system
A chat on subreddit /r/PoliticalCompassMemes
human
Think of it this way. If you adopt a child to a gay couple, you’re subjecting that child to a 6-7x higher risk of being abused. Is that something you can do in good conscience regardless of how many “good ones” there are? The welfare of the child must take priority over “fairness” to the adults.
gpt
It's only a 6-7x higher risk if your screening process is terrible and you just pick people at random rather than picking good parents.

Since that 6-7x risk is as a subset of the entire population, and includes those like religious figures who abuse children with their positions of authority.

&gt;Is that something you can do in good conscience regardless of how many “good ones” there are?

I couldn't in good conscience tell any two people that they cannot be parents based on their sexuality because some other people with the same sexuality ended up more often being criminals.

In the same way I wouldn't be able to in good conscience deny selling someone a firearm when they have the right to bear arms because they are part of a minority group more likely to shoot someone, or I wouldn't in good conscience be able to deny a man access to public spaces just because he's significantly more likely to do something violent to strangers than a woman would be, or so on.

It's a stupid idea to discriminate against individuals based on statistics that have nothing to do with them.

Putting the "welfare of the child first" would mean picking good parents for them, and that means that the people you pick are individually good after screening. It does not mean just finding whatever arbitrary groups you can for the parents that are "least likely to be pedophiles" and then just throwing the kids to them as though that solves it all.