I really am under the impression that this is a baited question.

Because you’ve not once described a scenario in which a child is dealing with something that you deem ‘isn’t worth dealing with’.

In roman times your father had the absolute right to kill you if he wanted to.

You also weren’t considered an adult until your father died.

The community is called “no stupid questions” so I won’t say this is a stupid question, but damn if this isn’t the most ‘murican question I’ve seen.

Your question seems heavily weighted by the idea that a child is only the responsibility of the people who brought it into the world, which is completely wrong even if it is a fundamental assumption of an individualistic capitalist society like America. It’s a backwards notion to say that someone who has a right to live can have that right taken away because it’s too much of a burden to help them live; life is the exact thing that an organized society ought to be focused on protecting, otherwise what good is that society?

People say “it takes a village to raise a child” and while that is seldom followed especially in America, it is absolutely true. Raising a human being is among the hardest jobs imaginable, full stop. The abilities and needs of that child have to be considered every step of the way because it is among the most important jobs imaginable. If that child is ever treated like a burden, then something in that society has failed. It’s not just the parents’ responsibility to raise them, it is everyone’s.

Should a parent be allowed to euthanize a burden? No. 100% no. That parent needs to enlist help, and honestly help structures should be built into that society.

Lastly, the way you phrase your question is really concerning. “Parents should be able to euthanize their children, because it is better to be dead than feel like a burden.” I hope you can see that whatever convinced you that it’s better to be dead than a burden is utterly wrong. You matter, OP, for no reason other than that you exist <3

Jesus are u OK op?

What about if they just have a bad vibe about them?

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt19811010/

¡I made you and I can destroy you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPogqVWiPg

Yea my kids got depression, I’m gonna get of these lazy Useless Eaters

/s

My cousin had a kid who was basically not a person. In a wheelchair unable to communicate or feed himself, just sitting there Drooling, maybe he was in there or maybe not. I think he made it to ten or twelve.

CW: child abuse, abortion, sexual assault, suicidal ideation

I think if a fetus has an abnormality the parents don’t want, then they can choose to abort once it is caught. But once the infant is born, the parents shouldn’t be able to back out. I don’t have children, I might have them one day, so I don’t know if I’ll ever change my mind if I end up having a kid with a serious disability that wasn’t caught in time for an abortion. There are some conditions where the kid doesn’t even survive childhood. That sounds really heartbreaking but I couldn’t bring myself to basically kill a child.

I am physically and mentally disabled myself and it has been a struggle. I haven’t had kids yet because my disability has made me permanently low income and I don’t know if I have the strength and energy to raise a child. I am female so I would be carrying and birthing the baby and breastfeeding and all that jazz, unmedicated because my medication causes birth defects. There are times I want to die, I find myself drifting towards researching suicide methods. But it is my choice, it should never be anyone else’s. Certainly not my asshole parents’ decision.

I would like to say that if a parent wants to back out, the kid can go to a loving home in foster care. However, foster care is very bad in my area and I’ve heard very tragic tales from children that end up in their care. I don’t know why, I don’t know if it is a budgeting issue, but abusive foster parents in my area with clear mental and anger problems are allowed to foster anyway as well as typical abusive religious nutjobs. My parents were pretty abusive to me, one was the narcissistic abuser and the other was the enabler. I have PTSD from them and so do my siblings. And yet we ended up better than the foster kids I’ve heard from. I still would advocate for fixing the foster care system rather than killing all those children. My parents told me if I called CPS, I would be raped in foster care. It scared me enough to keep quiet about the abuse. Turns out it does happen, I know kids that went through that, and it is fucked up. I’m not saying every foster kid goes through this but I would never take that chance with my own kid. Adoption is not an option for me.

I would be conflicted about a child with infantile tay-Sachs (there are probably other similar diseases, but I don’t know them). That’s a short, excruciating life, and I would not want to live it. But the idea of someone choosing euthanasia for someone else, even someone under their care, is pretty abhorrent to me. It seems too ripe for abuse, and the right to decide to end your own life should not be transferable. The ending of it can be, but only under circumstances determined by the person (so I could tell my husband that I don’t want to keep going if I can’t recognize my children, for example, and when I reach that point, he could kill me, but he can’t decide what the line is).

Idk man, kids can adapt to pretty much any condition. It’s mostly other people’s reactions that make it hard. I don’t think you make that better by saying they’re justified in their prejudices.

Edit: Crap, I didn’t realize this was about you. I stand by it though.

Heck em. I’ve known people with similarly traumatic childhoods who turned out to be amazing — quirks and all.

There’s so much more time than you realize, and Future You™ will have a very different attitude about this stuff after you get some distance from it.

It’s kind of related to the abortion discussion. I don’t think the question is “should they be allowed to” but rather “when are they allowed to” I think that in some situations there’s a case to be made for after-birth-abortion but I don’t quite feel like “not wanting to deal with it” is a sufficient reason.

Well, you run into a lot of trouble.

Part of the abortion debate is centred on when, exactly, a bunch of cells can be called a person.

There’s no significant group arguing that it happens after the baby is out of the womb and surviving.

There’s rules in place for what happens when that new person can’t survive on its own, particularly when that’s combined with an inability to ever function as more than a lump.

So, the problem becomes one of deciding when, after that period, that child needs to be given the right to choose for themselves if they want to live or not. There’s already the ability to just not sustain life, but if you’re gong to be making the choice to end that life, you gotta get consensus on whether or not someone gets to decide it for them.

Now, I’m a long term right to death advocate. I consider the ability to choose the manner and time of our own deaths a right, one that is typically repressed, unjustly so

But when you’re taking someone else’s, there’s a much higher standard involved. In order to take someone’s life legally, you have to jump through some serious hoops under normal circumstances. It’s usually only allowed after they do something very bad (by the standards of the legal system making the decision).

So, how and why are the parents making that decision? Why are they making it alone? Why not wait until the child is older and can decide for themselves? When is someone old enough?

There’s more things that need to be addressed before you could even remotely hope to build consensus and make it legal.

And, from my perspective the answer is a hell no. You, me, everyone, has the right to decide the manner and time of our death (within reason). But we do not have the right to decide it for someone else.

With that in mind, it is a decision that should only be made before adulthood in the most extreme cases, where suffering is assured, and early death inevitable.

Beyond that, there are just too many problems, the same as there are with capital punishment.

Euthanasia is a difficult topic, period. Even with the right to death, are we going to obligate someone else to assist? A lot of people seeking a medical end of life can’t take their own. So they need assistance. When you’re involving someone that can’t decide for themselves (and if someone isn’t deemed capable of voting then they’re not capable of choosing in this), you can’t obligate a doctor to do the job. Nobody should be obligated to take someone else’s life.

So, nah. If you’re an adult, you should have the right, but until then, nobody else should. It still has problems, and you listed the worst of them already. But those problems are not as bad as ending someone’s life without their informed consent. Kids can’t form that for much of anything.

WHAT??