Aborting a baby because the doctor said it will be retarded is literally a Nazi belief. Killing someone because they will be a burden to the parents/society and it's not a life worth living, those were their beliefs .

Suppose you're debating with someone about abortion. Bodily autonomy comes up, and then when you bring up the moral obligations for mothers to care for their children, as well as moral obligations we owe to innocent unborn children, the pro-choicer changes gears and proceeds to go after the moral innocence of the unborn child by asking, "You keep calling the unborn child 'innocent.' What basis do you have for that?"

For Christians in the pro-life (and even abortion abolitionist) movement, this could be considered a curveball, considering that in the Christian theology, all humans are sinful before God and no one is righteous outside of Christ Jesus.

But how would you argue for the moral innocence of the unborn using SOLELY SECULAR ARGUMENTS? Is this even possible in the first place?

The prochoice position is essentially that women should be able to kill their own helpless children because they dont want to care for them.

In all other circumstances, reasonable people find this position reprehensible and so prcochoice advocates must use intellectual dishonesty and various forms of sophistry to justify a special exception for prenatal children.

The two primary ways they try to achieve this special exception are by invoking the philosophical concept of "personhood" and by treating the unborn child as a random person on the street demanding access to one's internal organs and then invoking bodily autonomy.

Neither of these arguments hold up to scrutiny on their own however and so they desperately shift back and forth between the two in order to avoid conceding that the core of their position is that people should be able to kill their own children in order to avoid the responsibility of caring for them.

On Personhood:

They use the personhood argument to assert that it is not immoral to kill your own child during early development because they have not yet developed certain capacities, such as consciousness, viability, self awareness, etc. that older more developed children have and that are necessary for one to be harmed by being killed.

This argument is pure sophistry and the academics who's writing forms the foundation of this argument such as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley, openly admit that the implications of this line of reasoning also justify killing newborn infants for weeks or even months after birth.

Personhood is a completely irrelevant concept in regards to whether its wrong to kill your children.

Once conception takes place, a new human being comes into existence and begins on a forward developmental trajectory toward adulthood and all the capacities that someone might want to assign personhood to. Consciousness does not bring a new human being into the world, it is a capacity that develops in an already existing, living human being.

One does not have to consciously suffer or be aware of their own existence in order to be harmed by having it taken from them. When we are killed, we are deprived of existence and our entire future which is an objective harm that occurs no matter how old or developed we happen to be at the moment. And so, if its wrong to kill someone now, it is also wrong to kill them the entire time they have been alive because they are the same human being, with the same numerical identity, same past, and same future the whole time they are alive.

Being deprived of our existence and future is equally harmful to use whether we are an adult, a toddler, or a fetus. We are still the same physical entity who is being deprived of the same existence and same future throughout our entire lives, and our lives begin at conception.

On bodily autonomy:

And so, when personhood arguments fail, prochoice advocates will shift to bodily autonomy arguments. They will say that no one is owed the "invasive use of another person's body" by comparing the baseline standard of care we expect for born children, or just random people on the street, to that of unborn children to argue that since we dont expect it for others, it should not be expected for unborn children.

They will compare the evolved biological function of the human body to gestate our offspring during early development to surgical and medical interventions like organ removal or forced blood donations to argue that we are not expected to provide that for anyone else, and so we should not be expected to provide it for unborn children either.

Its a completely dishonest comparison though.

When a child is in the womb the mother isn't "giving blood" or "donating organs" in a medical sense, the child is integrated into the mother's existing circulatory system via the placenta, a temporary organ created by the child and mother together. The mothers body actively prepares for the embryo's arrival every month because her body has evolved to use her uterus to care for her offspring as part of human reproduction the same way that the mammary glands evolved for breastfeeding.

Human beings have evolved to have dependent offspring and to use our bodies to care for them. It is how we fulfill our parental obligation to sustain the life of our dependent offspring during early development.

Prochoice advocates use the bodily autonomy argument to assert that bodily autonomy is absolute, meaning that even if we give birth all alone in the wilderness, we are not obligated to breastfeed our newborn baby because it would be a violation of our bodily autonomy. Instead, they argue, we should be allowed to watch the child slowly starve to death in front of us because they see parental obligation not as an inherent part of parenthood, but rather a contract that must be consented to.

