No I mentioned the republican position of getting people killed. And I wouldn't say EJ supports it, but they sure are accepting lies about it at face value, ignoring the wild amounts of contradictory evidence against it. Which is why I made that analogy about Hitler. We can all agree that Hitler said he was doing the right thing, but clearly wasn't. We can do this because we can detect hypocrisy and call people liars.
Let me make this more clear to the analogy:
"You are playing a game of monopoly. Your opponent is cheating. If you lose, someone is going to die. If you win, your opponent says someone is going to die and that is why they are cheating, but as they are saying so, they shoot someone in the chest. Therefore cheating in the same way is good even though it's a "wrong". In fact, you are morally obligated to cheat. Not cheating would be the wrong thing to do." (and for those who want to try and force the analogy as "both sides" again, the analogy emphasizes how one side has unverified "beliefs" and is a hypocrite about them, and one side sees people actually dying in front of them)
EJ seems to be arguing that because someone could hold the position that abortion is murder, they can justify breaking the rules because to them they care about saving lives. I'm pointing out that they don't actually care about saving lives because they actively do things that kill people. EJ then ignores what I say and repeats themselves. At this point, I would say you are putting words in their mouth, hector13. I want to see what EJ has to say about the paragraphs they ignored.