Post by Trojan Dorsey

definitely not characterizing. just happy to have somebody to talk (type) to. I never use ad hominem because it's an automatic L. I always want to be proven wrong fair and square. Rather, I used rational deduction from the premise:

1. I stated pro-life = anti war and if you DISAGREE to leave it in the comments.
2. You commented (so I assume you disagree), making a distinction between anti-abortion and pro-life.
3. I looked for clarification on this interesting philosophy by asking if you would consider a baby killed through collateral damage an abortion.
4. You clearly stated NO and your reasoning- that a missile is a tool used to change the behavior of a bad actor.
5. Using your own technique from step two (attack the premise), I provide a counter to your rationale- that an anti-abortion law is also a tool used to change the behavior of a bad actor.
   This leaves us at the current moment in our discussion, in which you have clarified that the use of at least one of these tools, the anti-abortion law, would depend (to you) on the moral standing of the State.
   To which my obvious reply is- it seems the use of a missile that may kill pregnant women by accident would also depend greatly on the moral standing of the State.
   But are you disagreeing with the anti-war part of my premise? I may have misunderstood your logic from step 2. Perhaps you are simply stating that anti-abortion also equals anti-war, but simply don't want to be lumped into a category known as "pro-life?" Or are you definitely taking the counter position to my original thesis, that a person who is either pro-life or anti-abortion can also be pro-war?