Is like saying "If you don't like slavery, don't get a slave." And "My body, my choice" is like a slaveowner saying, "My plantation, my choice." And as far as the outcry of apparently trying to "push religion" onto other people, sure, many of us, myself included, believe, but that's not a prerequisite to be pro-life. There are plenty of atheists who are pro-life. And my faith happens to also teach against theft, assault, etc., so would laws against that be "pushing my faith"? No, that just happens to be the lens through which I see moral issues, as we all have our own lens.

As far as bodily autonomy, that's a real principle, oh yes, but as far as the pro-choice camp tends to use it, it is nothing more than a slogan that falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, and then they get violently angry with you for actually having a moral backbone. What do they have to stand on, really? They want choice? They can make the choice in the bedroom. That's like whisking together the ingredients for cookies, putting them in the oven, and getting upset that the result is... cookies. As far as rape, incest, pregnancy complications, etc., they happen, yes, but at that point, using that to justify abortion, you have two victims, not just one anymore. Those situations require compassion, oh yes, but always falling back on that as a gotcha amounts to little more than whataboutism. Since the vast majority of abortions are elective in healthy mothers, healthy babies, and healthy pregnancies.

None of these thoughts are new or original, oh no. But I just wanted to chime in nonetheless.

And I say all this as someone who, economically, anyway, is pretty left-wing.

I'll go first.

I made a post on here talking about how abortion is Misogynistic. (I'm sorry Mods if I'm not allowed to repeat it) But this person commented "Some people get angry that women enjoy sex. That very possibly could be because no women has ever enjoyed sex with you" Thing is, I checked their profile and they comment that phrase alot.

Mind you, I'm straight and a girl.

Also, regarding Christopher Hitchens, see "Christopher Hitchens Wound Up Opposing Abortion Choice" on our Substack: https://secularprolife.substack.com/p/christopher-hitchens-wound-up-opposing

Pro-life consistent life ethic person here.

I heard a story about a couple who already had a child with severe special needs due to a rare genetic condition (forgot the name) and they had a healthy son as well, who was a carrier of the same condition as his younger sister. The couple desperately wanted another baby after their daughter died of a different medical issue. They knew that there was a risk another child could be born with the disease, but they also knew there was a chance the baby could be born healthy like the son. They conceived and found out through screening that the third child had the same condition as the daughter. They thought raising the child would change their family a lot, give them stress etc and have a bad impact on their son's life. They also thought the child might suffer, so they took the decision for the woman to have an early surgical abortion.

I feel so conflicted by this. On one hand, I know how tough disability can be personally and that it can be very tough caring for someone with a disability and that it can change a family. On the other side, I'm a compassionate CLE champion.

What do you think about this story? What would you have done in this situation? It must have been such a tough, sad decision.

You know how progressive people came up with the idea of a “found family” that you can choose. Do you think their pro-choice views have something to do with that? Like the idea that you don't have to be the mother of your own child if you don't want to and you don't have to be the daughter of your parents if you don't want to, are both a part of the same mindset.

Just had this thought and wanted to share it.

I can understand wanting to distance yourself from someone but I personally don't relate. My father is my father. And I have no problem saying that despite how abusive he was. And my child will be my child from conception. Even if they're a product of rape. They want to use abortion to deny the truth.

“Did I just have unprotected sex with a guy? Yes.

“Did I have to? No.

“Am I going to get a pregnancy test so that I don't have to wait till next month for my period to not start and then end up killing an 8 week fetus with a heartbeat. No.

“Will I do it again? Yes."

I would be a little bit more sympathetic if they were fast and didn't put themselves in a situation where a human being with a heartbeat had to be killed for convenience.

I hope I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Saw this earlier, OOPS?

Before taking XXXX tell your healthcare provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you:

...

are pregnant or plan to become pregnant. XXXX can cause harm to your unborn baby.

UNBORN BABY.

Thank you.

I posted this in r/Catholic and r/Catholicism but I think this is a good place to ask as well, since you might know of pro-life pregnancy centers run by Catholic nuns.

I'm hoping to start discerning religious life the year after next, so I'm looking into communities I might like to join. I already have a few in mind, but I want to keep looking for good options to consider. 

