Because you have no right to kidnap someone else’s child. Because the human rights of the parents to raise their child and the rights of the child to be raised by their parents both determine that you shouldn’t. Because you have no authority to determine what is better for the child. Because the ends don’t justify the means. Take your pick.
> Because you have no right to kidnap someone else’s child. Humans also have a right to live. Parents with better opportunities(whether through a better lifestyle or through better medicine) will be able to grant a better life expectancy for the child than the biological parents. This means that while there's no defined right to "kidnap" someone's children, the non-existence does infringe on an existing right.
> Because the human rights of the parents to raise their child and the rights of the child to be raised by their parents both determine that you shouldn’t. Ditto.
> Because you have no authority to determine what is better for the child And who does exactly? The people bringing the child to this world without consent? The government? Hypothetical better parents? Once a child grows up to a sufficient age we assume that the person has gained enough sufficient mental capacity to decide for themselves(which is also debatable but let's leave that for another day). That line gets only more blurry the younger the child is and how do we know who exactly has this "authority" to determine this?
Modern family structure gave this authority to the biological parents due to the complexity of the question above but this is still a debatable point in my opinion. I heavily doubt that the status quo will be challenged in the near future.
> Because the ends don’t justify the means. I agree with this as taking children of people can cause significant distress for reasons I assume evolution related. And moving whether ends justify the means or not aside, no one has the authority know whether an outcome is the "better" outcome for a child or not so the ends are also blurry.
The right to life doesn't confer an obligation on or a right to another person to interfere to maximize the length or quality of someone else's child's life. Kidnapping would be a grossly unreasonable means to achieve that end!
> And who does exactly?
For the sake of this argument the only thing necessary to establish is that an individual has no authority to decide what is best for someone else's child save for instances of grave and imminent danger which this scenario of merely longer life span does not describe. Whether it's the parents, the state, or the tribal leaders, etc, it is never random individuals!
> Modern family structure gave this authority to the biological parents
The authority of a mother and a father over their child predates civilization let alone modern society. There is an extremely high bar for denying natural rights.
> I agree with this as taking children of people can cause significant distress for reasons I assume evolution related.
It causes distress because the parents love their child and they have no idea what is happening to them or if they're safe. It's an absolutely heinous crime and it's why kidnapping is treated to seriously in all just societies.
It absolutely does. This is why various child welfare social services exist in various countries, precisely so that someone can interfere to maximize the length and quality of someone else's child's life.
Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger. Secondly they’re not acting as mere individuals but as agents of the government which gives them that authority.
Huh? What do you think is the result of protection from neglect and danger? It's like you're saying, doctors aren't there to extend lifespan either, just to protect from danger.