Okay, since I'm not willing to have an extended 'debate' with a mental midget who thinks "I'm incapable of understanding social consequences for retarded political policies beyond what makes me feel good" is an argument and has the nerve to tell me I'm the one intellectually stunted and uninformed, I'll simply restate that your position is the minority and you're not going to win the societal argument.
First of all: lol u mad.
Second, your strawman of “I'm incapable of understanding social consequences for retarded political policies beyond what makes me feel good” still belies your complete lack of understanding of the abortion debate and the ethical and moral philosophical quandaries that underlie it. People don’t oppose abortion because it’s necessarily good social policy. Quite the opposite, from an amoral detached perspective it’s actually quite rational. Much in the same way eugenics could theoretically be.
They oppose it because they believe that human beings have fundamental inalienable rights that stem from their inherent dignity as humans, chief of them being the right to life. And that it is immoral for another human being to take away that right. This is, in fact, a belief that underlies our very system of government. Look at the Declaration of Independence, or the enlightenment era thinkers (e.g. Locke, esp. the
Second Treatise on Government). And as a consequence of those inalienable rights, it is wrong for the government to condone such killings.
In sum, it has nothing to do with if a policy feels good. Quite the opposite, it is a tragedy when such things occur, and it brings me great pain to advocate for what I do, because I fully understand the suffering this policy causes, even if I believe it is the moral policy nonetheless.
In contrast, your policy is based off “oh no this policy sounds bad and people don’t like it, and it causes pain, so we shouldn’t do it!” With no regard to whether or not it is moral.
And all the above is divorced from the political considerations of if this is something to be advocated for (no, probably not right now, we don’t need to achieve the city on a hill in a day), nor the other questions about to what extent it is justifiable for the state to either take a life or condone such an action, like
@Nol 2 raised in his post.
I repeat, you’re very clearly not informed enough for this ethical debate. Please go be mad somewhere else