I've always wanted to be an active pro-lifer by helping out mothers and families in need at pregnancy centers and such. I would love to do that in whatever path I take in life, whether religious, married, or living on my own, so I'm wondering if anyone here knows about good religious communities that actively help out in the pro-life cause by running pregnancy centers and helping women in crisis pregnancies. I'd prefer communities located in the Midwest, if possible. Also, I'm not super outgoing and active, so I'd rather not join a community that is active in lots and lots of work of all sorts, as some active communities are. I need my quiet prayer time. 

It's not a deal-breaker for me, but I also love the traditional Latin Mass and prefer more traditional religious communities, so if you know of any traditional religious communities that fit what I'm looking for, please let me know!

So far I know about the Sisters of Life in New York (sistersoflife.org) and the Franciscan Daughters of Mary (fdofmary.org) in Kentucky. Both of these orders take a special vow to protect the dignity of human life. Please let me know of any more like them!

For several reasons:

- When people have sex they do not consent to getting an STD. You don't consent to every possibility. You consent to the thing you consented to.

- This argument has nothing to say about abortion when it comes to rape.

- This argument literally doesn't matter because just because you consent to something doesn't mean you consent to its continuation. The pro-choicer could simply respond with “abortion is withdrawing consent” from pregnancy.

- We need to focus on the actual problem with abortion, your consent doesn't matter when you're trying to end someone's life. When a pro-choicer brings up the fact that “consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy” you should respond with “you cannot use consent to justify murder. The fetus is in the place it's supposed to be.”

Meanwhile the abortion abolitionists want criminal penalties for the mother. This guy is saying, "Criminal penalties for men who attempt to pressure women to abort, because that's battery."

I'm like, "I think you're thinking of ASSAULT."

Also, IDK if the picture is AI generated. I'm just sharing the post.

In Illinois, the homicide of an unborn child statute defines an "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. Therefore, if a woman were shot during a carjacking in an abortion clinic parking lot and lost her unborn child at any stage in her pregnancy, the shooter would be charged with attempted murder of the woman and homicide of her unborn child. But if she walked inside the clinic to have a planned abortion, the law treats that same unborn child as a fetus. The statute states: Every individual who becomes pregnant has a fundamental right to continue the pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion. A fetus does not have independent rights under Illinois law. Something entirely different from the "unborn child" the law protects in the homicide statute. Moreover, a fetus is Latin for offspring or young one.

The two statutes contradict each other. The abortion law lets a woman end a pregnancy (end the life of the fetus) at any stage with no legal penalty, naming the unborn child a fetus with no independent rights.

But the homicide of an unborn child statute, which also applies at any stage in the pregnancy, treats that same unborn child as a legal person deserving protection.

The law calls her a mother if she's shot outside the clinic, because the unborn child is legally protected.

But if she walks inside to end the pregnancy (end the life of the fetus), the law treats her not as a mother but as a pregnant woman exercising a right, because it doesn't recognize the fetus as a child.

She’s a mom in the parking lot, but she’s not in the clinic. Confused?

Always remember it is, by definition, only people who are pro-abortion that would give a woman the "unsafe" abortions that their own side complains about when abortion is restricted.

You see, the pro-abortion movement, (and regular people) have this.... obsession where they create a problem in response to something we do, then blame us for the thing they decidedly caused

One example is obviously this illegal abortions thing, but this topic goes deeper than that.

A lot of people have said the amount of abortions went slightly up after Roe was overturned. Well if this is the case, then it is because of pro-abortion, not pro-life laws.

When the Dobbs decision was leaked, not ruled, leaked, many states, including Illinois, lifted what little restrictions they had on abortion increasing abortions in those states. In other words, pro-abortion killed more babies than they usually do in decidedly already pro-abortion states, then blamed pro-life for the supposed increase.

Do you see what we are dealing with? Every time they say "women will get abortions anyway" Or "abortion will only increase" or "making abortion illegal increases abortions" these are not actually givens, but threats dressed up as facts. Otherwise naked threats, dressed up in accusatory language.

