"Arizona Republicans File Bill to Punish Abortion Doctors with the Death Penalty"

[Detective SnowBucket]

Arizona Republicans File Bill to Punish Abortion Doctors with the Death Penalty

So much for the sanctity of life.

friendlyatheist.patheos.com

Nothing quite says pro life like the death penalty

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

SPF, here we come!!!!

 

[Type2Fiber]

if life starts at conception, then abortion is a homicide and the people responsible for the abortion are deserving of the legal consequences of homicide

you are free to have your own opinion about when life starts, but this is the logical consequence of defining life as starting at conception

 

[ciestar]

SPF, here we come!!!!

Yep. Clearly we’ve already called abortion providers murderers...

 

[curbsideconsult]

if life starts at conception, then abortion is a homicide and the people responsible for the abortion are deserving of the legal consequences of homicide

you are free to have your own opinion about when life starts, but this is the logical consequence of defining life as starting at conception

This is why staunch pro-lifers will never come around to the pro-choice point of view.

What they fail to realize, however, is the logical absurdities to which this can be taken. If life starts at conception and physicians who perform abortions are murderers, then:

• pregnant women and their partners could be tried as co-conspirators.
• any pregnant woman who smokes or drinks or does drugs could be imprisoned or fined for child endangerment.
• anyone who assaults or commits battery against a woman who is pregnant even at the zygote stage could have their charges and sentences upgraded (I know this already happens, but usually the woman is in her third trimester).
• corporations (who apparently the Supreme Court deemed to be persons a while back) could be tried as serial murderers for poisoning the environment leading to miscarriages.
• someone who causes an MVC leading to a miscarriage could be tried for manslaughter.
• charges could be upgraded to felony murder if someone committing a felony somehow causes a woman to have a miscarriage.

Obviously this is extreme. It's a thought experiment and one could say none of the above would ever happen. But then again, the last four years has shown me that just about anything can happen.

 

[Type2Fiber]

This is why staunch pro-lifers will never come around to the pro-choice point of view.

What they fail to realize, however, is the logical absurdities to which this can be taken. If life starts at conception and physicians who perform abortions are murderers, then:

• pregnant women and their partners could be tried as co-conspirators.
• any pregnant woman who smokes or drinks or does drugs could be imprisoned or fined for child endangerment.
• anyone who assaults or commits battery against a woman who is pregnant even at the zygote stage could have their charges and sentences upgraded (I know this already happens, but usually the woman is in her third trimester).
• corporations (who apparently the Supreme Court deemed to be persons a while back) could be tried as serial murderers for poisoning the environment leading to miscarriages.
• someone who causes an MVC leading to a miscarriage could be tried for manslaughter.
• charges could be upgraded to felony murder if someone committing a felony somehow causes a woman to have a miscarriage.

Obviously this is extreme. It's a thought experiment and one could say none of the above would ever happen. But then again, the last four years has shown me that just about anything can happen.

In full disclosure, I am a staunch pro-lifer. I agree that some/most of what you've listed are logical conclusions of the life begins at conception argument

I could make a list of similar counter points to the pro-choice position. If life doesn't begin at conception, then you're left with arbitrary landmarks to define the beginning of life. But I don't think we're going to solve that here. My point was really just that most honest debates over abortion are about when life begins, as I think we all agree murder is wrong. It's not about trying to control women's bodies or wanting to murder unborn children

 

[culturekweenXx]

In full disclosure, I am a staunch pro-lifer. I agree that some/most of what you've listed are logical conclusions of the life begins at conception argument

I could make a list of similar counter points to the pro-choice position. If life doesn't begin at conception, then you're left with arbitrary landmarks to define the beginning of life. But I don't think we're going to solve that here. My point was really just that most honest debates over abortion are about when life begins, as I think we all agree murder is wrong. It's not about trying to control women's bodies or wanting to murder unborn children

I think the question is more accurately described as when does personhood begin. No one who is medically informed will argue about whether a zygote/blastocyst/fetus is alive, but rather whether that potential human should be afforded the rights that come with personhood as a human child or adult. Whether an abortion is murder depends on whether you view that life as being a person's life. Animals are alive, but killing them (and causing them suffering) is socially acceptable.
I suspect the view that abortion deserves the death penalty would be considered extreme by even many pro-life supporters. Even if they view abortion as wrong, they distinguish it from outright homicide of a child or adult.

