Seatbelts obviously represent a net benefit for the group. I don't think it's worth rehashing the details. I'm not even sure I should try addressing murder...

Seatbelts obviously represent a net benefit for the group. I don't think it's worth rehashing the details. I'm not even sure I should try addressing murder... it's pretty obvious one person's will here has a major effect at removing another person's. Suicide feels like a better example; There are many societal reason to discourage it, while at the same time recognizing that it curtails an individual's choice to continue living. If the conservative position was limited to the murder aspect then this would be a lot easier. Many of the laws go far beyond that, limiting access to abortion even in extreme cases. Even more-so they would attack sex education, prophylactics, birth control, etc. It's simply better not to apply your morals to everyone else's actions when no one is harmed, and the outcome has no effect no you. I'm sorry to be rude, but telling me to empathize reads like a gotcha type statement implying I'm a 'bleeding heart liberal', but somehow not being empathetic because I reject some specific beliefs. Bad beliefs deserve to be rejected. If your statement was intended as I'm reading it, then fuck that noise. I don't know what it means to be pro-meta-choice. Is this some kind of thought exercise where you ignore the actual outcomes, and go along with your preferred outcome, but rebrand it as choice?