How Come No One Says Stuff Like

[David Sklansky]

"abortion is killing tiny babies that don't yet know they exist. And homosexuality is a mild sexual deviation that someone should like to change if they are presently not in a relationship. But neither is that big a deal. Killing miniscule babies that do not yet have any awareness of existing is worth doing in certain circumstances, such as important medical research or to avoid psychological trauma to a woman. And engaging in the mild sexual deviation of homosexuality is preferable to the torment some people would go through if they tried to change. Gay couples should even be allowed to be considered as adoptive parents Their gayness should be considered a mark against them but not a deal killer if they have positive attributes that more than make up for that mark.

So why doesn't anyone have the guts to say stuff like that? Especially considering the fact that this is approximately what most people (including for the most part me) actually believe.

[SBR]

Because the public doesn't get nuances and everyone wants the moral high ground. Imagine a politician or public figure came out and said "abortion is killing tiny babies that don't yet know they exist". He is now:

a) Pro abortion - Anti-abortionists hate him
b) Equivalating abortion with killing babies - Pro-abortionists hate him
c) Pro "killing babies" - stupid people hate him

If you want to be elected/respected you probably need one of the first two and certainly need the last one.

[David Sklansky]

Maybe. But no politician has ever even tried my way as far as I know.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
So why doesn't anyone have the guts to say stuff like that? Especially considering the fact that this is approximately what most people (including for the most part me) actually believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because many people live and work in situations where being outspoken on controversial issues can have appreciable downside and very little upside.

DeTocqueville wrote about it a century and a half ago.

You can't be safe and free. Most people choose safe.

[WelshMackem]

For a UK perspective on what happens to outspoken politicians, do a quick Google on Clare Short or Ken Livingstone (or even George Galloway) - all EX-Labour Party MPs, the EX being the pertinent factor here.

That said, i think we do have plenty of politicians in the pro-abortion camp, but then the UK isn't run by a fundamentalist right wing Christian arsewit (unfortunately it is run by an arsewit, but you can't have everything).

[MataWispar]

alot of people do say stuff like that. they are rarely heard.

[David Sklansky]

I'm not sure everyone is getting my point. I'm not talking about being merely "outspoken".

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]

And homosexuality is a mild sexual deviation that someone should like to change if they are presently not in a relationship


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody says that because they either believe sexual preferences are nobody else's business or they think homosexuals are going to hell. Either position is logical, given the underlying beliefs. What you said isn't.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
Gay couples should even be allowed to be considered as adoptive parents Their gayness should be considered a mark against them but not a deal killer if they have positive attributes that more than make up for that mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to stray from the point of this topic for a moment.

I'm by no means anti-gay, I think it flies in the face of evolution to this point, but as beings with free will and the ability to overide our instincts it is none of my concern whether another is gay. However, I do not believe they should be considered as adoptive parents. My reasons for this are two fold.

First, I believe that the awkward situation that the child is put in and the social stigma they will receive will severely harm most children psychologically. I don't think this should even be considered an option in a child's formative years. If gay couples want to adopt teenagers who are past their formative years I suppose I can't argue with that, but there is too much risk of harming psychological development in a child's very early years that I think gay couples should be excluded from those adoptions.

Secondly, at least in the world of male homosexuals, monogamy is a rarity. The risk of disease is very high and the environment to raise a child is lacking. Neither of those makes for a good situation in which to bring up a young child. There are of course monogamous gay relationships in which a healthy child could be raised, but those are much more rare and frankly the adoption system doesn't have the resources to investigate the matter.

Now back on topic. Politicians don't make those remarks in the US because despite the fact that most people dont feel very strongly one way or the other on homosexuality, the people who actually turn out to vote are more vehemently opposed to ideas like gay marriage. It would be political suicide to publicly take such a stance.

As for stances on abortion the numbers are less lopsided so by taking such a stand they don't really lose much, but they also don't stand to gain much either.

Unfortunately this country would be far better off if people voted in their own personal interest rather than to control what other people can or can't do in the privacy of their own home or with their own bodies.

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure everyone is getting my point. I'm not talking about being merely "outspoken".

[/ QUOTE ]

We do get your point. Common sense to one person is a radical and dangerous departure from the norm for many others.

There are large portions of this country who consider talking about anything mildly controversial (i.e. money, politics and religion) to be impolite and in bad judgement.

That you've found a station in life where those conventional bounds aren't upon you makes these sorts of topics natural for you to discuss. It isn't like that for most people, whether by choice, upbringing or circumstance.