But there's always gray area to principles and it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to find anyone who is truly dedicated to them.

As an example: is it 'murdering babies' if you order an airstrike on a terrorist compound, knowing that there is one innocent pregnant woman there?

According to the laws of war, that's a valid strike and acceptable collateral damage if the value of the target is high enough... but if you agreed that it's a worthy tradeoff, doesn't that invalidate, at least partially, your moral righteous purity as a crusader for 'saving the babies'? That baby is just as innocent as any other.

Or do you stick to your principles and say "under no circumstances can we allow that to happen" and call off the airstrike, and now terrorists use pregnant human shields? At what point do you agree that murdering babies is at least a little 'okay' and take the hit to your morality in order to kill a terrorist?

Abortions are going to happen no matter what you try to do. And if you illegalize abortion, are you actually saying that a woman who induces a period to purge a zygote is literally guilty of first-degree murder and you will not only put her on trial, but give her the death penalty and kill her for it?

Because that's some Iranian-style justice right there.

And if you agree that giving a woman a death penalty for taking a pill to induce a menstrual cycle is "excessive", then you just played yourself and essentially stated that you agree that abortion may not be, to paraphrase Whoopi Goldberg, "Murder murder".

But there's always gray area to principles and it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to find anyone who is truly dedicated to them.

As an example: is it 'murdering babies' if you order an airstrike on a terrorist compound, knowing that there is one innocent pregnant woman there?

According to the laws of war, that's a valid strike and acceptable collateral damage if the value of the target is high enough... but if you agreed that it's a worthy tradeoff, doesn't that invalidate, at least partially, your moral righteous purity as a crusader for 'saving the babies'? That baby is just as innocent as any other.

Or do you stick to your principles and say "under no circumstances can we allow that to happen" and call off the airstrike, and now terrorists use pregnant human shields? At what point do you agree that murdering babies is at least a little 'okay' and take the hit to your morality in order to kill a terrorist?

Abortions are going to happen no matter what you try to do. And if you illegalize abortion, are you actually saying that a woman who induces a period to purge a zygote is literally guilty of first-degree murder and you will not only put her on trial, but give her the death penalty and kill her for it?

Because that's some Iranian-style justice right there.

And if you agree that giving a woman a death penalty for taking a pill to induce a menstrual cycle is "excessive", then you just played yourself and essentially stated that you agree that abortion may not be, to paraphrase Whoopi Goldber, "Murder murder".

But there's always gray area to principles and it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to find anyone who is truly dedicated to them.

As an example: is it 'murdering babies' if you order an airstrike on a terrorist compound, knowing that there is one innocent pregnant woman there?

According to the laws of war, that's a valid strike and acceptable collateral damage if the value of the target is high enough... but if you agreed that it's a worthy tradeoff, doesn't that invalidate, at least partially, your moral righteous purity as a crusader for 'saving the babies'? That baby is just as innocent as any other.

Or do you stick to your principles and say "under no circumstances can we allow that to happen" and call off the airstrike, and now terrorists use pregnant human shields? At what point do you agree that murdering babies is at least a little 'okay' and take the hit to your morality in order to kill a terrorist?

Abortions are going to happen no matter what you try to do. And if you illegalize abortion, are you actually saying that a woman who induces a period to purge a zygote is literally guilty of first-degree murder and you will not only put her on trial, but give her the death penalty and kill her for it?

Because that's some Iranian-style justice right there.

And if you agree that giving a woman a death penalty for taking a pill to induce a menstrual cycle is "excessive", then you just played yourself and essentially stated that you agree that some abortions fall short of the standard of 'murder'.

But there's always gray area to principles and it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to find anyone who is truly dedicated to them.

As an example: is it 'murdering babies' if you order an airstrike on a terrorist compound, knowing that there is one innocent pregnant woman there?

According to the laws of war, that's a valid strike and acceptable collateral damage if the value of the target is high enough... but if you agreed that it's a worthy tradeoff, doesn't that invalidate, at least partially, your moral righteous purity as a crusader for 'saving the babies'? That baby is just as innocent as any other.

Or do you stick to your principles and say "under no circumstances can we allow that to happen" and call off the airstrike, and now terrorists use pregnant human shields? At what point do you agree that murdering babies is at least a little 'okay' and take the hit to your morality in order to kill a terrorist?

Abortions are going to happen no matter what you try to do. And if you illegalize abortion, are you actually saying that a woman who induces a period to purge a zygote is literally guilty of first-degree murder and you will not only put her on trial, but give her the death penalty and kill her for it?

Because that's some Iranian-style justice right there.

But there's always gray area to principles and it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to find anyone who is truly dedicated to them.

As an example: is it 'murdering babies' if you order an airstrike on a terrorist compound, knowing that there is one innocent pregnant woman there?

According to the laws of war, that's a valid strike and acceptable collateral damage if the value of the target is high enough... but if you agreed that it's a worthy tradeoff, doesn't that invalidate, at least partially, your moral righteous purity as a crusader for 'saving the babies'? That baby is just as innocent as any other.

Or do you stick to your principles and say "under no circumstances can we allow that to happen" and call off the airstrike, and now terrorists use pregnant human shields? At what point do you agree that murdering babies is at least a little 'okay' and take the hit to your morality in order to kill a terrorist?