>It isn't at all like caterpillars and butterflies. If you are
>saying every aborted child would grow up to be a violent
>criminal so they and we are better off if they are aborted...
>Well that is just plain stupid.

It's not a 1:1 correlation, obviously. If you think the two are completely unrelated, you're kidding yourself.

>A newborn child has nearly
>unlimited possibilities. Even some of the most neglected and
>uncared for children have grown up to be great people. Your
>lot in life is not wholly dependant on who your parents are
>and what their situation is like.

Not wholly, no. It's also an ass long way from wholly non-dependent.

If you force people who don't want or can't afford kids to have kids, you're going to get more violent criminals, both in absolute numbers (because the population increases) and as a percentage of the population. 100% of those kids aren't going to be criminals, but it's going to be a much higher rate than in the general population. Wishing that these issues would be completely separate doesn't cause reality to bend to your whim.

>Honestly, I could easily construe your statement, that since
>old people nearly always die slow torturous deaths, people
>should be euthanized at the age of 60. If a child that *may*
>die such a death is better off dead, then an old person who
>*will* die such a death is certainly better off dead.

They're capable of making a choice about it. In most cases, no one is legally compelled to care for old people either.

>And since I'm not willing to toss the whole issue of a fetus
>to a child. Please explain to me how you can deteremine when
>a child is a child. Does exiting the womb change the
>fundamental nature of the fetus such that it then magically
>becomes a child? If I take a ball out of a paper bag was it
>something else when it was in the bag?

By that half-assed logic, we'll just take 8 week old fetuses out and let them fend for themselves. They're obviously the same thing as normal adults.

>If cognitive thought
>is the requirement, well that doesn't happen till well after
>birth, and there is almost no way to prove cognition without
>speach, so we'll just wait till a child talks, but any time
>before that we can kill it.

I realize you're trying to take an extreme opinion for shock value, but I actually don't have a problem with that, so long as the parents consent and reasonable attempts are made to make it quick.

>Sounds fine to me, before that
>they're just animals. If you say it's "part of the woman's
>body" so she should be able to do with it what she wants, well
>that isn't true either. A fertalized egg is no more part of a
>woman's body than sperm is. It might be *in* her body, but it
>sure as hell doesn't have to be. Yes, a child cannot grow
>outside a womb (currently) but that womb can be nearly
>anyones, and it is really no different than the fact that
>humans are born completely without the ability to survive on
>their own, so that pushes the killing point sometime after
>birth again.

If you want to set up a program where people can volunteer to host would-be aborted fetuses I don't have a problem with that.

>Feel free to ignore this last tirade, but I'd really like to
>know how you can rationally equate killing unborn children and
>killing violent criminals as non seperate issues. It
>seriously boggles my mind.

There's some degree of causality there. That doesn't mean the issues are equivalent, but they're sure as hell related. A good analogy is being against fatal car crashes but being in favor of legalizing drinking and driving. It's not like someone dies everytime someone drives drunk, but are the two issues related? #### yes.