I have not read up on the shootings you're referencing. Link?
I've not read up on them either. I assumed from your statements that you were referring to deaths at the hands of vigilante patrols at the border. Was my assumption wrong? Were you referring to deaths while being held in custody?
And by all means blame the parents. It does not change the reality of harm to other peoples children, which to my understanding is what pro-lifers are concerned about with abortions (save for the ones who are in it out of a hatred for women, which I genuinely hope are a minority).
It's not about preventing all harm to all children at all times. It's about holding parents responsible for their obligation to their children. Pro-lifers believe that engaging in sexual contact merits serious consideration, and as a byproduct of said consideration, one is entrusted to handle the consequences in a morally and socially acceptable fashion. The result of abortion is the termination of an unborn child who's guilty of nothing more than the fact that it was conceived, all to preserve the discretion of those who elected to have sex.
Now before this is brought up, I do know that there are those who'd still argue that the mother should carry her pregnancy in the advent of a rape, but I presume that many if not all would make a concession if she went on ahead an ended it.
And "hatred" of women is irrelevant.
Pro-life politicians have a bad habit of preferring abortions to those methods (links are available in the previously cited debate).
I looked them over. I couldn't find the link where pro-life politicians preferred abortions in lieu of the alternatives I mentioned. Can you cite the exact link?
And rough guess as to what percentage of vocal pro-lifers are not opposed to it existing?
I was being facetious. Planned Parenthood does not counsel safe sex; it's a haven for abortion counseling.
Firstly because as precious as the unborn may be, newborns should never be worth less. So it's ethical to give newborns a warm welcome into our shared community, rather than metaphorically spitting on them (technically just forcing their parents toward poverty, which then sets said child on a path to a worse life, while damaging the lives of any siblings they may have... and yes, research has proven this, feel free to ask for a link).
Once again, what culpability do the parents bear? How are any of them "forced" into poverty? Were they not capable of gauging the prospects of raising a child before they risked having one by electing to have sex? Why are you analyzing this as if this were something "happening to them" as opposed to something "happening because of them"? The parents that is... And because a society is holding responsible, as it ought to do as it concerns moral action, the cost should deferred to them?
Secondly because it is pro-life people demanding those expenses come into existence.
No. Those expenses are a byproduct of raising children as a result of that which they demand (food, clothing, shelter, etc.)
Thirdly because said cost would be extremely minor when shared. Given that pro-life people like to have more children, the overall average cost to them might even be decreased (in turn raising the quality of life for their own children).
The relative weight of the cost is irrelevant. The issue is the deference of cost to anyone other than the parents. And if you're going to argue that they can't afford raising children, then perhaps it's more prudent to counsel abstinence in light of one's impending poverty, rather than subsidizing their indiscretions by promoting "getting rid of it."
The ideas are not mutually exclusive. However trying to prevent abortions with penalties has been proven to result in unsafe abortions (as seen in countries with repressive reproductive laws).
How many of those women in said countries with "repressive" reproductive laws live in functioning family environments where they can facilitate the raising of children, rather than disposing of them? And yeah, there are women who'd mutilate themselves rather than carry a pregnancy to term, but let's remind ourselves: the women are doing that to themselves, no one else. When she carries out, an abortion, the unborn child is not doing it to itself.
And home births more than double the death rate, so should be something to which any pro-lifer is opposed.
What is the death rate of an abortion?
Harder access to guns for the immoral people with a history of violence and gun abuse;
Except, these regulations affect legal access, not illegal access.
much like your suggestion of raising the cost of abortions to make them harder to attain
It's not the same. You're increasing the cost to law abiding citizens, who by an overwhelming majority do not use their weapon to harm others.
Of course you can insist my previous source on this did not meet its' BoP, and I can't make you agree with it.
I need not insist it. There has yet to be any demonstration that stringent regulations result in fewer deaths. My agreement is irrelevant.
As per heart disease and such... I can only hope pro-lifers are opposed, and follow suit by encouraging each other to eat well.
I would hope so, too. I would also hope that there would be no push for invasive and mandatory blood tests before one consumes or sells a burger.