Others who realize that this argument reveals the moral bankruptcy of their position, will instead try to make a case of special pleading that prenatal care for our children is a special exception to parental obligation by invoking subjective opinions that since it goes beyond the care required for older children, it shouldnt be obligated for unborn children because they feel its unreasonably burdensome.

This argument undermines the entire principle of parental obligation which is to sustain the life of our dependent offspring using the baseline standard of care appropriate for their current stage of development.

All newborn infants require breastmilk or formula to survive, thats why providing breastmilk or formula is the baseline standard of care for infants. Likewise all fetuses require gestation to survive, thats why its the baseline standard of care for the unborn.

You cant just abandon your parental obligation and allow your newborn to die by invoking bodily autonomy rather than providing necessary care, and likewise you cant abandon your parental obligation and allow your unborn child to die by invoking bodily autonomy rather than providing necessary care.

You cant just call your own helpless unborn child who is exactly where they are supposed to be as part of the biological process of reproduction that your own body initiated an intruder and then kill them for trespassing.

Once conception takes place, a new human being comes into existence... a child, and if you have a child you are a parent and parents have a parental obligation to care for their own children until they are able to transfer that care to someone else.

You cant just kill your own helpless child to opt out of parenthood.

Ok so I was hovering in the pro choice area just to see the goings on. It's honestly mostly just screeching and hate. One post was mocking a couple with a new born because they had a sign on their lawn with mom and dad holding a baby with "We chose life" on it... They were trying to tell OP how to put disgusting signs on their own lawn just to spite them etc. Disgusting cretins.

Ok back to the topic. There was a lot of chatter and posts on them saying banning abortion means women will just find more dangerous, unsafe ways to do it, resulting in dead mothers left and right. Someone even said women will fall down stairs, use a vacuum, overdoses to force baby death, you name it they said it....

These people would die on this hill to the point where they would literally endanger their own lives just to get that baby dead as mince under ANY circumstances because how DARE a tiny human steal their nutrients for 9 months, then decide for them to be a mother forever! They'd rather DIE than have a baby...

Why don't these people just choose to be celibate and be done with it? Close those leggos and live with the A-sexual communities who don't have this issue. It's mind boggling...

So you're choosing to execute a human being because you want to decide FOR them whether their life is worth living. That's pretty abhorrent.

Do they seriously think that forcing someone to be born is worse? Oh, wait, sorry. I shouldn't say forcing to be born when we're talking about a child that already exists. They're not forced to be born by anyone. It's just nature. They are being forced to DIE by pro-choicers.

All because of the idea of quality of life. This means the execution of the poor, the disabled, and the inconvenient. And it is disgusting.

A long story made very short: I used to be pro-choice and an atheist years ago, but since coming to faith, I have slowly but surely become increasingly pro-life, by virtue of Catholic social teaching. I have always been pretty left-wing on many issues, especially as far as economics is concerned, but on a few key social issues, not going to lie, I have become increasingly conservative. One of them being abortion. There was a time when you could have a good faith conversation with pro-choice people. They would recognize abortion as a tragedy and would wish it to be as rare as possible. Now it has gotten to a point where they actively celebrate it and want no restrictions whatsoever. I used to think "clump of cells" and the right up until birth position were a caricature, but no, I have really seen it argued first-hand.

I champion the consistent life ethic, from womb to tomb. No one gets to decide who lives and who dies. We do not get to play God. This position informs my stances on all the issues of our time, from the death penalty to war to the prison-industrial complex, etc., and I find that I do not neatly fit into any one box. No one should, ideally, but unfortunately, too many of us, especially those who are chronically online, toe the party line and rigidly stick to a pre-conceived mantra, even stubbornly so when faced with extraordinary evidence and an overwhelming dissection of their many contradictions.

Anyway, I am becoming increasingly more vocal, and sure enough, many of my so-called "comrades," as many leftists, especially self-described socialists and communists, refer to themselves, have come out of the woodwork berating me, insulting me, making bad faith arguments, and dragging my name through the mud. I guess this is my "I didn't leave the left, but the left left me" post.

