Where on the spectrum are you?

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

Egann said:
Center-right, with strong libertarian leanings.

I think the problem in the US is that most politicians, lobbyists, and political parties make livings by NOT fixing issues. In fact, if anything they deliberately inflame them to get votes and donations. I will vote for anyone who I think will fix problems. They are very rare, indeed.

Also, is it just me or are two thirds of the issues out there which polarize people just...stupid?

I mean, take abortion. Sure, it's unfortunate it happens, but if you hate it that much, wouldn't it be better to change the culture which makes people get abortions rather than forcing a law down people's throats?

And how about climate change? If the doomsday talk is even within two orders of magnitude of correct, we're screwed and there is literally jack squat we can do about it. It literally makes more sense to tell people to stockpile mass quantities of food and seed than to try to be political about it. The damage is already done.

Well, generally you've got to take into account that people who are against abortion literally see it as the murder of babies.

It's hard to agree to a half measure or take things calmly and slowly when talking about baby murder.

That's what causes the abortion issue.  

 

Pro-Life people see the opponents statement as "A woman has a right to choose... to murder children."

While Pro Choice people see the opponents statement as "A woman can't choose to get rid of a pregnancy that may eventually result in a human being."

 

Both are statements that most people would agree with, from the viewpoint if which they see it.  Very few people are for postbirth abortions outside of the biological ethics field  and very few people are against the use of contraceptives.

 

Nobody actually argues the various science and philosphy behind when a baby is a baby, and instead sticks to their points.

 

Generally most wedge issues are caused by this.  Neither side actually realizing what they are argueing about, and instead each assuming things as common facts and argueing about something somewhat unreleated.

That and the biological ethics field leads to some scary conclusions. If we accept "thinking life" as a certain level of "sacred and inviolable," well, there goes the pork industry, because pigs are easily as smart as very young babies. If we go the opposite route where you have to count as smarter than the smartest animal to have a human's right to life, then infanticide is justifiable up to what, 18 months or so? The logical routes will lead to conclusions that are very inconvenient (imagine running over a dog with your car suddenly being as bad as running over a baby) or very unsettling (legalized infanticide. Though that may not be unsettling to a lot of cultures in the past or in the present).

If we don't accept either route, than "when it comes out of the womb" is as good enough an abritrary point as any to place the "human/nonhuman" divide.