[humblegunner]

what they might have been interested in, cures for cancer they might have discovered, etc.

Crack they might have smoked, crimes they might have committed...

Not all people are good.

Even fewer cure cancer.

[Antoninus]

Crack they might have smoked, crimes they might have committed. Not all people are good. Even fewer cure cancer.

But all have a right to live. By your logic, as Arthur mentioned above, it would be ok to kill 5-year-olds too because they might turn out to be bad people.

[Arthur McGowan]

It’s true that not all people are good.

The fact that some people are good is not the primary argument against abortion.

However, the fact that some people are bad IS an argument that is often made FOR abortion—i.e., that many of those who are aborted would turn out to be criminals.

I am merely pointing out that, IF that argument for abortion is accepted, then logically, it is also an argument for legalizing the killing of all five-year-olds, or ten-year-olds, because among them are also ALL the future criminals in their age group.

Of course, there’s the question: Is it okay to kill people without evidence or a trial? Is it okay to kill people without evidence or a trial, if the reason the evidence doesn’t exist is that the person being executed hasn’t committed any crime?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Not all people are good.

Most are.

[editor-surveyor]

"Not all people are good."

"There is none righteous, no not one..."