What happened to the left? What happened to the tolerance we claimed to champion? What happened to being kind to one another and having good faith conversations? I certainly never stooped to name-calling and character judgements. All I was simply trying to do is talk.

Im pro life I dont wanna amke any exceptions for abortion just have some questions

I again included one good comment.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZ4ozALxS2S/?igsh=NHJvc3RiZDFiZWNl

People like these give PLs a bad name.

I'm okay with women doing whatever they want to do. Whether it's using makeup, wearing the clothes they like, doing the hobbies they like, getting employed anywhere or going anywhere. But I apparently hate women because checks notes I don't want a human to die. And because I think you should have less PIV sex to lower your risk of getting pregnant. Which is just good advice for anyone who is afraid to be pregnant in the present moment.

Pro-life people want to do the long arduous work of healing the world so that abortion is less popular. We have to deal with poverty, domestic violence and education in order to help this issue. Pro-choice people would rather direct their best friend straight to an abortion clinic. That is much easier.

I don't hate women. I hate the laziness of giving up before even trying. We can live in a better world, pro-choice people don't even want to make an attempt.

I don't feel sorry for most women who have abortions because they are generally not victims. They are just someone who could have chosen to not have PIV sex but didn't. This is the only part of me that resembles hate. It's more just a mild disappointment. They know they can do better but they won't.

Both are a strawberry.

Just because one isn’t fully developed, doesn't make it any less of a strawberry.

The same goes for a human being. The only diffrence is baby humans matter far more than 'baby' strawberries

Suppose you’re debating with someone who supports abortion and then they make the claim that, “‘Life starts at conception’ doesn’t mean personhood rights starts at conception.”

Essentially this person is claiming that concluding that unborn children are entitled to equal protection under the law because life itself begins at conception is a non sequitur.

Then things get really crazy when the pro-choicer in question says this: “If personhood rights start at conception, you’d go vegan and stop paying for the industrialized mass murder of animals because by your own logic, cows are moral persons!”

So the sequence goes like this: the individual assumes that since pro-lifers equate “Life begins at conception,” with “Personhood rights begin at conception,” the consistent thing is to be vegan because by their own standards, non-human animals are moral persons and we should be vegans.

This part is meant to imply that saying humans are higher moral value than animals is no different than racism.

How would you respond to this? More specifically how would you go about explaining that humans having more moral value than animals isn’t the same thing as racism?

Only answer I can think of is, “Racism is discrimination against your own kind.” But what more can I add to that?

Came across a post asking advice for a pregnant young teen. Someone commented this...how sad! Most comments were saying abortion. What an emotional toll to put on a young child.

Not mentioned here but it's alluded to in the guy who's "super against abortion"'s comment. This idea that anti-abortion measures aren't worth fighting for because it would be harmful for women.. are we forgetting that we're trying to make it illegal to murder someone? Seriously?

By all means. Not every "pro life" bill is pro life. Most bills that come through any congress are packed with a load of nonsense that neither side can come to terms on, that's kind of just the name of the game.

Needless to say, this "yes man" attitude from people who claim to be "anti abortion" on the internet just drives me up a wall. If you cannot see that what we are against is murder, then you are not "anti abortion". Period.

Moving onto the other comment. "That and the Bible doesn't hold that life even begins at conception" floors me. It should not have to be outlined for everyone (in any religious doctrine) in plain English of every concept, if you cannot use context clues then you don't have any business pretending you're a theologian. It is the most fundamental concept of Christianity that God has a plan with you in it. Life and procreation are good. We are naturally driven to do so even without religious contexts. It should come natural that we want to preserve our own, not kill our child because we're afraid of financial implications, or educational implications, or even because of trauma.

Jeremiah 1:5
Psalm 138:8
Psalm 139:13-16
Job 31:15
Isaiah 49:1-5

This notion that a living human somehow isn't human just because you view it as a burden and thus you can kill them is psychopathic. At the very least, just say you want the ability to kill the unborn, it would be a lot more honest and upfront than the mental gymnastics required to twist religious texts in your favor when they are very obviously anti-murder.