(Updated) I'm sorry, didn't mean to be obtuse. Let me try again.

Your original point was that murdering babies would be OK if it were babies of liberals, and presumably the LGBTQMNOP+-* community. You suggested it would be more humane to murder them rather than allow them to be abused by those people groups, as you postulated they are, by and large pedophiles, groomers, abusers, etc.

My counterpoint was multi faceted so allow me to elaborate:

1. Given your profession, it seemed a natural progression of your original thesis to murder your clients, given the trauma and anguish they are going through. It seemed hypocritical of you to try and recover their mental faculties rather than give them immediate ease from their experiences.

2. I suggested that the proposition you made is not one a person in their right mind would entertain for more than a few seconds, much less bring out as anything more than a super sarcastic quip.

3. I also mentioned the fact that, given the deranged suggestion you made, you may be experiencing mental fatigue brought on by over exposure to the emotional/mental/physical trauma of your clients, as this is pretty common in the social work profession (the fatigue, not the suggestion). I also indicated that, given this, it may be time for you to rotate out of direct care for a while to regain your own moral and mental compass, as used to be the practice of those in the profession.

4. I was attempting to drive home the point that Killing any people, in order to facilitate prevention of possible future trauma is both repugnant to society, utilitarian, and wholly evil, like nazi level evil.

5. Many of the societal and mental issues that cause people to do these things are being regulated and may not be a problem in the future. Grooming, and puberty blockers are already illegal in several States, and the trend seems likely to continue. So the very fundamental basis of you suggesting murdering babies might be a mute point in the future anyways.

TL;DR What you are suggesting (mercy killing babies) is morally wrong and socially unacceptable on multiple levels, and you may need help yourself. Seek help.

I'm sorry, didn't mean to be obtuse. Let me try again.

Your original point was that murdering babies would be OK if it were babies of liberals, and presumably the LGBTQMNOP+-* community. You suggested it would be more humane to murder them rather than allow them to be abused by those people groups, as you postulated they are, by and large pedophiles, groomers, abusers, etc.

My counterpoint was multi faceted so allow me to elaborate:

1. Given your profession, it seemed a natural progression of your original thesis to murder your clients, given the trauma and anguish they are going through. It seemed hypocritical of you to try and recover their mental faculties rather than give them immediate ease from their experiences.

2. I suggested that the proposition you made is not one a person in their right mind would entertain for more than a few seconds, much less bring out as anything more than a super sarcastic quip.

3. I also mentioned the fact that, given the deranged suggestion you made, you may be experiencing mental fatigue brought on by over exposure to the emotional/mental/physical trauma of your clients, as this is pretty common in the social work profession (the fatigue, not the suggestion). I also indicated that, given this, it may be time for you to rotate out of direct care for a while to regain your own moral and mental compass, as used to be the practice of those in the profession.

4. I was attempting to drive home the point that Killing any people, in order to facilitate prevention of possible future trauma is both repugnant to society, utilitarian, and wholly evil, like nazi level evil.

TL;DR What you are suggesting (mercy killing babies) is morally wrong and socially unacceptable on multiple levels, and you may need help yourself. Seek help.

I'm sorry, didn't mean to be obtuse. Let me try again.

Your original point was that murdering babies would be OK if it were babies of liberals, and presumably the LGBTQMNOP+-* community. You suggested it would be more humane to murder them rather than allow them to be abused by those people groups, as you postulated they are, by and large pedophiles, groomers, abusers, etc.

My counterpoint was multi faceted so allow me to elaborate:

1. Given your profession, it seemed a natural progression of your original thesis to murder your clients, given the trauma and anguish they are going through. It seemed hypocritical of you to try and recover their mental faculties rather than give them immediate ease from their experiences.

2. I suggested that the proposition you made is not one a person in their right mind would entertain for more than a few seconds, much less bring out as anything more than a super sarcastic quip.

3. I also mentioned the fact that, given the deranged suggestion you made, you may be experiencing mental fatigue brought on by over exposure to the emotional/mental/physical trauma of your clients, as this is pretty common in the social work profession (the fatigue, not the suggestion). I also indicated that, given this, it may be time for you to rotate out of direct care for a while to regain your own moral and mental compass, as used to be the practice of those in the profession.

4. I was attempting to drive home the point that Killing any people, in order to facilitate prevention of possible future trauma is both repugnant to society, utilitarian, and wholly evil, like nazi level evil.

TL;DR What you are suggesting is morally wrong and socially unacceptable on multiple levels, and you may need help yourself. Seek help.