On Abortion in FB

Just because a person is not advocating for criminalization and juridical punishment does not mean one is 'pro choice.' Take Pope Francis for example: he spends no time urging states to place criminal laws on the books and urging prosecution. Yet he has not changed one word of Catholic doctrine where abortion is a mortal sin resulting in instant excommunication. Francis has urged changing none of that. What he has done is permanently deputized all priests to hear confession/sacrament of reconciliation concerning abortion and given them in perpetuity the power to absolve this particular mortal sin. The process before required the person confessing to go through a Bishop and Bishops could deputize priests to hear confession. In short, Francis wants to change the culture of pro life to make it more compassionate and welcoming to those who commit grave error. He is not changing doctrine and the Church will not lie or tell comforting lies: abortion is, always has been, and always will be a grave mortal sin - where there is abortion there is no God. So Francis is not lying or countenancing lying. But he is trying to change hearts and minds and trying to save and compassionately help and minister to those who on the battlefield of life grievously screw up. Francis is pro life. The woman above, from a feminist perspective, is in my opinion doing something similar. So unless one reduces 'pro life' to those who zealously urge criminalization and prosecution as the means to ridding the world of abortion, she is pro life. Jimmy Carter takes a similar pro life stance.
The Democrat Party is essentially trying to purge itself of these kinds of people. See platform change summer of 2016 to include repeal of Hyde Amendment barring federal tax dollars being used to fund abortion. The Democrats (officially) and the organizers of the women's march are for cultural normalization and reconceptualuzation of abortion as 'reproductive health'; as a purely medical decision. They are for denuding abortion of its grim maximally morally ambiguous existential character so people do not feel bad about it. The woman above and Francis and Jimmy Carter are anathema to that position and actively oppose that goal. Jimmy Carter is the classic pro life Democrat. The woman above is like that. Except she is spending great time trying to get people to see how wrong they are. I do not believe Jimmy Carter spends much time on the issue. Both fall outside the ridiculously fallacious equation being
suggested as binding in an A equals B equals C kind of way: egalitarianism equals feminism equals support for feticide. Carter is maximally egalitarian and pro life. It appears the woman above is so too. She, like Carter, like Francis, thinks abortion is absolutely and gravely wrong and the wrong choice; not just for herself, but for anyone. That is the core of pro life. How and whether and when to use the penological system is not the decisive factor.
irst, purely elective abortion is legal through week 24, although after week 18 it is difficult to find a doctor willing to do it. Most take Pascal's Wager and morally tap out at that point. Second - you are substantively wrong. At six weeks the heart is beating; at nine weeks all four chambers can be explored. And our technology is allowing us to peer with ever increasing detail further and further back into pregnancy and we are learning that so much more is happening from word go at conception. People of course now regularly post 4d ultrasounds way in utero as first portraits. That trend will increase and go even further back as we 'build ever better microscopes.' We spend millions now subsidizing extreme preemies surviving and thriving even and within the Roe timeframe of elective abortion. We just learned a few weeks ago that eggs actually exact agency in 'choosing' which sperm penetrates. It takes massive amounts of intellectual obfuscication designed to avoid a self evident moral logic that anyone can grasp that your's and my journey began at conception. The science is increasingly backing the moral logic of pro life.
We also now have vitamins with tiny little speck ingredients that build better eyes and brains for babies. We morally abhor in utero bathing of a child in cocaine or bath salts and I assume if a cult started where 'bodily autonomous' women wanted to have the left arms of fetuses removed as religious sacrifice we would find that even more morally odious than bathing the child in an alcohol and heroin cocktail. But why? If one can kill/terminate under the autonomy/no autonomy dichotomy projected, why not under the logic of lesser included subsumption could one not do these lesser things? Because we recognize it as a human being. Likewise with attempt made to square the circle and punish those who stab and injure or kill an in utero child through attack on the person of the mother. There is no getting around it, as grimly and often unknowingly and unthinkingly complicit as we all have been and have become: the science is moving rapidly in the direction of the moral high ground held by pro life.