 

[Mad Jack]

if life starts at conception, then abortion is a homicide and the people responsible for the abortion are deserving of the legal consequences of homicide

you are free to have your own opinion about when life starts, but this is the logical consequence of defining life as starting at conception

Given that the Supreme Court recognizes the right of women to abortions, zero chance this stands

 

[Lawpy]

Abolish the death penalty immediately.

 

[Lawpy]

if life starts at conception, then abortion is a homicide and the people responsible for the abortion are deserving of the legal consequences of homicide

you are free to have your own opinion about when life starts, but this is the logical consequence of defining life as starting at conception

Who decides if life starts at conception vs birth?

 

[Type2Fiber]

I think the question is more accurately described as when does personhood begin. No one who is medically informed will argue about whether a zygote/blastocyst/fetus is alive, but rather whether that potential human should be afforded the rights that come with personhood as a human child or adult. Whether an abortion is murder depends on whether you view that life as being a person's life. Animals are alive, but killing them (and causing them suffering) is socially acceptable.
I suspect the view that abortion deserves the death penalty would be considered extreme by even many pro-life supporters. Even if they view abortion as wrong, they distinguish it from outright homicide of a child or adult.

I think that the history of debating personhood is a dark one. Life beginning at conception is a clear standard. everything else is an arbitrary line

Abolish the death penalty immediately.

Who decides if life starts at conception vs birth?

the problem with opposing the death penalty is that the worst crimes certainly merit it. imagine the worst crimes possible being committed against your child. i understand the opposition to it, but if my child were the victim I would flip the switch personally if need be. I could be persuaded but thats my take

no one decides when life starts. it is just a fact in the same way we don't decide physiology, we just discover it. I can point to creation of a zygote as the specific moment life starts for all people. setting later markers as the beginning of life is no longer a definitive statement

Given that the Supreme Court recognizes the right of women to abortions, zero chance this stands

you're likely right

 

[Lawpy]

I think that the history of debating personhood is a dark one. Life beginning at conception is a clear standard. everything else is an arbitrary line





the problem with opposing the death penalty is that the worst crimes certainly merit it. imagine the worst crimes possible being committed against your child. i understand the opposition to it, but if my child were the victim I would flip the switch personally if need be. I could be persuaded but thats my take

no one decides when life starts. it is just a fact in the same way we don't decide physiology, we just discover it. I can point to creation of a zygote as the specific moment life starts for all people. setting later markers as the beginning of life is no longer a definitive statement



you're likely right

There's zero justification for death penalty. A lethal injection or electrocution is a joke compared to the worst crimes done by those who deserved it. Also why are we giving criminals a chance to die as opposed to letting them rot in prison for rest of their lives? Death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment, and state sanctioned murder of its own people is something totalitarian and genocidal countries do.

If no one decides when life starts, making and enforcing abortion laws is fundamentally flawed.

 

[odyssey2]

The single and most effective argument against the death penalty for me is the possibility, however remote, of murdering an innocent person. Life in prison at least has the potential for new evidence to come to light to exonerate an innocent person.

 

[Lawpy]

The single and most effective argument against the death penalty for me is the possibility, however remote, of murdering an innocent person. Life in prison at least has the potential for new evidence to come to light to exonerate an innocent person.

Correct, that is the central point. The justice system is flawed and i don't trust the courts to make permanent, irreversible decisions such as death penalty.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

In full disclosure, I am a staunch pro-lifer. I agree that some/most of what you've listed are logical conclusions of the life begins at conception argument

I could make a list of similar counter points to the pro-choice position. If life doesn't begin at conception, then you're left with arbitrary landmarks to define the beginning of life. But I don't think we're going to solve that here. My point was really just that most honest debates over abortion are about when life begins, as I think we all agree murder is wrong. It's not about trying to control women's bodies or wanting to murder unborn children

And you think life beginning at conception isn't an arbitrary landmark?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Who decides if life starts at conception vs birth?

