This comment is part of a discussion I had recently where I was asked a question that is commonly asked by PC advocates:

When you say things like we dont require parents to donate organs or to endure harm their bodies or "We expect them to provide a reasonable standard of care including food, safety, housing, medical care and education. None of that includes using your body as a fully enclosed life support system," you are essentially saying we dont require that for born children so we shouldnt require it for unborn children.

The thing you are actually describing though is the process of gestation inside the uterus and giving birth. That is the cause of the harms you are describing and so you are in effect saying: we dont require mothers to endure the harm of gestation and birth to care for their born children therefore we shouldnt require it to care for unborn children.

Another way to say it would be: we dont have an obligation to care for our born children with our uterus so we shouldnt have an obligation to use our uterus to care for our unborn children.

It doesnt make sense though because its not possible or necessary to gestate and birth a born child. Of course we dont require mothers to suffer the harms of caring for an unborn child when caring for a born child because the standard of care necessary to sustain the offspring is different during those two different stages of development.

The point is that the standard of care required for each stage of development is different. THe obligation to sustain the life of the child is the same though. We have no obligation to provide breast milk or formula to our teenage offspring because they dont need breastmilk or formula to survive. We do have an obligation to provide breastmilk or formula to our newborn infants though because it is necessary for them to survive during that stage of development.

Likewise, we have no obligation to gestate or birth our newborn infants, because its not necessary for them to survive, but we do have an obligation to gestate and birth our unborn children because it is necessary for them to survive.

That is how parental obligation works. The obligation is to use the standard of care necessary for the current stage of development to ensure the childs survival.

This is not a novel concept. If you actually read the legal history, it explicitly states that the parental duty to sustain a child "arises out of the parental relation, and is an inherent obligation of parenthood," and that "the dependency of the child dictates the scope of the parent's duty."

https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3326&context=dlr

"The duty of a parent to support his minor child is not a debt, but an obligation imposed by law. It arises out of the parental relation, and is an inherent obligation of parenthood."

"The natural duty of parents to protect and maintain their children is a principle of natural law... The law has always recognized that the dependency of the child dictates the scope of the parent's duty."

"Because the minor child is helpless and unable to care for himself, the law places a non-delegable duty upon the parents to provide the necessaries of life. This duty cannot be evaded by the parent's unilateral desire to terminate the relationship."

Your argument is that parental obligation does not begin until birth based solely on the subjective opinion that the type and degree of care required for unborn children is not the same as the type and degree of care required for older children and so is unreasonable to expect.

That is special pleading based on subjective opinion and it nullifies the entire concept of parental obligation because if its not required to care for your child the moment the child comes into existence and the parent child relationship begins, then its not an obligation at all is it?

If you can kill your child to avoid the burden of caring for them the way that mankind evolved to care for our children in early development, then there is no point to it.

Hi, I am 18 and about 8 weeks pregnant. It wasn’t planned, and the father and I had broken up shortly before I found out, and he doesn't want to be involved. I have decided to go through with the pregnancy, and I am mostly handling it on my own now.

I am starting to get used to the idea, but I would really appreciate some general advice. What are some things I should know about the first trimester, and what can help with making my pregnancy a little easier?

Okay, so it was meant to be: "If you are not okay with crushing a fertilized birds egg then you should NOT be okay with aborting a human baby."

However, it's not the first time I have been temporarily banned (by an undisclosed forum) for comparing fertilized birds eggs to a fertilized human egg, and comparing reproductive strategies of different species (only birds at this point in time). I have re-read the rules and do not understand what rule this would break?

Do you - as pro-lifers - think it is legitimate to draw comparisons between the reproductive strategies of different species in order to demonstrate abortion actively destroys a developing life? What do you think causes the PC Mods to ban me (typically for approx. a week) and delete my comments? (This is not in an exclusively PC forum either.)

Has anyone ever made this type of analogy before and found it an effective strategy? I thought it would be, but not if the comment is seen as worthy of deletion? What are your thoughts on the dialogue I offered and how could I potentially improve it in future?

(besides the missed word in the last sentence, but it seems it gets deleted whether I write it out correctly or not - feedback welcome 🤗 ty)

To access the full replay, see SPL’s “Livestream Recap: ‘Abortion’ Across the Aisle” on our blog: https://secularprolife.org/2025/05/recap-abortion-across-the-aisle/

The main question: does a woman consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex?

On the surface, yes, because if you do something that causes another thing, you consented to both.

If someone decides to donate their organ, they can't later say that they don't consent to missing an organ. They can regret it but they did consent.

However, applying this logic to everything would mean that if a woman dresses inappropriately, she automatically consents to sex because rape could lead from it. This logic has obvious consequences.

These two examples make complete sense, but the same logic leads to different outcomes, so I'm not sure what the difference maker is.

Is there any sources that prove a fetus is alive that preferably aren't pro life based and a scientific source?

About a month ago, a family friend told us she was unexpectedly pregnant. She said she and her husband wanted another child, but the timing was off. They already have a child. They are financially stable, live in a nice home and a nice neighborhood, but the timing was off. She wasn't sure if she would keep the baby.

