care for children in cases like this if the parents are unfit. Morally, the state should care for them. I'm happy the state cares for them, in fact, but it is still a moral choice. How comfortable should we be with the state making moral choices for us? I suppose that as long as the state generally mirrors the morality of the population, this sort of thing is okay. But what happens when the apparatus of the state diverges from popular morality? How can we say, for example, that the state shouldn't be allowed to make moral choices about the reproductive rights of women (i.e. abortion), but should make moral choices in other arenas?

Once again, my point is, and has always been, that this issue is complicated and any time you hand the state a complicated issue, it's going to botch things on the fringe cases - and it's inevitably the fringe cases like this that people freak out over. Perhaps the solution is that the state shouldn't be involved at all and that all care for children in situations like this should fall to private, non-profit or community based service organizations (including churches). That way, if communities decide they want to leave infants on the sides of mountains to die, at least it's individuals and communities making those moral decisions for us rather than the apparatus of the state.

I hope that clarifies my position, but I fear it's just muddied the waters more.