Hi Roux,

I think this question was directed at someone else, but thanks for engaging in the conversation.

I hope you forgive me, but I'm skeptical of your claim that there are circumstances that you wouldn't want to live under. It seems like a faith-based claim. Because obviously, there are only two possibilities:

1. You've never experienced unbearable circumstances

2. You have

If the first is true, then you really don't know, you are just guessing. If the second is true...well...clearly you would want to live through such circumstances.

But the real issue I have is that your response seems to be justifying far too much. In other words, if someone didn't know the original context, they could assume that you were justifying euthanizing a five year old, because you argument applies just as much to that as it does to abortion.

You could distinguish the two by saying that the child in the womb isn't human yet, but there are two problems there. First of all, if your real point rests on the moral status of the child in the womb, why are we talking about suffering? The second problem is the fact that the beginning of life is one of the most obvious facets of biology. Life begins at conception.

The point about not having resources is categorically false. Literally no one starves to death in Western countries. They might not have enough resources to provide a world-class standard of care, but the notion that killing someone isn't so bad because they weren't going to have world-class standard of care is wild.

You're right, quality of life does matter. But like all statements, that statement has to be qualified. Quality of life matters in the sense that better quality of life is better than worse quality of life. But quality of life doesn't matter in the sense that it can be better to impose death on someone than have them live a life that you deem to be substandard. You can't just shoot a drug addict and claim as your defense that the person had terrible quality of life.

The existence of suffering is not sufficient grounds for euthanizing someone, especially not without their consent (of course, I would argue, not even with their consent). It's not a sufficient ground for euthanizing five year-olds, it's not a sufficient ground for euthanizing unborn children.

That is my biggest problem of your final statement about imposing suffering on any child of yours. Obviously, you wouldn't be imposing any suffering on your child. The suffering would be imposed from some other source. You would be there to comfort and love. The notion that you are somehow "imposing" suffering on someone by not euthanizing them

I can obviously sympathize with the fact that caring for a special needs child is difficult, and that watching children suffer is difficult. But obviously the fact that something is difficult for you doesn't mean you have the right to remove your "problem" by ending their life.

I think that the people who are arguing against me here mean well. I think they are sincere. I think they believe themselves to be compassionate. A large part of my point in engaging on this issue is to demonstrate the glaring contradictions inherent in these beliefs. If you claim to be compassionate but are advocating euthanasia, you've taken a wrong turn somewhere. You're letting fear and despair carry the day instead of hope and courage.

Probably the most important moral truth for a functioning society is the surpassing moral value of every human being. I value you, simply because you are a fellow human. I wish you the best, simply because you are a fellow human. I will respect your rights, simply because you are a fellow human. You don't need to do anything to deserve this, it is something I owe you simply because you're a fellow human. And you aren't even my child. You're a complete internet stranger. I owe my kids infinitely more.