But the Dems are the White Knights right? *WINK*

And they don’t even do that.

“The unborn” (but really, the mother) still needs healthcare. Routine prenatal visits alone can cost in the thousands of dollars, and that’s assuming nothing goes wrong. (To say nothing of the labor & delivery hospital visit.)

Guess who isn’t paying?

Matter of fact: how about some prenatal paid time off for “the unborn” too? Why don’t we do three months, so that the mom-to-be can use her last trimester to get the nursery ready, stay on top of exercise and eating healthy, and just enjoy life?

No?

Is three months too much? How about just one month?

Still no?

How about a couple weeks? (Since toward the end of pregnancy, the baby can come at a moment’s notice, and it would be nice to at least not be at work when your water breaks?)

Still nah?

One would think, IF those costs affect them in a meaningful way, but they don't.

Ad hominem?

Is it?

If you are changing the topic of conversation from whether or not abortion is morally justified to questioning prolife peoples motives and calling them virtue signaling hypocrites, then it feels like an ad hominem.

Is virtue signaling not a motive?

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough - this is not the case here. The "ad hominem" in question is a conclusion of a formed thesis found within the text of the meme. All points of which, are factual statements. Not so much as personally factual, but so far that yes, this speculation is a plausible theory to the politics behind the pro-life crowd. Thus, invalidating the accusation of ad hominem by appeal to motive.

It is plausible that prolifers “actually dislike people who breath?”

Sure. As much as anyone could dislike people as a community. If anything, this is not an ad hominem but rather an appeal to extremes based on the notion that no legislation has been implemented to better fortify our child services to ensure a better quality of life for our young. Or, our carrying mothers.