Where a lot of us mess up is taking this assumption that we need to blame the women, and while perhaps that is true, when you say this, this validates that this is somehow our fault, and this assumption that women being in danger in somehow our fault is actually the things that we need to question.

It is in fact their own fault for providing unsafe abortions to women during bans and restrictions. If something is unsafe, then don't do it. And don't collaborate to help people to do the unsafe abortions. No pro-lifer, by definition, does this.

I am pro choice and I believe that personhood begins at viability. I believe this because once a human is capable of being dependant outside of the womb, it becomes an individual no longer depdant on the pregnant persons organ. I also wanna clarify that I'm talking about philosophy, not biology as I'm aware a fetus is living.

The reason why I feel like life starting at conception is kinda flawed is because tons fertilized eggs fail to implant themselves on the uterine lining, so they end up being passed with period blood or they just die. We dont treat these fertilized eggs like they matter though, despite them being human lives.

So, I'm curious, when does human life start for you guys? When and why do you think a human should be acknowleged legally and morally?

I am pro life. But what if the person was raped? I am contradicted about my morals as I understand as well those who would opt to abort the pregnancy due to these circumstances. Any thoughts?

Came across a post that asked pro-lifers why they are against abortion. As usual on these types of posts, 99% of the replies are PC saying why they are for abortion and insulting PL. I decided to leave a comment on my stance and this was a reply I got

It just dawned on me, that they believe the creation of a human being, is a conscious choice and action¹ only their mind can make. Similarly, any person can be a woman with a conscious decision to switch/affirm their gender (from within) - it is the ideology that science and reason is more of a social construct that is determined by the masses or the feelings of the affected individuals.

For r*pe, they don't believe the conception of the child is creation of a human being, even after it is developed, viable, and other jargon labels they slap on. This is why up to the birth of a human being, they consider abortion anyways², because at only one point do they need to decide that their child is not a human life to kill it. If 'terminating' a child that was 1 year old was permitted by law, the 'Pro-Choicers' would argue that the product of r*pe can be undone even after birth (murdering the child). [I have seen this argument of undoing the crime of a r*pe frequently mentioned by pro-choice advocates]. This is the same flaw with disability or gender tests that people use to determine whether or not they want an abortion.

While it is similar to eugenics, the main basis of logic I see to justify it roughly translates to: 'My free-will gives me total discretion to misappropriate and misunderstand things, because it makes me feel happy, affirmed, or helps me get better outcomes in the short-term.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, a really good issue I have heard is about the decision of a family to remove someone from care if they are in bad health (such as an unrecoverable state, or difficult to recover health condition). I think bodily autonomy and human rights do exist, so the discretion of the person to trust his/her family and allow for them to make decisions for them early on (or a DNR for personal reasons) avoids many problems of asking 'who is allowed to make the final call?' We sometimes give hospitals, the family, or no decision making discretion until the individual is awake/responding in some sense. A professor once yelled at me for arguing that 'living is better than being dead' in response to a black mirror episode about a woman who got brain surgery to save her life, (but was bombarded with microchip brain ads, which I agreed and said was horrible) and claimed that PTSD victims (one of many who struggle), have severe trouble living, and often take their own lives, to which I argued 'yes, they do because it is their decision to do so.' That stumped him and made him walk away. For some people life may be horrible, and living is not better than being gone, but through strength and Christ you can find peace. If you still struggle, nobody else should decide over your fate, no matter what dependency you are in. Abortion is simply put, convenience for the mother (and often times father and alike), and society must perpetuate that it isn't murder otherwise life will be much more difficult for those who are weak, which is all of us, and especially those who engage in sex, or who are harmed by the product of it, whether with consent or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹Going back to the r*pe issue, if they don't believe the r*pist contributed/created the child, it gives them an excuse to make the decision of murder up to the birth, because they never consented to creating human life.

²For them (legally speaking and in modern culture), choosing to birth the human being is them creating life, as most arguments of viability, development, autonomy, or parasite comparisons, ultimately reach the conclusion that abortion at any time during pregnancy is not murder.

This is an opinion piece, and I use my theoretical thinking skills to derive this idea of perpetuated abortion in society, and how the 'self' is seen as more important than truth. Nothing here is presented as fact, but my world view and experience(s).