It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by hammanderr
People use the argument, but how many of them would downgrade their home, or re mortgage to pay for medical treatment for a child in their family? niece nephew cousin etc? how many would stall their careers, or take on the expense of a distantly related child to save the childs future?
Its very easy to love children, to be upset when they get hurt, but how many would be upset enough to do something about this themselves? to make the necessary sacrifices to save children? those that do have every right to say what about the children, those that don't shouldn't use that in an argument.
I am not talking about charitable donations, nor people who adopt, as a rule they adopt because they want a child of their own, not because they want to save the future of a child,
the world is full of hypocrites, I will probably get slated for speaking my mind, but when I see a girl of 18 set up a charity, move to another continent, run a childrens home, raise money for schooling and medical treatment, devoting 10 years of her life so far to this cause, all the while, shipping back items crafted by villagers to sell and raise more money, it puts things in perspective for me, That one girl must have saved 100 lives and given meaning to 100s more, she is the only person I have ever come across who has the moral right to say what about the children
reply to post by VoidHawk
No, the point is that unless the children are central to the argument, they shouldn't be used.
Children will always be, at least indirectly, able to be cited as potential collateral damage in almost any social policy or war argument one way or another. They're almost like their own Godwin's Law in a way, and yet, they often get dredged up and used like a bludgeon in an attempt to derail a lot of lines of reasoning. The thing is that they're a lot harder to dismiss as a foul than using say ... Nazis, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, or most other forms of purely emotional appeal that get made.
Now I'm not talking about issues where the children really are central to the issue and not simply innocent by-standers.
reply to post by minkmouse
Those signs, children on board, are so that people who are drunk, speeding and not paying attention in traffic, will pay attention as well they should, because many don't.