If you are clear about "we," your question has a Self-evident answer, in the manner of Saint Paul's noting that God had separated him electively in his mother's womb, and as Abraham was counseled by the King of Peace, Melchizedek, while Abraham was yet before conception.

Sri Ramakrishna prayed God that a helper would be sent to him, and he saw the lifestream of that one who embodied as Swami Vivekananda forming in the Light of the One without a second.

In recent times, Edgar Cayce described a future embodiment ("The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?" by Free and Wilcock), and other examples are given ("Soul Survivor" by Leininger; "The Path of the Higher Self;" "Men in White Apparel;" "Light Is a Living Spirit;" "Testimony of Light;" "Life before Life;" "Return to Life;" http://www.carolbowman.com ).

The logical structure of some of these truth-claims is such that they cannot be disclaimed; others offer rare and unique correlative evidence (e.g., the Free and Wilcock book, and the "Soul Survivor," "Life before Life," and "Return to Life" books).

It is clear from these writings that most of the "we" group of your question do not have clear pre-embodiment awareness/memories. See also "Windows to the Womb: Revealing the Conscious Baby from Conception to Birth," Dr. David Chamberlain, http://www.nderf.org and http://www.oberf.org

So, rather than provide a truth-claim, the truth-claims of the above-mentioned authors are some resources. Again, your question has Self-evident Truth for some, and for most of us we are logically unable to claim a negative to these particular truth-claims, and physical evidence is claimed, but obviously non-repeatable, hence the criterion of Popper re falsifiability is generally not relevant.

Philosophically speaking, chair means "A piece of furniture designed to accommodate one sitting or reclining person, providing support for the back and often the arms and typically standing on four legs."

When there are several such chairs, it is called in plural (multiple number of chairs).

...the Euthyphro dilemma?

What I mean is -

Is right-and-wrong considered objective
rather than subjective, because of the virtually unknown..Euthyphro dilemma ?

I have a good life but not a 'rich' life. Is it selfish to want more from life? I am blessed with a loving family (mom, dad and brothers), shelter, clothes, food, etc.

I think I am mostly bothered by the idea of having to put work and effort into life, especially when life seems so pointless and devoid of meaning. It feels like 'why work so hard for nothing?' I mean I would continue to survive, but that is all that is-- survival and not thriving. Am I wrong in my thinking? Should I expect more for my life?

I used to desire friendship, marriage and career (when I was 22). Now (I am 26), I am not sure these are things I want anymore. Granted that I have an extremely quiet personality and have certain cognitive difficulties, those things do not seem like possible realities. Hopefully, I may have come to acceptance with who I am and my life circumstances. But some part of me refuses to become complacent with what seems to be my life realities. I am not sure how to think or feel anymore.

Is there a healthy blend between desiring more yet being happy with what you have? I am usually able to focus until I think or feel and begin to wonder about life's purpose.

But the problem I believe is that I may not be interested or satisfied with what I am doing, my lot in life.

I assume, although your sentence is ambiguous, that you mean 'while the victim was holding a baby' rather than 'while the gunman was holding a baby' .

Sadly, as Librareian has already said, this is by no means uncommon and if you really believe it could never happen, you have lived an unusually sheltered life. Dreadful things have been done as long as there have been humans, and they continue even now.

Women with children have seldom been safe from the most brutal attacks, and their children and babies have suffered too.
.