Neither. Or maybe both. We're human. We have no other comparative species
to measure our collective decisions or misfortunes against.

Two years ago one of my brothers and his wife lost their full term unborn
baby to spina-bifida. Blessing or curse? We'll never know. Undeterred,
they recovered from their loss, conceived again, took extra precautions,
additional doctor visits and additional monitoring. This year, three days
before Christmas, they lost another full term unborn baby when the umbilical
cord wrapped itself around the baby's neck, just 3 days before a scheduled
delivery. Two full term babies lost, never to experience life. Two young
parents will never experience the love and joy of what would have been their
third and fourth children. Two little brothers left scared and confused,
wondering where the babies went.

The product of risk is rarely as beautiful as it is ugly.

So do we then shelter and over protect those around us, limiting their
exposure to any and all risk? Do we prohibit any experience where risk
outweighs practical benefit? Do we arbitrarily decide that after a single
tragedy that all around us should be forever prohibited to participate in
the same behavior? These would be truly selfish acts. Acts designed more
so to protect the minds, hearts, and welfare of the survivors, not
particularly to protect the participants. Imposed security limits liberty
no matter who the imposer.

Our decisions and associated risk management become harder when we choose to
engage our children in "our" risky events, for as children, they often have
no choice. Hopefully we take all available precautions and use our best
judgment, but to shield our children from the experiences and opportunities
that our chosen activity offers would be in itself a tragedy.

What would life be without living?

Jim