I think not living is better than growing up neglected with only bullying as love. It’s better to not live than to watch your relatives live real lives while you sit in a corner playing a video game so you’re out of sight. It’s better to not live than to have everyone in your family hate you for being dependent, but also hate you when you ask for help on being independent. It’s just not a life worth living for both parties. The real relatives deserve real lives that doesn’t involve taking care of some burden nobody wants, and the other shouldn’t live as a burden nobody wants. So many unwanted kids are put in group homes where they stagnate more solely because their parents didn’t want to try raising them. Death is better than living in prison for being unwanted.
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.