"People, in mass, want universal basic income, freedom from taxation, and free health care. According to Pro, because the people want it, the government has to put that into action. Except, they haven't. They haven't because they can't. "
Let me clear up the problem you're having. Everything we're talking about regarding society is caused by who? The society isn't so?
See when you can understand what a product of a social effect is, you understand who the producer is.
A government is a body of members, who are the members? People.
Now from what I'm quoting here from you , you're using the term people really in specification. There are people that don't want gun regulation. So therefore by the point you tried to make, because there are people that don't want it, the government which are a people too should represent.
You don't have exactly the correct representation of government because where you particularly missed it is "people " doesn't say alllll people.
There are people that do want some things. When there is an overpowered force counted at what's called an election, a democracy, the majority over the minority, the government is still responding to what the people want . The government, the people want to serve the people.
Somebody decided to invent currency and taxation to solve a problem. Believe it or not people want to solve problems. So someone can make a point about a niche not wanting something while others do.
"They haven't because they can't."
Why can't they ? Can they not do what they want?
Would it be more problematic if a lot of changes were to take place in the economy by government rule? Would anybody want that ?
See everything socially, the government included is not only political but a social system.
It was caused by people. Every part of it directly or indirectly is behind what people want. Don't ever fall for the deception that this isn't man made and it was made by man because it all started with a goal of a desire.
Yes the problem with your point, you just isolated a group. Like saying just because there are those that want to commit crime and the government knows they can make more legality to not stop people from doing what would be criminal acts, then so be it .
There are evidently no anarchists in government or at the election polls.
The government is a social product but you're kind of getting it twisted up about who is dominating.
"The government can't just acquiesce to whatever their citizen's demand. If it did, it wouldn't last for long. "
You're homogenizing people. This is why we have a voting system.
"we still need large populations to fill in the necessary positions. "
This is going left of the topic but I couldn't resist. By you saying"we need large populations, it's getting into not only all babies being allowed to be born and not allowed to be rejected, but allowing babies to be made and not allowing babies not to be made (homosexuality). These two do intertwine particularly getting into the population thing.
Now it's late to go back and forth on this but if you're for the government not supporting abortion but for things to encourage homosexual affairs, namely same sex affairs, I would begin to open up observation on consistency.
"Supporting abortion, in that case, is damaging to the country. "
If you're saying because of this the government should not support abortion, then have enough people to vote on a "pro -life" amendment, because all the government is , is a reflection of what is voted in . Apparently abortion is legal, society is still here, the government is still here. I think the overpowering superceding vote had stronger views, convinced more folks to vote for abortion, boo-yaaaa!
"government's first priority is not the citizens, but the government itself. "
See here, you're still looking at things on too small a scale. There would be no point of a government without citizens. Citizens came together to make a government, a body of members. When you see the term government, think people, people.
"people's first priority is not the people but the people itself."
No matter which way you want to look at it, it's just people reacting socially,with one another. When people interact, it's political, it's politics.
Take this down to the bare details. People came together for a reason. Whether they wanted to or had to in order to still get what they want. That's what it inevitably comes down to.
People came together from a land or nation of people that share the same value or vote of things that benefit human persons. There's an interaction between the people of government to society and from society to the people of government.
No we have differences in values and I've touched on this. Due to the character restraints I have to move on and touch on what I can.
Ok everything else you had to sày after the points above was just describing the social network in government.
It supports what is voted in and passed into law ultimately. That's all you can do with it. You can't argue that the government supports things on the basis of what is right or wrong. Not even what's best because what seems best at the time is not best. This is why there is a constant change in law.
"Abortion is a practice that ineffectually weakens a government's strength"
I would of liked to see you explain this connecting the dots. Abortion weakens the strength of the people in government how? Is it physically, mentally, spiritually, metaphysically, etc?
Statements like these are too obscure and can be easily thrown out .
For example, I don't know how long abortion has been legalized but the government has been around for centuries and hasn't gone any where. So this is a desperate need for clarity which I am not going to get this time.
But if something is perpetuated decade after decade, what is weakened about it as if it'll be no more one day?
"and so, as a separate entity, and even as the Pro contends, a connected entity, the government shouldn't support abortion as a practice."
I still haven't gotten the basis you're using for the term should.
You didn't respond to my function analogy with the car jack. That was akin to the functioning role in government. I think you communicated the functioning role of government is not the correct representation and that first and foremost the government preserves itself.
Well being that it preserves itself while abortion is legal, what is this talk about weakening the strength of the government?
A lot of these points are just not making tight connections.
When we established that the system of government involving people don't make things law, don't pass laws, don't legislate things based on morals, what else is there?
Maybe what's good for society. Well check this out. Everybody we can imagine has different ideas for society. So again it comes back down to a vote which I've been saying. Whatever that vote is , is what the government SHOULD support because that's the role of a government. Like the role of a car jack , a tire , the role is to support what its role is for.
Now you can say no, the government doesn't just submit to the highest vote. Ok, why?
The "government officials" (people in other words) differ based on ..... perhaps rules, values setup by......other people that ......had visions, wishes/desires.
Either way you go, you will find at the end or BEGINNING of that chain reaction, it is a person that wants something and makes a social chain reaction.
It continues on from there just based on subjective ideas all over again.
So in some way the government still is doing based on others. That's the role so it should be what the role is and those in government share the same view which is equivalent of sharing the same vote.
So you can say the citizens don't get what they want outright but citizens make up the government. So if you're going to say it's the government first, you're still saying citizens first. We the people for the people by the people.
Synonymous language and it proves the point. That's why I like using it.
We the people for the people by the people.
When you understand the systemic threads of the social fabric from start to finish with the government stitched into it, everything is cause and effect from a political or social situation that affects another from a problem to a solution.
I couldn't get a handle on what you're basing "should" on but one element I take is you continue to emphasize that with abortions, you eliminate the possible persons that could exist in future governments as well as other minds that could be imperative to society.
Of course this is your view , your view can count as a vote. Being that abortion is legal, your vote wasn't high enough. So because of that the government should support abortion, because they didn't get a vote like yours high enough to not support abortion.
You were "nay". The "nays" didn't get the vote.
The other votes had the view most likely that for example, governments still exist while abortions are legal, the society, the planet population is still here so those votes were higher on that basis. The logical causality is just like the setup of a car jack, democracy is setup the majority should win the support because well... that's the role of democracy.
Voting poll closed.