It's a purely spiritual and religious conversation that really has more significance for the lay public who thinks it's a rallying cry. Cells are alive. Their heart when it forms is alive. But we do not award it personhood just because cellular functions are noted.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Arizona Republicans File Bill to Punish Abortion Doctors with the Death Penalty

So much for the sanctity of life.

friendlyatheist.patheos.com

Nothing quite says pro life like the death penalty

There's a law like this like every year in half the states. They always get shot down.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Moving to topics in healthcare. If it goes into the dumpster...well, just keep it out of the dumpster fire.

 

[acstylin]

There's zero justification for death penalty. A lethal injection or electrocution is a joke compared to the worst crimes done by those who deserved it. Also why are we giving criminals a chance to die as opposed to letting them rot in prison for rest of their lives? Death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment, and state sanctioned murder of its own people is something totalitarian and genocidal countries do.

If no one decides when life starts, making and enforcing abortion laws is fundamentally flawed.

I come from a family of prison guards and law enforcement officers. The threat of death protects law enforcement officers. If not, what’s to stop a prisoner with a life sentence from killing prison guards every day? Remember, there are laws that protect prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Crayola227]

As a woman who is quite literally in the middle of a miscarriage with twins, what really is getting my goat is this obsessive exaltation of the common zygote to this vaunted status of human being. Like I'm supposed to feel even worse than I already do about the death of embryos.

It's science and it's Mother Nature, so it's fact when I say they're not people and they're not that special.

When outside forces conspire to rob you of an embryo or a fetus against your will, interfering with one's reproduction, that is a different story and frankly the basis for why that is criminal and a problem is distinct for me from declaring that every embryo has human rights.

The way our society has come to revere zygotes or embryos even above established human rights (who cares if a potential mother and her potential child will have enough to eat?) does nothing but harms women and children.

And it has the side effect of making things worse for women who do want their embryos but lose them anyway because we've elevated the loss beyond what it is. We tell women they've lost a baby.

 

[Crayola227]

In full disclosure, I am a staunch pro-lifer. I agree that some/most of what you've listed are logical conclusions of the life begins at conception argument

I could make a list of similar counter points to the pro-choice position. If life doesn't begin at conception, then you're left with arbitrary landmarks to define the beginning of life. But I don't think we're going to solve that here. My point was really just that most honest debates over abortion are about when life begins, as I think we all agree murder is wrong. It's not about trying to control women's bodies or wanting to murder unborn children

So many people seem to have a hard time even understanding how babies are made, let alone the fact is that the value of an embryo or zygote is in fact more complex than declaring them a human being, and life doesn't just begin at conception. That is awfully simplified.

 

[Crayola227]

Zygote/embryo =/= baby.

The end.

 

[Crayola227]

If I eat a fertilized chicken egg, I did not just kill a chicken or eat a chicken.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Crayola227]

It has less to do with when life begins (bacteria are alive) and more to do with what rights are afforded to the lives in question.

The life of an embryo or fetus does not deserve to have rights above and beyond that of the mother. Those rights don't get to trump her rights for the time period that the thing cannot live without her. Once it can be separated from her and live then it can have rights that are observed even if in conflict with the mother.

Neither does a gut parasite have animal rights that trump my right to eliminate it from my body.

It's not that arbitrary and it does make sense.

 

[sunshinefl]

I think the question is more accurately described as when does personhood begin. No one who is medically informed will argue about whether a zygote/blastocyst/fetus is alive, but rather whether that potential human should be afforded the rights that come with personhood as a human child or adult. Whether an abortion is murder depends on whether you view that life as being a person's life. Animals are alive, but killing them (and causing them suffering) is socially acceptable.
I suspect the view that abortion deserves the death penalty would be considered extreme by even many pro-life supporters. Even if they view abortion as wrong, they distinguish it from outright homicide of a child or adult.

I find the murder of a fetus, animal, or a person via death penalty all to be wrong. And no, I don't think there's a difference between murdering a fetus and murdering a child. I view them both as "outright homicide". That is why "pro-choicers" fail to understand the intense outrage against abortion. Because you fail to see that if I literally view it as murder, then imagine being told to just accept that murder is a choice.

PS I am not religious at all and my views are ethically based.

