Okay.
Respect. We can play this intellectual game. I like the way you're thinking about this.
Let's go with your economic cost style of handling support.
She is a young woman, who, as far as we can tell, is still able to bare children.
By deciding that SHE is not worth saving, from a limited resources standpoint; you now have the potential to have her stay in a sexually and mentally risky situation and behavior that could translate into her bringing children into HER current world.
Unless you're on some Nazi "burn the tubes of undesirables" shyt; you determining she is unworthy of being helped can cause even more resource depletion in your...society.
So, we are back to square one.
This doesnt negate my original example tho. It amplifies it. Hear me out here.
By considering the generations of harm you mentioned, i admit that you have added a new dimension to the rescue mission. But, it only strengthens my original point. How does it do so?
Original point:
Keep in mind that for that same amount of resources spent fixing this one individual, you could have legit saved 3 easier cases where someone is just teetering off the edge or recently fallen in with the wrong crowd.
If you add the generational component to the woman in OP, then you must also add the generational component to these 3 other people of whom resources are being deferred from, in order to save her. In the most optimistic example, lets say that woman does have the US avg of 2 children. Lets also assume that those other 3 (less resource intensive) people have 2 kids each as well.
If you have chosen to allocate the resources to combat this one woman's issues (drug use, physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental issues), you have successfully saved 3 people. Her + her 2 children. But what about the less resource intensive people we've ignored?
Assuming we give them the exact same benefit of doubt that we alloted to the woman in the OP, then the less-resouce-intensive people will also have 2 children each. Each will suffer for the state of their parents at birth. But these are 3 seperate parents, meaning that we must multiply those 2 children by all 3 audults to get a grand total of 6 children suffering. By choosing them you have saved 9 people in only 2 generations .
@DPresidential , please tell me you cannot in good moral conscience choose to take resources from 9 people just to give it to 3. And this dilemma gets compounded with each new generation.
There are literally not enough resources to save her. See what im saying?
