As if the adults who perished aren't as significant.
As if the fact that children were killed makes the accident far more tragic.
As if the loved ones of the adults who died won't suffer and mourn their loss just as much as the families of the children.
As if the adults who died aren't somebody's wife, husband, mother, father, sister, brother, or friend.
Perhaps I am looking for a fight, but since this is a blog focused (in large part) on the rampant pronatalism that permeates every aspect of our existence, I think it's important to highlight clear examples when they arise. We are so immune to this kind of thing because it is so pervasive, but we need to stop for a moment and think. What makes a child's life more valuable than an adult's? Why is it more horrible that a child's life was cut short, than a grown-up's? In a purely technical sense, it could be argued that the adult is the bigger loss, since the adult is an actual contributor to society, whereas the child is a parasite on it. An adult has also had much more time to establish meaningful, long-standing relationships and has (hopefully) had much more time to make a positive, lasting impact on the lives of others. His loss will create a ripple effect that will extend far beyond the parameters of his immediate family.
The fact is, if my husband had died on that Montana plane crash, I probably would have been too devastated to even think about the fact that all anyone cared about was the loss of the children. I would be too focused on the value of the person I had lost - a person who by nature of his age may be undervalued by our child-obsessed society, but means the entire world to me.