You are entirely out of line. I was 14 years old during the time republican appointed justices rendered the majority verdict in Roe v Wade.
No one within this thread has applauded it’s legalization, advocated for it, or has suggested they are pro-choice.
What has been discussed is government role, partisan political talking points, subjective root causes and Roe v Wade.
But no one has stated they are pro-choice. No one.
Okay, so let’s assume that by “no one” you mean including yourself.
Suppose that owing to some bizarre warp in the moral landscape, murder had been made permissible by the judicial fiat of a mostly Republican Supreme Court, and under certain conditions was allowed by law.
Those conditions, let’s say, included – among others – placed at risk of being seriously deprived of one’s livelihood or under threat of being seriously incapacitated by one’s supposed malefactor. Not that they had actually done or threatened anything – because that might be considered in self-defense – but merely because it was possible or conceivable that they might.
Would you advocate for keeping such a law under the pretext that you are “pro-life” and having that avenue for assuring one’s own well-being or livelihood meant lives would be protected?
And yet, you stated that a right to life “… resides on the individual and a morally guided conscience best supported by those who believe that life is from conception to natural death.” Why not apply that standard to all cases of killing, and leave all killing of any and all human beings, not up to the courts or the law, but up to individuals and their “morally guided consciences?”
That would be consistent of you, would it not?
Why treat a human fetus any different from all other human beings? Why should all other forms of human being qualify for protection under the law, but fetuses not? Why is their fate alone left up to the vagaries of human conscience, under the rubric of pushing for a pro-life society, but other human beings are not left so vulnerable to your hopes for a properly moral reformation of society? Why are fetuses alone dispensable until that perfect state becomes a reality? Why not place all humans in the reed basket of jeopardy so that we all share in the risks associated with your quest for a pro-life utopia?
Yet, if a fetus is a human being from conception, then why would they not be treated just as any other human being under the law? Why does a threat to livelihood or the possible economic burden on a mother or parents mitigate the right to life of just one iteration of human being – the human fetus – while all others are afforded proper legal protection?
It just seems a very odd proposition coming from someone who claims to be pro- the lives of all human beings equally, to leave only one form of human life in such peril.
You got some ‘splainin’ to do.
