I suppose that since you've got a good view from your high ground, Angela, you agree that welfare should be adequate to eradicate poverty altogether? Because, as I'm sure you can see from where you stand, innocent children in poor households suffer and die from hunger every day in our country as they do around the world. Our government, which should "give masses the power over individuals," should be used to prevent those deaths -- otherwise there's murder on our hands as the voters, right? Higher tax revenues could be used to create programs which ensure that those kids are saved. Health care too, right? If we aren't voting for government funded health care for all, we're essentially sentencing the innocent poor to death. Also, since innocent children and other non-combatants die in war every day, I'm sure you're working hard to dismantle the military? Speaking of innocent victims, I'm guessing you're doing what you can to oppose the use of the death penalty in our country? As you know, I'm sure, falsely accused prisoners die on a regular basis at our hands.
I know I'm speaking to the choir, but what really gets under my skin are the conservative sheep who pretend that they have the moral high ground because they believe that they're backing the most holy position on the only morally charged issue. "Innocent babies" is a buzz phrase thrown around - as though there are no other innocent victims of our culture's policies and choices. As you and I know, innocent death is built into our current governmental system -- and the conservative "right" pushes to pull out even more of the safety nets, spend more on the military industrial complex, and increase the use of the death penalty with fewer checks and balances. They even go so far as to call those who support the opposite "bleeding heart liberals," suggesting that their position backing the moral choice is unnecessarily soft. I'm glad I've met somebody who can also see the larger picture, somebody who puts morality before the bottom line.