> The "extraordinary" expense of this child actually only requires a 14% increase in value over the average citizen to make sense.
Ok, fair enough, we'll ignore the question of whether average really makes sense, but there's a bigger problem: there's absolutely no reason to expect this hugely premature baby to have >14% increase of value. Why? This is completely unfounded, completely unjustified. In fact, as a premature baby with massive expensive health problems, wouldn't we expect the opposite? Early childhood trauma seems like it'll matter to their future prospects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Prognosis (As makes sense. If babies could be born months premature with no negative effects, why aren't they being born that way already so they can start growing up quicker?)
It was one of three points made, the last point being the most significant. Our humanity should take priority over negligible costs.
> there's absolutely no reason to expect this hugely premature baby to have >14% increase of value
Without a standard deviation on the average, there is no way to say whether or not 14% is reasonable. Regardless, I was simply pointing out that it's a small fraction rather than orders of magnitude greater. Even if the child winds up providing 50% of the value of an average person, it can still be a net gain.
Economic reasoning is just one (minor) aspect to this situation though. There is very real value in simply helping a fellow human survive.
> as a premature baby with massive expensive health problems, wouldn't we expect the opposite?
The stats you cite are for extreme cases on the edge of viability and the odds still slightly favor normal or near-normal development.
This particular baby was born with a 66% chance of living and deserves more than a quick dismissal.
> If babies could be born months premature with no negative effects, why aren't they being born that way already so they can start growing up quicker?
That's horrible reasoning. The human body has evolved over millions of years for birth. It is the optimal gestation machine. We're working on approximating this optimal machine with artificial machines and continue to rapidly make progress. In the rare situation where the human body fails for some reason, we attempt to augment it with the best artificial machines we've got. Nobody claims that premature births are better, but a hiccup during pregnancy shouldn't mean the end of a life if we can avoid it.
Humanity progresses when a society looks out for each other. In particular, without bias. That starts at birth.
What you're proposing is barbaric and borderline infantcide.
> Without a standard deviation on the average, there is no way to say whether or not 14% is reasonable.
There is no reason to expect the expectation of preemies to be above average, never mind 14%, never mind standard deviations. And there is substantial empirical evidence which I linked you to expect it to be far below average. Rescuing a preemie, even if it were free, would be a bad idea compared to alternatives like simply trying again.
> Even if the child winds up providing 50% of the value of an average person, it can still be a net gain.
And we're right back to your original problem: you are not thinking on the margin. The alternative to spending millions on premature babies is not no babies ever. (And even if it was, there's still superior alternatives: for example, lobbying for Open Borders. Think of all the millions of immigrants who'd love to come to the USA, for free! We wouldn't even have to pay them! Why, even if they're 99% below average, it's still a gain!)
> The stats you cite are for extreme cases on the edge of viability and the odds still slightly favor normal or near-normal development.
Which is what we are discussing, is it not? Or do even slightly premature babies come with million-dollar pricetags...?
> That's horrible reasoning. The human body has evolved over millions of years for birth. It is the optimal gestation machine. We're working on approximating this optimal machine with artificial machines
I'm not seeing any disagreement here. Yes, the human body is the optimal gestation machine. That's why premature babies come with all the penalties. (And note that those citations are just the penalties sufficient to be documented with small samples; there's not much reason to expect the penalty to abruptly cut off somewhere, it's just the long-term effects shrink enough to be hidden by noise and methodological problems and researcher careers' limits.)
> That starts at birth.
An arbitrary line is not a good basis for a system of ethics and governance.
> What you're proposing is barbaric and borderline infantcide.
I'm happy to own to that. It is infanticide. Premature fetuses are not humans in the moral sense: they have no hopes, they have no dreams, they have no desires or preferences, they do not think, and they have the moral status of a puppy or kitten. Given the disabilities they come with, throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars in heroic medical measures is a crime against society and the person the parents could have raised instead.
