> Ethics are pretty universal

Anyone who has taken a basic philosophy or ethics class or read more than the summary page of their history books knows this is not even remotely true

Counterpoint: But surely you must not understand my ethics.

Well said. Journalists also don’t have to give equal weight to the other side when the other side are whackadoodles

Unfortunately both sides seem to think this of the other side equally.

Which doesn’t matter in the slightest. What’s our best understanding of what’s objectively true? That one side is actually stupid, insane, or evil.

I at least, am out of patience for sophistry as if this is just a normal and innocent difference of perspective.

> There is no neutrality in the face of evil.

You are either with us, or against us.

"There is no neutrality in the face of evil"

This is said by both sides, it is equally stupid every time.

If ethics are pretty universal, how is it that one party wants no abortions at all and thinks any abortion that isn't absolutely medically necessary is evil and the other party wants abortions right up until viable birth and thinks that anything less than that is evil?

Especially when considering that most of the world is somewhere in between, where abortions are legal for a few weeks and then illegal unless absolutely necessary.

One party wants to end _all_ abortions, _including_ those that might be medically necessary. They are pro-forced-birth, and pro-killing-women.

You’ve got the position of the other party wrong as well, but I’m not going to even bother correcting that because if you don’t find the above completely vile there’s no helping you.

You were demonstrably wrong three times in your comment, misrepresenting the reality of both sides of the argument and the prevailing opinion of humanity. The fact that one side doesn’t have the tools to confidently reach that conclusion is the problem.