

The comparison being made is them growing up with these parents, and suffering the consequences of it, or them dying at birth and not suffering. I don’t think those are comparable (as in, you literally can’t weight them against each other). They have totally different ways you’d evaluate their value.
Them dying at birth has almost zero cost or consequence. How do you measure against nothing? Them surviving has many costs and benefits. You can weight them against each other to argue if it’s good or bad, but you can’t compare it against oblivion. It’s like temperature. You can say it’s hot or it’s cold subjectively, but you can’t compare it against a vacuum that literally doesn’t have temperature.









I don’t like the thought that the EU is limited by semantics. They started out as an alliance of European nations, but why should they be limited to that just because of their name? (Also, I’d argue Canada and the US are European by culture, but not by geography.)
If you can make an actual argument about it being useful or not then do that. The US proximity thing is the start of an argument, though I’d argue it isn’t a smart, forward-thinking reason. If the US expands (or another antagonistic nation), should membership be rejected or removed to satisfy them? That’s how WWII started.