I am neither Catholic nor pro-life, but if you see abortion as murder (as many do) it makes sense to be morally outraged by anyone's murder, not just their own.

I don't even know you, but I am against the idea of anyone murdering you. See how that works?

Okay, but if you, specifically outlaw murdering me, this will surely draw attention at my person and might harm me.

You might be outraged, but you should only be confined to measures that 1) are proven to work, and 2) can be enforced consistently.

It looks like a law against abortion does not usually work: abortion is illegal in africa but they do much more abortions per one person than in europe where it is generally okay. So if you really care you should take good parts from what europe is doing and work on that. But if you are religious, you take pride in acting irrationally but faithfully, and you will jail people up, spread unsafe illegal abortions and hurt the bottom line (no of abortions per person in your country). You know, Jesus died so you can do all of that and still feel saved.

Those positions aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of pro-life people who work on the demand side of the abortion scenario, it's not all clinic bombers, even though they are the most newsworthy.

I have nothing against people who oppose abortion by helping people.

I have everything against people who oppose abortion by trying to send people to prison, as if it helped.

Organized religions fall in the latter bucket.

You are painting in such broad strokes here that you don't really seem to be contributing anything reasonable. You do realize this, right?

I don't know where you get this notion of not "helping poor raise their children". Even if accurate, you haven't explained why that's good or bad. What's the "good stuff"?

If you want to go bandy about how awful Big Jesus is, you really need to have more thorough rhetoric.

If you dislike S(omething) (e.g. abortions) you can go two ways. First, you can help people avoid S. You can argue against S. You can support people who rejected S. You can give prizes to people who skip S.

Second, you can violate whatever social conventions there were and make S illegal. This means more people in jails, this means pain, doubt, suffer. This does NOT guarantee any reduction of S, however.

Religious organizations chose the latter, so they are like dead to me now. And they should be for you, to. "Christanity. Making your laws worse since 33 AD"

So murder, for example, should be legal because making something illegal - simply because the current moral norm is against it - is wrong?

If legalising murder somehow leads to consistently lower murder rates, it should be done.

Why the hell not? The main idea is keeping people alive and well. The main idea is NOT the persecution for crimes. That's a tool of limited usability.

Are you claiming that it's a fact that legalisation of child pornography reduces instances of children being exploited to produce pornography?

If not then I'm afraid I don't see how your comment is relevant to your universal claim in the previous comment in this thread? You never mentioned these conditions along with your previous requirement not to limit was is against the moral norm by use of legal statute.

I am claiming that calling 16 years old taking shots of themselves "producing and distributing child pornography" does not help any children.

I could not care less about actual child pornography being illegal. Do whatever pleases you. Just take your dirty hands off teenagers.

Naughty troll, back to your hole.

I hope you find something productive to do with your time.

I genuinely care about people being wrongfully accused. Does it shock you?

So you think that because some people are falsely accused - that the law is fallible - that it should be absolutely allowed for children to be exploited for the sake of others sexual titillation; give me a break.