@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:The end result is the same. Inaction in the face of danger to one's child is directly comparable to action against that child.
Imagine a kid who is going to be hit by a car; is it right to let that kid get hit, because you believe that people who wander in front of cars deserve to get hit, or that 'God saves those who need to be saved?' I would say no, not if you can prevent it.
And I would say the same. If you are aware that a car is headed for your child - you'd jump in front of it and grab the child out of the way if you could. But what if your head was turned the other way and you weren't aware of the oncoming car? As a parent, I'd prevent whatever I was aware enough of to prevent - and I'd try my best to be aware of everything.
Do we actually know though that these parents were aware? That's my question.
There's a case over here right now in which a two year old wandered onto a railroad track and the mother watched as he was hit. Should she have been watching him better? Yes. Did she place him on the railroad track to get hit? No. Is there a difference?
Because the result is the same. He's dead. But people who are wiser than I am have decreed that there is a legal difference between negligence and actual assault or physical violence and/or murder.
