Pro-Life supporters:How do you reconcile overpopulation, climate change and reproductive rights?

[shmogie]

Killing someone because they are stealing a TV ? Where did I say that ? The use of deadly force is justified only when someone faces imminent threat to their life, or others. So your construct is fallacious.

Anyone who chooses to break the law chooses consequences. I do not feel there should be any consequences from the law for the mother. The illegal abortionist should go to prison.

The pregnant person? Newspeak? Aren´t women the only humans who can get pregnant ?

Of course I care about about illegal abortions, thatś why a guaranteed prison sentence for the abortionist is required, a word you rarely use, deterrence is the result.

Any woman who has missed the first trimester window for an abortion should have every support in getting her unwanted baby adopted.

Harm reduction is akin to risk reduction. Risks/harm can be reasonably ameliorated, yet they can never be eliminated. Especially when the law is involved. Work places are inspected for safety hazards, and violations of the safety standards are punished, yet the next day someone could die from an accident. Ships are inspected , yet they sink.

The whole reason for the criminal law is to prevent harm, but it doesn't. It reduces harm.

We all are accountable for our own choices. We all make choices that harm us, yet we cannot blame anyone else for our poor choices. The more at stake in the choice the assumption is that the seriousness and potential harm are weighed, and strongly considered in a decision.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

A warmer earth expands the land for farming, both north and south, and also adds more water to the atmosphere. More water in the atmosphere means more rain and more fresh water, for crops and drinking water.

You do realize a warmer earth means polar ice caps melt which means higher sea levels which means certain areas may go under water which means a shift in infrastructure.