I think your heart is in the right place, but as our friend quarrk pointed out, your analytical framework is not a good one. You get to many good conclusions and deserve, if anything, more personal credit for that given the faulty liberal ideology working against you here, but it still represents an issue to a coherent worldview.
The reason that we should support there being legal rights to abortion, to be gay and trans, etc. is not because this brings the state's laws into closer alignment with some set of cosmic Natural Laws that exist above history and define what is good, it's because the outcome for us -- all of us, both the direct subjects of such laws and broader society -- is better. What I will for brevity call "patriarchal" laws, the opposite of what I just mentioned, inform the construction and maintenance of a sort of caste system wherein people have different social positions based on how the law interprets inborn qualities of theirs, and these divisions of society only serve to benefit the people at the very top, with any other benefit being a scrap of concession that does not match the benefits of having a population united along the lines of race, sex, etc. exercising truly democratic social organization that firmly and systemically opposes being bought off. There is no cosmic scale assessing our actions, there is only the actual outcome, and talk of deontological "Natural Rights" (not legal rights, which are helpful constructions) are purpose-built for liberals to protect the wealthy, doing things like conflating your toothbrush with one of Jeff Bezos's warehouses by placing them under the umbrella of "private property," which then is characterized as needing to be protected because "you wouldn't the state to steal your toothbrush, right?" In reality the relations of each item to the two of you and to society are both totally different, and the outcome of seizing one or the other is likewise completely different.
it's because the outcome for us -- all of us, both the direct subjects of such laws and broader society -- is better.
I want to highlight this because it's both the selfish and selfless case for socialist ideologies. Making society better for everyone isn't just about the selfless nature of caring for others and making sure they have enough, it's also about the selfish nature of guaranteeing that you are personally cared for and have enough. It's completely illogical to seek the extremely long odds of becoming extremely wealthy at the detriment of others and making yourself a target instead of guaranteeing you and everyone else has more than enough to thrive on.
I think your heart is in the right place, but as our friend quarrk pointed out, your analytical framework is not a good one. You get to many good conclusions and deserve, if anything, more personal credit for that given the faulty liberal ideology working against you here, but it still represents an issue to a coherent worldview.
The reason that we should support there being legal rights to abortion, to be gay and trans, etc. is not because this brings the state's laws into closer alignment with some set of cosmic Natural Laws that exist above history and define what is good, it's because the outcome for us -- all of us, both the direct subjects of such laws and broader society -- is better. What I will for brevity call "patriarchal" laws, the opposite of what I just mentioned, inform the construction and maintenance of a sort of caste system wherein people have different social positions based on how the law interprets inborn qualities of theirs, and these divisions of society only serve to benefit the people at the very top, with any other benefit being a scrap of concession that does not match the benefits of having a population united along the lines of race, sex, etc. exercising truly democratic social organization that firmly and systemically opposes being bought off. There is no cosmic scale assessing our actions, there is only the actual outcome, and talk of deontological "Natural Rights" (not legal rights, which are helpful constructions) are purpose-built for liberals to protect the wealthy, doing things like conflating your toothbrush with one of Jeff Bezos's warehouses by placing them under the umbrella of "private property," which then is characterized as needing to be protected because "you wouldn't the state to steal your toothbrush, right?" In reality the relations of each item to the two of you and to society are both totally different, and the outcome of seizing one or the other is likewise completely different.
I want to highlight this because it's both the selfish and selfless case for socialist ideologies. Making society better for everyone isn't just about the selfless nature of caring for others and making sure they have enough, it's also about the selfish nature of guaranteeing that you are personally cared for and have enough. It's completely illogical to seek the extremely long odds of becoming extremely wealthy at the detriment of others and making yourself a target instead of guaranteeing you and everyone else has more than enough to thrive on.