There are three reasons why pro-life is such an unpopular position, even in red states, that most people are too polite to say out loud, but which make a helluva lot more sense than the explicitly stated reasons for being pro-abortion.
-
Most people are absolutely terrified of the prospect of not being able to abort a cripple or retard baby. Throughout most of history, outright infanticide was often used to dispense with such profoundly burdensome people. And tbf, people can barely afford to raise a normal child in our dysfunctional economy, nvm a child who will never really "grow up," will always be as tedious to attend to as a toddler in terms of having to protect them from themselves, to say nothing of the medical costs.
-
The nigger population would explode. No matter how much groid worship Baizuo engage in, no matter how much public self-effacing bullshit and BLM signs they put up, etc, even shitlibs are absolutely terrified of this happening. Hell, functional blacks are terrified of this as well.
-
Only a complete degenerate would have an abortion of convenience, rather than of necessity. So why in the world do you want trash like that to reproduce, and to raise kids? They're only gonna resent and often abuse any kids they're forced to have, because kids to these people = no more fun.
You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but this is the subtext behind why pro-life is such an uphill battle electorally. Moreover, even if it is killing babies, most people don't actually have a principled stance against infanticide - sure, it's unpleasant, nobody wants to see it, but history and even third world countries today attest to the fact that a principled opposition to infanticide is a luxury belief.
Even a principled opposition to homicide is a luxury belief, as there are plenty of contexts where we're willing to kill people, even civilians. It's just that you can't have a functioning society where people are allowed to kill each other, whereas you can have a functioning society where people are allowed to kill their babies.
Which came first, abortion or degeneracy? You cannot legislate morality. When the people are degenerates, they will demand degenerate laws.
You absolutely can legislate morality, there are very few other purposes for formally codified laws.
And to answer your question it's both. Slippery slope and all that. In this case, specifically infiltrators from the Frankfurt school and other various remnants of Trotsky's bullshit. One mustn't violate rule 16 by naming them of course.
That's an example for more stringent moral watchfulness, not less. Our ancestors did not guard against the enemy and thus opened the doors for worse down the line.
No. You can't. You can try, but you will fail unless the majority is with you. Attempt legislating morality on majority evil people who reject it, and they'll elect somebody who supports their degeneracy. This isn't hard to understand.
Sure you can. It's a trite, postmodernist soundbite that claims otherwise. I don't subscribe to millennial snark as a substitute for an actual argument.
In this case, a degenerate law, not even a law really a judicial ruling, was enacted to foment more down the line.
Which has observably happened in the last few decades. It's "we just want to get married" but for sluts instead of fags.
Any parent knows. Permissiveness only leads to more bad behavior.
It's the pompous, ignorant ramblings of a fool who has more in common with commies than free people, to think you can legislate morality. You believe we can have utopia by simply mandating it, and completely ignore human nature.
Morality is the only thing you can legislate other than logistics.
Everything else is just negotiating and claptrap.
You cum guzzling mongrel
We absolutely can legislate morality. In fact, we already have. Murder is immoral and it is illegal. You can still kill someone, but you will be punished for it.
Dipshit, that's not legislating morality. Murdering babies in the womb is legal in many states because that's what the voters want. So I guess you can't legislate morality.
You got owned.
You are assuming the premise of a style of governance where the majority rules, there is voting, and evil people are allowed to vote. Something like a benevolent dictatorship would have no problem legislating morality unless the evil people were in a position to overthrow the government.
This is one of those things that sounds smart and deep, but the more you think about it the less it make sense.
Just gotta get the lolberts to realize narrowly applied harm principle is a morality.
Obviously degeneracy