 

[Crayola227]

I find the murder of a fetus, animal, or a person via death penalty all to be wrong. And no, I don't think there's a difference between murdering a fetus and murdering a child. I view them both as "outright homicide". That is why "pro-choicers" fail to understand the intense outrage against abortion. Because you fail to see that if I literally view it as murder, then imagine being told to just accept that it murder is a choice.

PS I am not religious at all and my views are ethically based.

So why are you not including plants, bacteria, or fungi?

Where do you stand on viruses being alive? I mean, they don't make the cut because of how we *scientifically define life.*

 

[Crayola227]

What about parasites? Insects?

 

[sunshinefl]

As a woman who is quite literally in the middle of a miscarriage with twins, what really is getting my goat is this obsessive exaltation of the common zygote to this vaunted status of human being. Like I'm supposed to feel even worse than I already do about the death of embryos.

It's science and it's Mother Nature, so it's fact when I say they're not people and they're not that special.

When outside forces conspire to rob you of an embryo or a fetus against your will, interfering with one's reproduction, that is a different story and frankly the basis for why that is criminal and a problem is distinct for me from declaring that every embryo has human rights.

The way our society has come to revere zygotes or embryos even above established human rights (who cares if a potential mother and her potential child will have enough to eat?) does nothing but harms women and children.

And it has the side effect of making things worse for women who do want their embryos but lose them anyway because we've elevated the loss beyond what it is. We tell women they've lost a baby.

I am truly sorry for what you are going through. Only you can define what status they did or didn't hold to you.

 

[sunshinefl]

So why are you not including plants, bacteria, or fungi?

Where do you stand on viruses being alive? I mean, they don't make the cut because of how we *scientifically define life.*

What about parasites? Insects?

I'm not for anything arbitrarily dying. Or for any avoidable suffering. However, if a situation means the death of 1 life or another, the higher life form should be prioritized. This is why I do think medically indicated abortions are okay if to prevent suffering of a non-viable fetus, or loss of life to the mother, or loss of life to the mother and fetus, etc.

 

[Crayola227]

Only honey is an ethical food source because nothing alive is murdered to bring you that honey.

Except for the ruthless exploitation of bees' labor, the oppressive slavery. Domestically kept bees suffer disease. And the bee colonies effectively murder the male drones when they ostracise them from the colony.

 

[sunshinefl]

Only honey is an ethical food source because nothing alive is murdered to bring you that honey.

Except for the ruthless exploitation of bees' labor, the oppressive slavery. Domestically kept bees suffer disease. And the bee colonies effectively murder the male drones when they ostracise them from the colony.

you probably did not see my last post before writing this. Lower life forms as food is necessary to sustain higher life forms. I am 100% vegetarian and part-time vegan. I do the best I can.

 

[Crayola227]

I'm not for anything arbitrarily dying. Or for any avoidable suffering. However, if a situation means the death of 1 life or another, the higher life form should be prioritized. This is why I do think medically indicated abortions are okay if to prevent suffering of a non-viable fetus, or loss of life to the mother, or loss of life to the mother and fetus, etc.

I guess then it depends if you think the fetus is on the same level as the adult human woman.

What about rape? Am I not being parasitized in this scenario?

Any woman being made to have an unwanted embryo inside her is being made to risk her life and limb and die.

I get not wanting the embryo to die, but I find it hard to say that a woman should have to continue to host it at significant risk to her own life and health. And I've seen how any normal pregnancy can go 0 to dead very quickly.

 

[Crayola227]

I'm not going to tell anyone that isn't interested in causing an embryo to die, to be a part of that.

The issue is when you want to prevent others from removing their embryos from their bodies. Embryos die everyday for a lot of reasons. Some we can't control and some we can.

No one has any business preventing a woman from ridding herself of an embryo anymore than they do from her ridding herself of tapeworms.

The fact that in the case of one if she risks her life and limb and 6 months later it *might* be a human being, to me is not an argument to put its life above hers.

 

[sunshinefl]

I guess then it depends if you think the fetus is on the same level as the adult human woman.

no a fetus is not on the same level as an adult human woman.

What about rape? Am I not being parasitized in this scenario?

I personally feel that murdering the fetus produced by rape just creates a second victim-perpetrator scenario.

Any woman being made to have an unwanted embryo inside her is being made to risk her life and limb and die.

