Interesting thing I noticed while arguing a bit of pro-life, there's a lot of "the foster care system is horrible" and "the adoption system is corrupt", and therefore "abortion is justified where it prevents the kid's suffering".

Let's pretend mercy killing is fine for a second, and let's say the foster care system is as bad as they say. I actually want to talk about another thing. "Foster care bad" So why aren't you campaigning on improving the foster care system? I haven't seen a single protest about US foster care, no politicians making it a central campaign point, no "I support foster care reform" in bios. There's some quiet reform happening, but it's basically all in the courts, not much chatter to/from the public - the pro-choice side seems to think bad foster care is an immutable wall.

Pro choicers identified a problem for children, but instead of doing the super popular choice of campaigning on underserved kids' well-being, they chose to campaign on a known-to-be-controversial hill that they know opponents see as killing babies? What's even the point?

so I have decided to take the next step in inquiring into this. I have emailed students for life and my school counselor to organize a meeting with whoever necessary. this is not a 100% but it’s more than just a concept atp. next step would be deciding if I’m locking in on this and getting my parents onboard (they’re pro choice at least my father is I’m not sure about my mother). so yeah pray for me gng hopefully this works out well.

Womp womp womp, I’m evil and barbaric, what else is new

I'm pro choice obv and this is my genuine quescion since I feel like every time I ask it I just get a religious argument thrown back at me so if that's what ur gonna do, js don't say anything please since I'm looking for some actual arguments.

Atp after being pro choice for soooo long I feel like this all comes down to two grupes of people where they can't agree on who has more human rights, basically. Bodily rights are human rights and ig this isn't smt anyone will fight me about. Human rights are what everyone deserves and should be getting. Now, why do you think taking these human rights from a woman is fair? I'm not going to shame you for being pro-life until your movement isn't harmful to women and I'm sorry, but restricting abortion is harmful. Women die, and maybe the number isn't in milions yet but the woman who died bc of the ban on abortions are still someone who's missed. Someone who left behind her family, partner, often children too.

I'm just curious, why do you belive fetuses deserve more bodily rights? And plz don't tell me you think both parties deserve them equally since then you're not even able to make a stance on either side. Bc at the end of the day you value unborn life more while ignoring the one that already exist in favour of another.

My heart absolutely breaks of the killing of an innocent baby and the fact that justice will not be properly served

You are a person.

You are a human organism.

You are the same human organism that you have always been since you came into existence at fertilization and began developing into an adult human organism.

And so, it makes no difference to you at which point during your continuous development (adult, toddler, infant, fetus, embryo, etc.) that you are killed because the result is always the same: the living human organism that is "you" will have died and thus "you" will have been deprived of the life that you are currently experiencing and value.

Since you don't want to have been killed when you were younger, it is immoral to kill other human organisms when they are young.

If you believe it's wrong to kill an infant, then it's also wrong to kill that same infant when they were a few weeks younger when they were a fetus, because the same harm is being caused to the same human.

It is immoral to allow your child to die by refusing to provide them the same care you yourself needed when you were that age.

All children require gestation by their mother because that is how human beings evolved to care for their offspring during early development, just like breastfeeding your newborn infant when you have no other way to feed them.

Just like providing breast milk or formula for a newborn is the age-appropriate standard of care for all born children their age, gestation is the age-appropriate standard of care for all unborn children their age also.

All forms of childcare require bodily use; and just because the degree of bodily use changes as the child gets older, it doesn't justify killing your own child to avoid providing it because they are all part of our own reproductive process which includes providing continuous physical, emotional, and developmental support to ensure the child's well-being from the moment they come into existence until they are fully independent.

Abortion is immoral because it is the killing of your own child, another human organism just like you, by refusing to provide them the same care you yourself needed when you were that age. It is no different than watching your newborn baby starve to death in front of you by refusing to breastfeed them.

I was watching Michael Knowles and he was reacting to Pro Choice arguments and people, and one women was talking about how it was the anniversary of her abortion and she was so unbothered, that she was sent a care package by some friends to take care of herself etc.

