The pro-life viewpoint considers pro-choice views to be advocating violence in the most direct way possible ("murdering babies"). That's the fundamental problem: there is a huge subjective grey area.

ok... you can chose to not take a stance on grey areas and act on clear cut cases.

I am pretty sure that's the _intended_ Facebook stance, and the disagreement comes over what's a "grey area" and what's clear cut -- which is what makes it a grey area to begin with.

I don't see how the tweets twitter added an annotation to could be seen as grey area.

> "ok... you can chose to not take a stance on grey areas and act on clear cut cases."

Eating meat is considered unethical by many and the fact that animals are often treated poorly by factory farming is not deniable. That's pretty clear cut. What ruling would you make?

Yet my meat comes from sustainable near-wild farms that enhance the environ, not a factory farm. Should I have to listen to some loud vegan breathlessly proclaim all omnivores to be vile and lacking in ethics? Everything is a damned grey area.

But from the view of the pro-life CEO, abortion is violence against an innocent baby, thus any pro-choice post was advocating violence.

That's a self contradictory statement.