Defense of Truth

It's just not that hard, folks.  Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living.  And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day.  I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights.  So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument

 A thoughtful leftist friend of mine posted a series of "rebuttals" from a Progressive website called "So Informed" to their own caricature of Conservative talking points on recent current events.  It's worth thinking through each of them in turn, especially since I haven't posted in a long stretch, as a way to engage with the current state of our national culture's slide into centralized authoritarianism.  This friend gets full points for speaking her mind, engaging with compassion, and standing up for what she believes.  My concern here is to correct improper frames for debates, inaccurate and/or beside-the-point facts, and logical fallacies.  All of this is centered on the ideas in question, not impugning the motives of the holders of such ideas.  It's done in the spirit of believing in the other's freedom and intelligence strongly enough to offer sincere chances for them to change their mind.  The ideas themselves, however, come from somewher