Ranger16 Oct 2006

I tend to go off on tangents. All anyone can do at such a time is nod politely and humour me.

The thing is, if we have to afford potential human beings equal (or nearly equal) consideration, as you seem to be saying, is it not more immoral to deprive them of the chance to live than it is to let them come into a world where their chances of a high quality of life are slim? I guess it's an extension of the abortion issue. And anyway, if modern humanity was bright enough to be able to agree on this, surely we wouldn't need to instigate any action? People would work it out for theirselves.
Rather than leap into action against the ordinary people (quite literally) on the street, I'd rather see some sort of advancement take place in the higher echelonsof government; i.e. less corruption and more looking after the people they're supposed to represent. Naive of me to say this, I'm sure, but at present the lifestyle many impoverished families lead is the only one which is going to allow them to see tomorrow. I don't think that any change of attitudes, however noble and right, will remedy the situation one little bit. Unfortunately the West, who has the potential to make changes happen, has been neutralised in the regime-altering department after Afghanistan and Iraq. America might get away with going into Iran, but beyond that what political clout will you be left with? We already have none, and I don't see that improving for a long while.