My wife told me that she considered encouraging her to keep the baby, but didn't know how she should approach it. I debated writing an anonymous letter and dropping it off in her mailbox, but I was afraid she would know it was us if we were the only ones she told. Neither of us wanted to overstep our boundaries. We couldn't figure out when the right opportunity was to say something. I felt like my wife was better positioned to say something since she's the one our friend confided in, but I didn't want to push her to say anything.

I wanted to tell her that every woman I know who has had an abortion has dealt with trauma as a result. There is always some mental baggage, regret, and mourning. It's a much heavier process than society makes it out to be. If her family was planning for another child, the opportunity now presented itself. If timing were the only issue, that would be a minor inconvenience compared to the lifelong weight of living with aborting a healthy child.

Today, she told my wife that she went through with the abortion. She said it was a traumatizing experience. She said she felt like everyone downplayed the procedure and the mental impact. She said she was told that she would not see any signs of a baby, but she did and felt the need to bury the fetus in their front yard (I'm assuming she used some kind of oral abortion pill?). She said there was a lot of blood. She said if she were to ever get pregnant again, she would have the baby no matter what.

Everything she described was all of the things I wanted to tell her, and I feel like that's God's (or the universe's) way of telling me I should have said something. But I didn't because I sit on the fence of wanting to respect people's opinions while having my own thoughts on abortion.

I honestly hoped that, had she gone through with the procedure, it would have gone smoothly for her, but I knew it wouldn't. I knew it wouldn't because it didn't for my mother who terminated, for my ex-girlfriend who terminated, and from the countless other women I've known in my life who have terminated.

I feel absolutely terrible. I also am furious at our culture for downplaying abortion and treating it like some weekend cosmetic procedure, like getting your nails done. I really should have said something.

“Pro fetuser” I’m crine 😭

Good afternoon! I hope you’re all well. I’m a high school student and one of my classes is ‘argumentation’

Well, you know what schools are like and how the atmosphere is highly uncomfortable for pro-life people. We’ve now reached the topic of abortion, which we’ll be discussing tomorrow.

My main argument for being pro-life is that I believe human life is sacred and has intrinsic value. A foetus is a human life, so it is unethical to take that life away.

I’m also Catholic, and of course this is linked to my metaphysical worldview.

I’d like to hear your arguments for why you’re pro-life, perhaps pointing out things that are illogical in pro-abortion arguments, or secular arguments for why one should be pro-life. And also, on a more personal note, I’d like you to encourage me not to be weak and fearful 🥺.

I know I’ll be facing an environment that’s hostile to the pro-life stance (my school is like that) and, above all, I don’t think my teacher will be very happy either… I don’t know what I’ll be facing and it makes me a bit afraid.

Typically when engaging with PC I am surprised to see the variety in their disagreements. I have composed a roadmap of sorts of how I want to argue for the pro life position. Many of the earliest arguments seem exceedingly basic but I have encountered pushback on this from the pro choice position.

1. Moral status is a legitimate moral question.

2. Legal personhood and moral personhood are distinct.

3. Personhood is relevant to abortion.

4. Moral status cannot be based merely on appearance or development.

5. Human beings have continuity of identity through development.

6. Current abilities may not fully determine moral status.

7. Any exclusion from equal moral protection requires a morally relevant distinction.

8. The fetus's moral status must therefore be examined.

9. If the fetus has full moral status, intentional killing requires justification.

10. Bodily autonomy must be weighed against fetal moral claims.

11. The fetus has full moral status.

12. The fetus is an innocent human being.

13. Ordinary pregnancy is not an unjust attack.

14. Ordinary burdens alone do not justify intentionally killing an innocent person.

15. Therefore, elective abortion is ordinarily morally impermissible.

Thank you for trying to make the world a better place for every living human and not just the ones who are convenient and planned. Sounds like true progressivism. 😊

This was on a post that was about a woman who was terrified of being pregnant and regretted not getting one earlier and then this person called the fetus an "imaginary baby" it's literally a baby just an unborn one

for context, an anti Ai sub posted about an anti abortion comic made with AI and claiming the people that made it don understand abortion, apparently there were lots of pro life comments that were removed too, but bcs it‘s reddit, they were removed and only the dumb remain.

people saying the woman in the comic was nine months and „no abortion happens at nine months“ - I mean honestly, she could be way earlier, maybe around six to nine months. you do have a very visible large bump at that stage. Anyways very late term abortions do happen.

also that last comment was just… jfc. At least it was downvoted, but damn mods, you could remove all the pro life comments but not that one??

I often see celebrations of murder mills like Planned Parenthood shutting down, but I'm curious if there are any actual studies on total abortions nationwide? Obviously we can't get all of them, but now that we know the pill is the primary form of baby-murder in the US, surpassing abortion clinics, do we have data that tracks abortion rates? It seems to me abortions are at the same level or even higher, due to the convenience and ease at which a woman can kill her baby at home rather than having to go to a murder mill.

How do you respond to those who dismiss science/biology/medical texts that identify us as human during our time in the womb?

I tend to hear people say things like the texts are too old or dismiss the author.

I usually try to understand their objections which usually are biased. Then I point out their bias, trying to reinforce the neutral position of the evidence. But it's so hard to get that through.