[GovernmentShrinker]

While "partial birth" abortion and abandoning grandpa to starve after his stroke are ugly scenarios, they are also scenarios that very few people actually want to undertake, and in which quite a few people would offer to take over responsibility for the helpless individual. To my mind, it is well worth weighing the relative harm done by allowing such actions, against the harm done by allowing government to forcibly interfere.

[thoughtomator]

When you're weighing harm, are 45 million aborted babies in the US since Roe v. Wade on the scale?

[MayDay72]

'"[P]artial birth" abortion and abandoning grandpa to starve after his stroke are ugly scenarios [...] To my mind, it is well worth weighing the relative harm done by allowing such actions, against the harm done by allowing government to forcibly interfere.' -GovernmentShrinker

As I stated above [19] I think that there is a profound distinction between knowingly initiating deadly force and refusing potentially life-saving resources. Individuals may find either immoral, but one is clearly murder and the other may not be defined as murder.

It is cleary an acceptable role for the state [even a 'libertarian' state] to prevent murder [the initiation of deadly force upon an individual] or prosecute those commiting such a crime.