I don't know about the "making" part. I don't agree with these lawmakers from the OP, I just was responding to the ethics. I would just hope that each woman in this situation would more thoughtfully consider the fetus along with the risks and demands to her when making a decision.

I get not wanting the embryo to die, but I find it hard to say that a woman should have to continue to host it at significant risk to her own life and health. And I've seen how any normal pregnancy can go 0 to dead very quickly.

I recognize that there is a maternal safety risk in any pregnancy.

 

[Crayola227]

If I abort an embryo from rape, in a way I am committing an act of self defense. If in mid-rape I killed my rapist, that would be self-defense. When someone rapes you, you have no way of knowing if they will kill you, as they are already in the midst of bodily harming you, you have reason to fear how far they might go.

Both cases I am looking to protect my life.

I think for ethical reasons every man AND women has an ethical obligation to try to prevent unwanted conceptions so as to avoid needlessly killing embryos. But unwanted embryos happen anyway.

I've considered this very strongly because I'm trying to have a baby. It is like joining the military or something. Don't do it unless you are prepared to die, give your life away, lose any number of body parts or aspects of your health.

 

[sunshinefl]

If I abort an embryo from rape, in a way I am committing an act of self defense. If in mid-rape I killed my rapist, that would be self-defense. When someone rapes you, you have no way of knowing if they will kill you, as they are already in the midst of bodily harming you, you have reason to fear how far they might go.

Both cases I am looking to protect my life.

I think for ethical reasons every man AND women has an ethical obligation to try to prevent unwanted conceptions so as to avoid needlessly killing embryos. But unwanted embryos happen anyway.

I've considered this very strongly because I'm trying to have a baby. It is like joining the military or something. Don't do it unless you are prepared to die, give your life away, lose any number of body parts or aspects of your health.

yes I understand the self-defense viewpoint. I believe in the right to self preservation even if you are threatened by a same-level life form. I can even understand if some may view abortion after rape to be self-defense. I just think that I would wish that the person in that scenario really thought about the gravity of the action they are taking, and the true risk assessment. If someone breaks into my house with a gun and I shoot them in self-defense is different than if someone knocks on my door and I shoot them in self-defense. If someone is raped and impregnated, and has uncontrolled diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, a history of peri-partum cardiomyopathy, and the baby has NTDs, then I think that abortion can be very well justified ethically. There are variable levels of justification prior to this extreme.

 

[Crayola227]

yes I understand the self-defense viewpoint. I believe in the right to self preservation even if you are threatened by a same-level life form. I can even understand if some may view abortion after rape to be self-defense. I just think that I would wish that the person in that scenario really thought about the gravity of the action they are taking, and the true risk assessment. If someone breaks into my house with a gun and I shoot them in self-defense is different than if someone knocks on my door and I shoot them in self-defense. If someone is raped and impregnated, and has uncontrolled diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, a history of peri-partum cardiomyopathy, and the baby has NTDs, then I think that abortion can be very well justified ethically. There are variable levels of justification prior to this extreme.

To be fair, it sickens me how sloppy people can be about birth control and how casual about abortion. Not decisions to be made lightly.

 

[Lawpy]

I come from a family of prison guards and law enforcement officers. The threat of death protects law enforcement officers. If not, what’s to stop a prisoner with a life sentence from killing prison guards every day? Remember, there are laws that protect prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.

No, the death penalty is a terrible deterrent. Also prison guards aren't always good. How could you tell between self defense vs intentional murder? What if the criminal wanting to kill prison guards wants to die?

 

[Lawpy]

I find the murder of a fetus, animal, or a person via death penalty all to be wrong. And no, I don't think there's a difference between murdering a fetus and murdering a child. I view them both as "outright homicide". That is why "pro-choicers" fail to understand the intense outrage against abortion. Because you fail to see that if I literally view it as murder, then imagine being told to just accept that murder is a choice.

PS I am not religious at all and my views are ethically based.

You can feel that way, but you don't have the right to force others to feel the same way nor can you force people to be punished for not following your ideals. That's why anti abortion laws are fundamentally wrong and authoritarian.

 

[Lawpy]

This isn't hard to understand. Killing a person is objectively viewed to be murder because a person has personhood that's understood universally. Criminals don't lose their personhood, so the death penalty = state sanctioned murder = morally wrong = needs to be abolished.

