That's not even the question.
The questions are:
1) If you talk about "world opinion", what's a legitimate way to measure it?
2) If you talk about the "world community", what's the evidence that such a thing exists?
3) If you say you are a "citizen of the world", why do you think there is (or should be) a political community called "the world", and how do you think such a political community should be governed?
We have gotten very sloppy in our thinking about the above questions, and sloppy thinking leads to sloppy behavior.
The political community known as the United States of America is different from the rest of the world, because it was created using very radical ideas about sovereignty and the sources of political authority. Those ideas are no less radical today than they were in 1776, and the rest of the world does not affirm or agree with them, and never will.
There is no such thing as "the world" in the sense you are using the term. The polyglot mass of oppressed and oppressing Hottentots, Turks, eurotrash and Chinamen that occupy the rest of the planet outside of our blessed Republic do not have a uniform opinion, there is no way to measure whatever opinions they do hold, and if there were, no American should give a moment's thought to it.
"O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the Globe. Asia and Africa hath long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind".
World opinion my ass.
You just took the "scenic route" to saying the very same thing marktwain said, which was...
Who cares how the rest of the world thinks?
I know, but it's my opinion.
Very well stated!
We stand alone in our condition as Free people who (should) refuse to be subject to anything other than God ordained natural laws and rights of mankind.
Anyone who thinks we need to be more like the rest of the world needs to move there, wherever that is.
God Bless & Molon Labe
The source of these moral judgments is politics, occasionally masked by political actors dressed up in the vestments of some nominal church or another, but quite as often some secular actor bleating about undefined abstractions such as "fairness" or "justice". If in fact the source of human rights goes no deeper than some international declaration, there is no real source at all.
The upshot of this sourcelessness is that all such "rights" are purely definitional, hence abortion isn't wrong because its victim has been defined as outside the category of human life; hence, as well, firearms are purely instruments of the taking of life and not also of defending it. Such rights are the more passionately declared as they are more and more vague. "Life" here is a moral absolute and a semantic nullity.
The fellow who claimed that firearms possession is more immoral than abortion did so on the basis that he, and not God, was the ultimate arbiter of the definition of "life." Given the latter it's a perfectly coherent and consistent position. But we aren't giving him the latter, or I'm not, anyway.
Forgot two words? Kiss My???