[GovernmentShrinker]

Anti-war extremists take the same view of "collateral damage" which kills innocent civilians.

[Pessimist]

I was looking for a way to say that too, but I don't have my flame suit handy.

[presidio9]

Robin Ringletta-Kottkin, who grew up in a strict Catholic household with anti-abortion beliefs, had to ultimately choose to have the procedure after an adoption agency informed her that they would not accept a bi-racial baby, since the father of the child was black. While still in college and with no way to care for and support the child, it was then that she realized society had valued some children over others

Nope, no holes in this story.

[RexBeach]

Not the same. Not the same at all. Abortion targets one very specific life, and there is no possible escape for that life.

[Notwithstanding]

The two are not analogous.

The only intent of an abortion is to kill an innocent child.

But death of innocents due to collateral damage in war is NOT intended and often does not occur. The intentional act to kill an enemy during a just war is justified. The unitended collateral damage that may occur is not the same as directly killing a baby on purpose.

[Mr. Silverback]

Anti-war extremists take the same view of "collateral damage" which kills innocent civilians.

No flame suit necessary. Two answers:

1. Strangely those anti-war nuts never seem to have the same feeling about the 100-250 million people killed by leftist regimes during the last century.

2. When those folks find me a war fought by Americans where the collateral damage is 43 million civilians and the rallying cause is "the freedom to have sex with men you wouldn't want to have a child wit" then I will agree with their assessment.