Your consistency?

I bet they'd argue that the cells are alive, but not bat an eye at removing a tumor.

I do know Catholics who are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia; they strongly believe God should decide the beginning and end of anyone's life.

Not saying they are right but they are consistent.

I'm anti-abortion for myself, never had one never thought it was an ok thing. But I don't think laws should apply at all - the existing woman always matters more than the as yet unborn and I've met exactly one person ever who used abortion freely and as her birth control and she was crazy. It's such an edge case law is not the right answer.

So in short I agree with if you don't think it's right don't do it. Don't try to control other people who aren't harming you. You don't walk in anyone else's shoes, you don't know their pain. If your friend is having an abortion when she wants the baby, but can't figure out how to manage tell her how you can HELP her, don't judge her.

It's not the gotcha you think it is. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent person, and the death penalty and war don't don't intentionally involve innocent people.

It'd be like saying "oh, you oppose murder? What about self defence???"

Because I would like you to be successful in debating this issue, I need to inform you:

That's not a very good response. It will convince literally no one. It won't be convincing to the person you're debating. It won't be convincing to people who are observing the argument. It changes absolutely nothing.

The only effective replies are the ones that force people to think deeply:

• What makes this wrong, specifically?

and then, ask them to explain even more deeply every time they respond. e.g., "killing an innocent person is wrong."

• What makes something innocent? What makes something a person?

If you can get them to at least admit that it's a gray area, you've won.

It's not murder when the men with money do it.

Which is whataboutism - it is a legitimate argument.