At the end of the day abducting the Ba'ku still serves only one purpose, to move them away from the precious resources we want to get our hands on. Trying to cover this crime with claims to actually care about their well-being is even more wicked than Dougherty's position, he did at least acknowledge that the Ba'ku are violated.
So you'd be willing to lay down your life or the life of a son or daughter to fight a war to protect the lifestyle of six hundred people?
What's wicked is that Picard couldn't see past his own libido and think through the situation. Never is a situation as black or white as it seems to be. Situations like we see in Insurrection
rarely exist in a vacuum devoid of multiple pressures that make it an easy read. He doesn't even seek opinions on what happens to the Ba'ku if the Federation walks away.
Talk about a superiority complex.
I am the Prime Directive advocate so I am naturally the last one who wants to fight a war for the Ba'ku. But neither would I violate them as you would. Talking about sons and daughters, I am sure you'd be willing to lay down your life to protect your son or daughter from being violated in any fashion.
You can defend Dougherty and the So'na all you like and imagine a grand-scale invasion of the Federation to rationalize it, Picard did the right thing.
INS is not a complicated movie where it is unclear who is right and who is wrong (the Heart of Darkness version would have been more interesting precisely because it wouldn't have been a straightforward moral tale), it is a simply movie like ST09. Not as bad but still as simple.
I'd like to see the reactions if somebody defended Nero and claimed that Kirk had a superiority complex because he had the balls to do the right thing.