I really do understand those concerns, but I still think

Posted on: October 18, 2021 at 14:21:38 CT

it's unconscionable to put away life because of the inconvenience to society and possibly the terrible life the baby might experience (which, I'll remind you - the quality of life of the poorest American in the 21st century far exceeds the QOL for most countries and exceeds the QOL of most humans in history) - again, I cannot pretend that it's better to snuff out life than have that life face the likelihood of poverty and abuse. That is not my call, nor should it be anyone's.

That same argument is similar to the "acceptable cost" of civilian deaths during an airstrike. We had members of this very board argue that while it was sad that they died, it was more likely that we would save more lives by killing a possible terrorist who will kill thousands. They would also go on to justify their deaths in that they probably didn't have a good QOL and were probably being abused, raped, etc by the terrorist they lived with or near.

Again, it's not justifiable to violate one's right to life, liberty, or property even you can improve a thousand people's right to (or quality of) life, liberty, or property by infringing on another's. This isn't a math equation.


Thanks for asking.

Edited by dangertim at 14:25:06 on 10/18/21