@Proud Christian Socialist
Nonsense right back at you. I'm a biologist and my boyfriend a theologist specializing in moral theology (including life ethics). We are both Christians. And while we do have somewhat conflicting points of view on this topic we both agree that it is not as simple as "if you are a consistent life ethicist, then you must be against choice."
Look, I don't even know why you react like that. I wasn't taking issue with the fact that you have this opinion, I was taking issue with you implying multiple times (and now again) that your opinion is the only "right" choice, that everyone else is purely wrong. You have no proof for that and actually you can't possibly have proof for it besides your own beliefs, which don't matter to anyone not following your specific religious and philosophical argumentation.
Here a few sentences I take issue with:
"A human being is a human being from conception to death, religion or no religion."
- Exactly the kind of absolute statement I was talking about. This is your opinion, not a definitive proven fact. It simplifies a difficult philosophical question to: "It is so because I said so." Perhaps you could instead say something like "In my opinion a human being...", leaving out the "religion or no religion"-part, which would sound much more interested in actually acknowledging different opinions. Perhaps you could also give us your arguments for that, so that we may examine them. Mind you, you don't have to agree with differing opinions from yours, no one is asking you to do that, but unless you have any kind of definitive proof that your opinion is definitely the right one you should not state it like it is.
"Direct abortion (as opposed to dealing with medical emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies) is always wrong."
- Again, an absolute sentence. You declare yourself a "consistent life ethicist", but you simply ignore the life and rights of the mother herself. What if she was raped? Forcing her to carry out the child then could very well destroy her life. Why is unborn, potential life worth more than the already established life of the mother? That's just an example, but it shows that just stating things like this as absolute truths is leading us nowhere in finding a solution to this difficult problem.
The problem is that "pro-lifers" have to argue that one single cell is already a human, which is pretty ridiculous, so instead they argue with the "potential" of a human being developing from conception onward. That though is not nearly always the case. Most of the time they fail to embed themselves in the uterus and are flushed out. This also leads to other hilarious points: Since potential human life is so important, then masturbation or casual sex are evil just because all the sperm that could lead to human babies developing is wasted. Same goes for women who don't get pregnant while they can, wasting precious egg cells which have the potential to become humans. "Conception" is a very arbitrary point to declare as "the point at which a human being begins to exist" is what I'm saying. I could declare the point in which it embeds into the uterus (a bit more logical, since at this point pregnancy actually starts, but that's up to three weeks after conception), the development of the nervous system, the actual development of human features etc. THE starting point. And it would all be just as arbitrary. Not to mention that the life of the mother (and yes, that isn't just important when she is in mortal danger) has to be considered as well. And that's why this discussion is not easy and anyone declaring that people who are pro-choice to some extent "kill babies" (as the OP has stated) are definitely fundies who instead of arguing for their case and accepting a compromise (look up our german abortion laws for a relatively sensible compromise in my opinion) use cheap propaganda and blood libel to further their agenda.
tl,dr: This is a complicated issue that has no clear cut resolution (that isn't depending on dogmatic beliefs). Talking only in absolutes and stating that everyone else should just accept your opinion as truth (and would if only they were smart enough/not evil/not inconsistent) without using actual arguments and listening to counterarguments IS a sign of a fundamentalist mindset, no matter which side you are on. In the end I fear that there is no way around a compromise. Just be a little less condescending and show more interest in debating your views and no one will call you a fundamentalist anymore, even if you keep your opinions on the subject.
Oh and if you are so strict in your pro-life philosophy (which actually is commendable to a degree, life is precious, I agree with you on that), then I don't understand why you are on the fence in regards to death penalty and just wars. At least the death penalty can't possibly be argued for in such a strict pro-life system and taking lifes for a "just cause" would be very much leading back to the priority problem (if a war can be just, why can't an abortion be just as well? To save the mothers life from turning into a living nightmare for example?).
