having read these accounts and buttressed previously by others, i have only one question. if a family regardless of economic status deems the death-active or passive- of any family member to be necessary, what does this say about the family bonds and the concept of love?
in impoverished rural areas it is common for elderly family members to be taken in by relatives but are cast out with begging bowls to pay their way thus contributing to their survival. no money no food.
during famine, the practice of cannibalism becoing a necessity for survival, the youngest daughter or oldest woman is sacrificed. often they are given to neighbors to be butchered. chinese peasants have a word to describe this.
during the heyday of the african slave trade, relatives would sell a family member to a trader either to eat or pay a debt. debtors were sold into slavery to pay money owed. this practice continues unabated today in many countries worldwide.
it was napoleon who systemically and ruthlessly ordered the murder of his injured and dying soldiers in order that the army not be impeded by them. both greeks and romans left their frail outdoors to die. female fetuses were aborted in china during the one child law. that the glut of males now poses a socio-sexual economic problem.
the very concept, indeed ideal, of family, friend, neighbor and the bonding thereof indicates it to be a fluid one dependent upon circumstances both internal and external. these various practices to effect the commonweal of the family, group, institution at the expense of one individual are vestigal "solutions" handed down from time immemorial. but in a sentient society NO WAY!
can the existence of such casual disregard for any human being, even when another individual, fearing his/her death, feels so compromised by that person's existence deems the eradication of that being a practical necessity?! is a mind-boggling, soul wrenching sobriety i am not able to comprehend.
