There you go! That wasn’t so hard now was it? I never said quality of life is the only consideration (remember I said it was the gist of my argument) but it is the main one that I find relevant to this particular case. “ethics, health risk, congenital defects” are all things that collectively determine whether or not an animal will have a decent quality of life. After all, don’t you think a cat with horrible congenital defects or severe health risks will be extremely likely to have poor quality of life? And isn’t the reason why congenital defects and severe health risks are bad precisely because they negatively affect the animal’s quality of life, more often than not? I think that is a hell of a lot better of a measure than anything you’ve proposed. I’m not saying it’s comprehensive, it’s a useful, simple rule of thumb.
north face outlet store