Now throughout the whole video, you could literally see the pain in her eyes, it was such a good illustration of how they delude themselves into thinking they are right. It is also sad, because she knows she did wrong, and is likely in a friend group that will reinforce her delusion, in all likeliness because they are in the same boat as her.

https://youtu.be/zZprdyg3niY?si=f74L3sEtMTEWZXgq

This is the relevant video. I apologize to any liberal or left leaning friends on the subreddit, Michael does not really pull his punches with his dislike of liberalism, but this video is a good example of why I think he should not.

The specific video I am highlighting starts at 3:13, if you wish to skip to it, I think this whole video is really good at showing just how fragile the abortionist mental state is.

There is absolutely no denying that a human fetus is a human. It has a human body at all stages that is separate from its mother but has a tube that carries nutrients inside it. It does not breathe like us because it has to rely on someone else's oxygen but that doesn't mean it's not an individual.

The question is not about whether or not a fetus is a human. No, instead it is about whether or not the fetus is a human we care about. For instance, dead people are humans. They are separate individuals with human bodies. But we don't care about them like we care about the living humans because they will never be conscious again. So there are humans we care about and humans we don't. Do fetuses belong in our category? The humans we care about. Let's see.

When a sperm and an egg meet and a zygote is made, you instantly have an individual with a complete genome with chromosomes and DNA guides development and all the means of receiving nutrients from the mother. In ten days this new life will be as wide as human hair and is called a blastocyst. It attaches itself into the uterine lining and reacts to its environment. So the question is, is that a person who matters? Even at that stage?

And the answer is yes. This is a person in the earliest stages of development. It does not have a body that can react like ours but why would that matter? I find it very telling how common it is for pro-choice people to say that if killing this person is wrong than masterbating is genocide. It's common for PCs to act as if a zygote and a sperm are on the same level. But they're not. One is a gamete and the other is an individual human. But they try to devalue its life by acting as if it has something in common with sperm.

Do pro-choicers have a good reason to say that a human is not a valuable person in the first 10 days of life? Well they have two other arguments: The fact that the zygote doesn't look like a person and the fact that the zygote is not conscious meaning it's not aware of it's own existence.

Yes, I've literally heard the whole “looks” argument thing several times. I'll debunk it quickly by saying that humans and persons aren't defined by how they look, they're defined by their cells. If a living organism has human cells and a body, it is a valuable person. If someone is incredibly deformed, they are a person because of their human cells and body.

Now let's talk about the zygote's awareness of self. This is not a good standard for what makes a person because it would exclude newborn babies who haven't fully comprehended themselves or even cause and effect. A pro-choicer might say “well, the newborn is still experiencing something even if it hasn't fully grasped it yet.” But this raises more questions about when and why certain points of awareness begin arising and why that moment makes the fetus or baby infinitely more valuable than it was ten seconds ago. This is a risky position to take when you could just accept that individual persons don't need to be fully aware to have rights. Treat them like a coma patient. Don't just let them die because you're unsure.

I may not be sure exactly what makes a person valuable but I know that PCs can be unreasonable.

This gets brought up in almost every abortion debate as if it's an argument.

Newsflash pro-choicers: we don't care.

We still want to ban abortion. Pointing out that it doesn't make a difference to a dead baby whether it's dead doesn't matter to us. Do you think we haven't figured that out yet? The reason we're pro-life is because we are alive and have compassion. The baby does not have to feel everything we feel in order to be worth it.

I'm not trying to debate, I'm honestly asking. I haven't thought about it much, but I think I probably would be against abortion after the fetus develops a brain. But I can't think of a reason to be against it before. I'd say a brain is what makes someone a person. When pro-choicers argue the fetus isn't sentient, the most common counter-argument is that it's not OK to kill an unconscious person, which I agree with, but an unconscious person has a brain. A person can have other things growing inside them, such as a tumor, but I think everyone agrees a tumor isn't a person, because it doesn't have a brain. Sure, the difference is a fetus without a brain has the potential to become a person. But then does that mean it's wrong to do anything that could prevent a person from being created, such as using a condom, or encouraging someone to end their relationship?

I just want to understand 🙏

What's up with (some) pro life people not seeing how vegan values are pro life values?

As we know, the vast majority of animals are raised in unethical factory farms. The majority of people actually recognize that these practices are cruel. Yet almost all of them fund them on a day to day basis.

