Responding to pro-choice advocates

[Volts]

I'd point out that God's Law is to be followed over man's law, where conflict exists. I'd also point out that everything Hitler did was legal under civil law - so its no secret that man's law can be manipulated so that it ceases to be good and just.

Even for the atheist/agnostic; they should still listen to their conscience over immoral civil laws.

That is a good comeback. If someone does not think that abortion is murder, then I could say that Hitler and his regime did not commit murder because his authorization to kill people was legal under his country's civil law.

 

[quip]

Some pro-choice advocates will use this definition of murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. They assume that "unlawful" means "contrary to the civil law" and say that abortion is not murder according to this definition because our civil government allows it. How would you respond to this?

Well, there's the legal view of abortion and the personal ardent view of abortion. One problem persist when lifers conflate the two, as such dismiss or otherwise marginalize facts concerning the current legal status of abortion while overwhelmingly supporting future legal proscription of abortion. :idunno:

The average choicer is simply pointing out the convenient selectivity, subjectivity and overwrought histrionics inherent to the lifer's thought-process on the matter.

 

[Nick M]

By referring to it in straight forward terms there is no argument against:

What do you call attacking those that attack abortion politicians? Like those that attack Ted Cruz for attacking Obama?

 

[Rusha]

What do you call attacking those that attack abortion politicians?

It depends on WHY they are attacking him. Just because a politician *claims* to be against abortion doesn't mean they are ... or that all their other policies are acceptable.