You are framing the issue with the pre-supposition that you are correct, and the arguments of the other side do not exist and they are just acting out of pure malice.
> No one was going around terminating 36 week fetuses for the fun of it.
I've personally witnessed calls to "celebrate your abortion". While I understand that it may be a rhetorical device, to a person for whom "fetus" is a little human being, there's not much daylight between that and "for the fun of it".
> Harming another living person purely for your assumptions (religious beliefs) qualifies as evil intent
Again, you are arguing as if other side's argument does not exist. That what "over simplifying" is - you assume the other side has no argument and just are pure evil, and then make a conclusion that they have no argument and just are pure evil. Easy victory, but a hollow one.
> This is a highly complex topic
And yet, you declare that on a highly complex topic having position different from yours is "evil" and has no argument worth considering. Maybe it's more complex than you think?
> that is between highly educated doctors
Nope, we can't have political and moral question be decided by a narrow class of credentialed ivory tower dwellers. At least not while having a democracy, that's just not how a democracy can function. You can have a monarchy or oligarchy work this way, but that's not what we have in the US, and anyway, why do you think the God Emperor (or the High Council of Benevolent Oligarchs) would necessarily belong to your tribe? What is built by power, would be destroyed by power. The only way to avoid it is to build consensus. But you can't build consensus if you don't recognize the other side exists.
You are framing the issue with the pre-supposition that you are correct, and the arguments of the other side do not exist and they are just acting out of pure malice.
> No one was going around terminating 36 week fetuses for the fun of it.
I've personally witnessed calls to "celebrate your abortion". While I understand that it may be a rhetorical device, to a person for whom "fetus" is a little human being, there's not much daylight between that and "for the fun of it".
> Harming another living person purely for your assumptions (religious beliefs) qualifies as evil intent
Again, you are arguing as if other side's argument does not exist. That what "over simplifying" is - you assume the other side has no argument and just are pure evil, and then make a conclusion that they have no argument and just are pure evil. Easy victory, but a hollow one.
> This is a highly complex topic
And yet, you declare that on a highly complex topic having position different from yours is "evil" and has no argument worth considering. Maybe it's more complex than you think?
> that is between highly educated doctors
Nope, we can't have political and moral question be decided by a narrow class of credentialed ivory tower dwellers. At least not while having a democracy, that's just not how a democracy can function. You can have a monarchy or oligarchy work this way, but that's not what we have in the US, and anyway, why do you think the God Emperor (or the High Council of Benevolent Oligarchs) would necessarily belong to your tribe? What is built by power, would be destroyed by power. The only way to avoid it is to build consensus. But you can't build consensus if you don't recognize the other side exists.