If anything, there's a growing consensus that the fetus is not a person and abortion is not a murder. Even curiously, a significant fraction of those who think a fetus is a person can justify abortion not being a murder.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion

spot.colorado.edu

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

No, the death penalty is a terrible deterrent. Also prison guards aren't always good. How could you tell between self defense vs intentional murder? What if the criminal wanting to kill prison guards wants to die?

These are terrible arguments. Your first sentence is correct though. I also come from a family of law enforcement, and the death penalty generally does not work as a deterrent.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

If I eat a fertilized chicken egg, I did not just kill a chicken or eat a chicken.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Your condescension in this thread is not helping your argument. I’m sorry for what you’re going through, but people who disagree with you are not stupid just because they believe something different than you.

 

[curbsideconsult]

Your condescension in this thread is not helping your argument. I’m sorry for what you’re going through, but people who disagree with you are not stupid just because they believe something different than you.

TBF, they didn't say the poster per se was stupid.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

TBF, they didn't say the poster per se was stupid.

Doesn’t matter. Her whole attitude in this thread is that anyone who disagrees with her is objectively wrong and making stupid arguments. An argument isn’t stupid or invalid solely because you don’t like it.

 

[Mad Jack]

I think that the history of debating personhood is a dark one. Life beginning at conception is a clear standard. everything else is an arbitrary line





the problem with opposing the death penalty is that the worst crimes certainly merit it. imagine the worst crimes possible being committed against your child. i understand the opposition to it, but if my child were the victim I would flip the switch personally if need be. I could be persuaded but thats my take

no one decides when life starts. it is just a fact in the same way we don't decide physiology, we just discover it. I can point to creation of a zygote as the specific moment life starts for all people. setting later markers as the beginning of life is no longer a definitive statement



you're likely right

I really feel like the death penalty isn't the best option. They should be imprisoned for life on a well-secured island outside of US jurisdiction where they must fend for themselves against one another, old school exile.

 

[Lawpy]

These are terrible arguments. Your first sentence is correct though. I also come from a family of law enforcement, and the death penalty generally does not work as a deterrent.

The first sentence was the point but i was also loosely trying to show prison guards aren't always good

 

[Lawpy]

I really feel like the death penalty isn't the best option. They should be imprisoned for life on a well-secured island outside of US jurisdiction where they must fend for themselves against one another, old school exile.

The death penalty has absolutely zero justification for any reason. At least abortion can be argued against based on personhood but criminals don't lose personhood even after committing crimes.

 

[Lawpy]

Also if death penalty supporters want revenge, freeing the criminal and then murdering them extrajudicially is far cheaper and satisfies the revenge desire far more than the chair/lethal injection

 

[curbsideconsult]

I'm pro-choice, but I can at least understand the stance of pro-lifers as they truly believe life begins at conception. From that standpoint, yes, I would also think abortion is homicide. What I can never wrap my head around, however, is being against abortions in ALL cases. For example, if a woman became pregnant through rape, why shouldn't she be allowed to choose whether to continue that pregnancy? Why is she, a person who is already here in front of you and has lived a life, less important than the one that has yet to be? Why is she reduced to basically an incubator? Conversely, if this same woman wanted to carry the pregnancy through, then that's her prerogative. In neither case should the woman be judged or forced to do something she doesn't want to do. This is why I'm pro-CHOICE.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm pro-choice, but I can at least understand the stance of pro-lifers as they truly believe life begins at conception. From that standpoint, yes, I would also think abortion is homicide. What I can never wrap my head around, however, is being against abortions in ALL cases. For example, if a woman became pregnant through rape, why shouldn't she be allowed to choose whether to continue that pregnancy? Why is she, a person who is already here in front of you and has lived a life, less important than the one that has yet to be? Why is she reduced to basically an incubator? Conversely, if this same woman wanted to carry the pregnancy through, then that's her prerogative. In neither case should the woman be judged or forced to do something she doesn't want to do. This is why I'm pro-CHOICE.

It doesn't matter what pro lifers think. They just shouldn't force others to agree what they think and punish those who refuses to agree. Abortion bans are fundamentally authoritarian