I’m not saying it makes it legal by any means.
I believe the qualifier “innocent life” is accurate.
In fact, I believe the Pro-Life movement is missing the opportunity of the qualifier. They should hence forth be known as the Pro-Innocent Life movement.
As you know the Pro-Choice movement doesn’t call themselves the Pro-Abortion movement.
Righteous indignation.
If people are literally killing babies, violence to stop them seems justified.
If people are literally restricting women’s individual rights, violence to stop them seems justified.
History is filled with “if god is for us who can be against us?” Or not to conflate this as religous, “we’re on the right side of history.” The search for truth.
Not my intent.
Just stating an obvious fact about the innocence of any unborn baby. Why not call it what it is?
“Religious” means absolutely nothing to me.
Why not just pro or anti abortion? It seems that is the issue of debate. Pro-life is too broad to describe all of those who identify as pro-life anyways, as some are pro-death penalty as well.
Re: legality
Does everyone here actually condemn everything that is illegal and condone everything that is legal?
I don’t.
I sometimes just go ahead and turn left, even when the arrow is red if nobody is around.
This should seem obvious to anyone awake and aware of what is happening in the world. Notice I didn’t say “woke” Disclaimer: I am against the addition to the any of non-scientific words to the Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary.
The Pro-Lifers should qualify their position.
Pro choice can mean you think abortion is bad, but a woman should have the choice. I.e. I’m not in favor of trump, but I think folks should be able to vote for him.
As said above, pro life doesn’t really fit, and anti-choice is disengenious, but anti-abortion fits. So would pro-birth.
This isn’t true and it should be obvious.
Totally agree with you.
Only if they are against war.
You now know that pat is insane.
I’m sure those criminals vote.
A person can be against wars and still engage in them out of necessity.
I have often wondered how one can be pro-abortion and anti death penalty.
At least stay consistent and be for death of both.
I think scum that has shown they can’t live in society deserve the absence of life more so than unborn children who have not even had a chance.
Those people deserving of the death penalty are also HUGE drains on society that could go to better people and more worthwhile - like feeding children.
Killing can be justified or not.
Killing murderers, rapists, child molesters, and child abusers will always be justified in my mind.
ZERO reason to keep them around sucking resources that could go better places.
I am not anti-abortion either just as a side note. I think there are legitimate reasons for it, but doing it for mere convenience does not sit well with me.
If we hadn’t been mistaken so many times in the past with wrongful convictions, I might agree with some caveats.
I thought it actually costed more to the tax payer to go for death penalty than life in prison?
This is what the argument boils down to. People in favour of abortion don’t view the fetus as a person.
Wrongful convictions don’t happen like they did in the past. The chance of it happening now with the forensic evidence we have is near impossible. And plus, we are talking cut and dry cases here where we KNOW with factual evidence the person committed the act. (Oh I know there will be gnashing of teeth on this)
The only reason that is true is due to the amount of appeals that are available to them, which is insane. You have no absolute right to an appeal under the constitution. The appeal process can cost 1-2M or so via attorney fees, court fees, etc.