so at what point along his path of destruction do you deal with this type of kid? when he bullies other kids? when he shows a violent temperment? when he is repeatedly disrespectful to authority? when he gradually worsens in all of these? when he comits small crimes? when he starts hurting other ppl? when he has a criminal record longer than he is tall? when he finally kills someone? maybe when he's killed more than once? cutting him off at the start not only saves money but bigger problems which are the destruction he brings to all these other ppl who are saved facing that bc he isnt around.
your defnition of innocent leaves lot to be desired. you think he so innocent, then when he kills someone bc he wasnt wiped out as child like I say, then YOU go tell the loved ones of the person he kill that his life means more than their loved ones life. YOU tell them he had to have his freedom to do whatever the **** he wanted and that ultimatey cost them the person they love when it didnt have to be that way.
better yet lets say this kid kills YOUR loved one. now sit there and tell me his life means more than they do and you are glad he was free and able to kill your loved one bc hes so **** innocnet.
Right here you're suggesting that every kid born poor will ultimately kill multiple people. That's tough to believe given that something north of 20% of our country, possibly north of 40% depending on whose numbers you like, fall below the poverty line for a developed nation, and much less than 1% of the population will ever commit a murder. You can't just assume that everyone born poor is going to become a criminal. The majority will not. And even if they WERE going to become criminals, and you knew that, it would present a significant moral conundrum. You have yet to respond to the significant point that "preemptive punishment" is entirely incompatible with a free society. That's the kind of thing you see in fascist/dictatorial states, not democratic republics. You also don't want proper trials or appeals. In this country everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're throwing that system out the window - again, endowing the government with an unchecked and, frankly, extremely scary power to kill off citizens. What if someone does have the resources to raise a child, but happens to be a political dissident. There are no appeals, no trial - just kill 'em as soon as they have a kid. No protection against that in your system.
Not to mention the other issues I raised that you haven't addressed in a meaningful way: how do you determine the line for ability to support children? How much does it depend on local cost of living? How large of areas is cost of living calculated for? What if the parents want to move to a cheaper area? What if the baby is conceived and 2 months later the mother loses her job? Does she die for making a perfectly responsible decision? Is that just collateral damage? Similarly, what if the father dies during pregnancy? What if the grandparents offer to raise the child? What if legitimate birth control failed? WHAT ABOUT THE DAMN MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF KILLING CHILDREN WHO HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING BUT EAT, POOP, SLEEP, AND CRY? If you legitimately addressed anything maybe people would stop making fun of you, but given that you're asking us to support killing babies probably not...