They will probably quibble that the right to live is of a different order of magnitude from the right to have an abortion.
I’m not sure why we don’t actively market adoption to gay couples. Their divorce rates are about half of what you get with heterosexual couples (at least for now) and domestic violence (at least report4ed domestic violence) seems to be substantially lower. I don’t understand how someone would think that orphans are better off in foster care than adopted by a gay couple.
Well each of those fetuses could have grown to have a dozen more kids that would go to heaven. You are eating your seed corn. Basic soul farming economics. Duh.
Yeah. Like 18 years longer.
My anti-pro-life argument is not to dissuade pro-lifers from getting an abortion themselves.
They will decide that for themselves.
It’s to dissuade them from the notion that abortion in general should be proscribed when, in fact, it saves souls net net.
I would say they KNOW they will be judged by God (as we all will). Repentance negates any punishment anyway, and I’d say they just don’t believe that, they know that with every fiber of their being. All she has to do it cry out to God about the mistake she made in her life then all is well with her soul. Like anything else it’s ultimately between them and their God 
Actually they don’t. While they will happily call pro-choice people murderers because they like slander and believe that their opponents being muderers justifies literally anything they might want to do, they don’t actually believe that abortions are murders. If they did they’d be WAY more outraged over the hundreds of thousands of government-sanctioned murders going on.
It’s because they think that gay people are sinners and will corrupt the innocent children into sin.
Where do you get this? Many pro-life people take it not only as murder, but murder of the most innocent, which differentiates it from the execution of a God condemned criminal who let the courts send him to Hell for Him. Praised be His name.
Because, while there is some murder of abortion doctors and bombing of abortion clinics, the vast majority of anti-choicers do little more than tut. They do not react to persons who have gotten abortions the same way that they react to actual murderers. And of course there are those who get abortions themselves (or demand that their lovers get abortions) when they’re suddenly in that situation; you could argue that these sorts of folks would also murder somebody if the situation ever came up, but I don’t think that that’s how that plays out in reality.
What is a “person”? Can only those in the species H. sapiens sapiens be “persons”? What about all the many other human species, some of which have only been inferred, not discovered? (cite) How far up the evolutionary ladder must one be to gain personhood? Have mandrills souls? Are they “persons”? Do puppies taking their first breaths possess souls? Why or why not?
Why do souls exist? Do they grant an evolutionary advantage? If not, why bother?
Suppose humanoid embryos gain souls at conception. (Not “moment of conception”, which doesn’t exist.) Vast numbers will not survive gestation and nativity, discarded as miscarriages and stillbirths. They supposedly go to heaven. But they’ve had no outside existence, no experiences, can’t talk, have nothing to say. Heaven thus overflows with mute mindless micro-ghosts. Is that where rational people want to spend eternity?
An abortion is always a bad idea, unless you need one.
The anti-abortion zealots I’ve talk to believe gay parenting is “child abuse” because children need a mother and a father. If a lesbian gets pregnant by rape, she should be forced to give birth and then forced to either give up her child or her lesbian lifestyle.
It’s odd that the group who screams loudest against gay parenting because children need a mother and a father support single mother hood, yet not lesbian motherhood. Of course, the anti-abortion movement is known more for their hypocrisy than their consistency.
I’d say much of the pro-choice movement is pro-other choice also, like the choice of who to marry. It’s the inconsistency that’s the issue here.
Being rational, I’d want a lot more reason that I or they “think” it’s murder. It’s murder because they say a fetus is a baby and they say that because they define it to be that way.
I “think” they are fascist scum, but that doesn’t mean I should have the right to bash their heads in.
Wouldn’t it be awesome, though, if there was a scientifically validated test for fascist scummery and a social convention that permitted taking an axe-handle or a baseball bat to such people?
We humans have a long history of killing people under special circumstances. Generally we look back on these arguments and see them as foolish and self-serving. It is hard to accept that this time our generation really does have the special circumstances that eluded our ancestors.
Perhaps I’m missing your point - unwanted pregnancies are hardly a new thing for humanity for which we have to create a rationalization; abortion in various forms (usually medically unsafe ones) goes back into antiquity.
What an excellent science fiction story that would make!
My writing skills seems to be declining. Perhaps I was unclear. I suspect making justifications for killing is almost always self-serving and morally suspect. We kill people. That is our nature. Trying to say it was justified in the special moral situation we find ourselves in seems to be just a way to convince ourselves.
Kill who you must. Spare us the justifications.
A society that could do that could also, I expect, produce a scientifically validated test for people who enjoy beating on other people with axe handles and baseball bats, whether their motivations were fascist or otherwise.
Then maybe we could let such people whale on each other and leave the rest of us alone. (Though I’m afraid that if the test included everybody who had an occasional impulse to go at someone with a baseball bat, even if they weren’t actually likely to do it and probably wouldn’t actually like it if they did, just about all of us would be included in “such people”.)
Perhaps you’re confusing a story about the impact of such an ability on society with advocacy of it?
Does that correlate with testosterone levels? Many men would be de-nutted or proactively incarcerated. Perhaps humans should be have hormone monitors implanted with LEDs showing propensity for violence. Their ears are red? Tranq-em, Danno!
Bioelectronics are the coming thing, I tell you. Neural implants in everyone for wireless linkage to the hive-mind net, and horniness monitors to broadcast I WANNA! Fertility and pregnancy monitors in all females to show who’s off-limits. Hormone monitors for violent surges in everyone. We’ll be watched over by AI machines of loving grace.