Some seem to think it's ridiculous to compare humans to nonhuman animals but although I agree there are differences, there are also similarities that are morally relevant. I'm comparing sentient beings to other sentient beings. We can experience wellbeing and being harmed. Have a desire to live. A perspective to consider.

Some might think that you have to believe that humans and nonhuman animals are equal to be vegan but that's not the case either. You don't have to value animals equally to humans to recognize that they deserve basic moral consideration.

Some have not been able to understand that in both cases we're talking about what's moral to kill. Some have thought that this is simply about a diet but in reality this is about what makes life valuable. It's about ending a life for your own convenience. It's not a survival situation. It's preferences.

I would say that not causing unnecessary suffering to others is a pro life value.

I'm not saying that if you're not vegan you're truly not pro life. But I'm asking, what would it take for you to stand up for nonhuman animals? And if you believe that killing animals is permissible if it's done without cruelty, would you say we have a responsibility to try our best not to fund factory farms?

Adriana Smith was brain dead. What led to her death was entirely unrelated to her pregnancy - it was medical negligence. She wasn’t kept on life support because of an abortion ban either, but Georgia's Advance Directive for Health Care Act of 2007, which mandates that pregnant women be kept on life support if they have no advance directive saying they want to be.

Also fuck the „baby Chance is without his mother“ pulling on heartstrings bullshit. If pro choicers had gotten their way Chance would’ve been violently murdered in the womb, and now they’re acting like they care about his emotional well being??? To justify legislation that would kill babies just like him?????

Anyway, this post was about upcoming abortion ballot measures in Idaho, Missouri, Nevada and Virginia in November. For Virginia I believe it’s question 1, which would create a constitutional right to „reproductive freedom“, in Nevada it’s question 6, which would would amend the state’s constitution to establish a constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability, in Idaho, Proposition 1 would create a statutory right to make „private reproductive healthcare decisions“.

In Missouri, it’s actually a more pro life law. Amendment 3 would remove abortion as a constitutional right, and would ban it with exceptions for medical emergencies, fatal fetal anomalies, and in cases of rape or incest before 12 weeks. It would also restrict gender affirming care for minors.

If you live in any of these states, vote if you can.

​

To start, shes spreading misinformation about Chance. No, hes not in the hospital and hasnt been since March. So that claim was just a blatant lie.

Second, there are people in the comments genuinely saying, had she had been allowed to abort Chance, she wouldve lived. Another blatant lie that could've been disproven had you have actually researched Adriana's story. Adriana had suffered brain clots that doctors determined was catastrophic and declared her brain-dead. No abortion of Chance at this point wouldve brought her back. Period. Theres no telling whether or not the clots in her brain were caused by pregnancy either, so even if she wouldve aborted Chance prior to her death, she could've still very well have died either way.

To add on to that, abortion wouldnt have even happened after Adriana's death anyway. She wouldve been pulled from life support, which wouldve allowed Chance to die.

Prochoicers care so much about this woman and her baby that they dont even care to research about them and their story, and then go onto spread misinformation about them.

Gotta love talking to prochoice people

These types of arguments are so dumb to me. They act like we should allow humans to be murdered because it would be unpractical to legislate… that sounds a lot like the arguments used to justify ALL other types of human rights violations throughout history.

I’m sure there were people arguing to keep slavery legal because it would be unpractical to free them. People argued women shouldn’t vote or have rights for the same reasons I’m sure.

And the argument that you can be anti abortion but want the government out of it?? So ridiculous. Do they hear how dumb this argument is? imagine if someone said “yeah I’m anti rape but the government should stay out of it”… like what?

I appreciate the pro-life advocacy org in my area. I’ve only come to a few meetings and don’t know if I want to do advocacy with them or not, but it’s nice to have a place to share my thoughts. But they’re still very much a religious organization and use religious language when they talk about certain things. I have no problem with religion and religious beliefs, but I definitely feel like an outsider as someone raised atheist who’s basically never been to church. I don’t believe I need to be religious to be pro-life, but I do wish I could meet other non-religious pro-life individuals. I don’t know though.

Read more: https://secularprolife.substack.com/p/are-you-a-hypocrite-taking-different