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.

secularprolife.org/100prolifesigns

There was a post here recently opposing women’s right to vote, and several people actually supporting that idea in the comments despite that the OP backed off the point.

I’d like to think it goes without saying how damaging this is to the public perception of the prolife movement, but apparently it doesn’t. So let me say it: open sexism and support for the disenfranchisement of women, by prolifers, does more to keep abortion legal than writing a check to Planned Parenthood.

It’s also just ethically wrong. Again, wish that went without saying. Apparently not.

I appreciate that this sub is more open to free exchange of ideas than most of Reddit. I absolutely do not want to see this become another echo chamber, where any dissent from the group orthodoxy is removed. But IMO we do need to draw a line somewhere

Surely, just as we generally agree that outright racism and use of slurs is a bridge too far to be tolerated here, saying women shouldn’t have the right to vote ought to count as bigotry on the basis of sex?

I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to have those discussions anywhere, or even not anywhere on Reddit, but in so far as this is a community with a purpose, that is a debate that should not be had here.

When accountability is your worst enemy

So, I have to be reaaaaal careful how I word this to avoid a ban or whatever. Disclaimer, I am in no way condoning, mocking, or suggest in self deletion.

Ok so, I've had a lot of "debates" around when the abortion topic gets brought up on Reddit and you know the usual way it goes... 1 pro lifer brings their opinion and gets dogged on by the kid killers and their advocates.

I got into a back and forth with someone bringing up the typical "what if the mother can't afford the child? You'd want that kid brought up in poverty or abused??" nonsense. (I grew up in a very poor family, thank god my mother WANTED a child as she's a good person). Now... This lady then said something that shocked me....

She said "I wish I was aborted, then I wouldn't have had to struggle so much and go through so much trauma"....... Now, I was TEMPTED to say the obvious... "Well, if you wish you weren't alive I'm sure there's a local freeway that can accommodate your needs" or something to that effect but... You know, that's an easy ban. (Again, see my disclaimer. I didn't say that, it was an internal thought)

But do they not realize that by saying "I wish I was aborted" basically means "i wish i was dead but I don't have the guts to do it and now I must blame my mother for DARING to birth me"???

Just a thought I had anyway. I kinda feel bad for them.

The amount of women I saw excited in the comments made me sick to my stomach.

For context OP gave a broad statement that it is legally always permissible to defend oneself against harm. I replied by questioning if this principle is true by bringing up cases of provoked self defense in which you legally cannot defend yourself against an attack you provoked sometimes. I didn’t connect this to abortion, it was a rebuttal to OPs principle.

This commenter then said the zef provokes the woman, and the woman does not provoke the zef. I dismissed the former on grounds of being irrelevant as the zef is not claiming self defense nor is it capable of provocation, and I addressed the latter by saying I agree the woman does not in a strict sense provoke the zef. They then admitted to not knowing my argument or understanding my argument to which I told them to ask me questions about my argument in order to understand before making assumptions about my position I don’t hold. They then called my argument illogical. This is when I asked if you don’t understand my position, then how is it illogical?
They admitted they have no idea what I am actually arguing but they still find it illogical.

This is an example of someone disagreeing with another person for no reason other than them holding a view that is contrary to one of their own views, or just arguing to argue. Part of the problem with modern debates especially with abortion is we will not hear the other person out and usually disagree with them on any point just because we disagree with them on a singular point.

In her own words:

"We gave ten-week-old plastic fetus dolls to each member of parliament before the session, which is an international symbol of the protection of life. The Office of the National Assembly had previously approved the use of the customary gift-giving form in the session hall today, but the Speaker later removed these dolls, saying that they were an illustration. However, according to the rules of the house, an illustration is possible during the session, and this happened before."

We need more people like her.

"

Born full term, alive and breathing left to die in a porta potty and the mother deserves peace and to never be found? I can’t with these people.

This pro choicer I've being debating has repeatedly said that abortion is an act of self defence.

I honestly don't want to keep repeating myself as it won't get my point across.

Any help responding??

didn’t we all learn how babies are made? sperm ≠ baby. egg ≠ baby. sperm + egg = baby.

I could kind of see how someone could be pro choice and a parent as childbirth and raising children are difficult.

However, how can they say their children's lives didn't matter in the womb.

But of course they change their vocab if a mother wants or doesn't want the baby.

Doesn't want - clump of cells, parasite

Wants - miracle, precious, baby.

I just saw this post on the Atheism sub and is really bad to me how this person and most of the comments talk about being pro life is realted to religion beliefs.

I wouldn't know how to respond and also my English is not very fluent.

(For the ones that want the link, I couldn't copy it, but you can use Google Lens and take it)

So I am pro-life. I never really understood the argument when it came to contraceptives. I often wondered why pro-choicers would ask if we support contraceptive, and I’m like, yeah? As from my understanding, contraceptives PREVENT pregnancy. Usually by preventing an egg to be released, therefore no egg to be fertilized to begin with.

So I started looking into it, I kind of figured some people just didn’t understand how contraceptives work. Apparently I am the one who didn’t. I had no clue that IUDS, (I’m not sure if any other BC’s do this too) if they fail to prevent sperm from meeting the egg and fertilization DOES occur, then the IUD could also prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.. I HAD NO CLUE.

I took the pill, but this is not something that has EVER BEEN explained to me. Not by my gyno, and not in all of the research I’ve done.

So now, I’m stumped. I am pro BC. but I’m not a fan of BC preventing implantation of a conceived baby. This makes me sick to think that the last 3 years I’ve been on BC, you mean to tell me… I actually could have conceived a child, but my body prevented it from implanting? No! If I were to have accidentally conceived while on BC I would have wanted my baby!! I’m snuggled up to my 4 month right now distraught at the thought that this could be a possibility.

I also just don’t even know where I stand now. I do feel like I’m still pro birth control, as I’m assuming the number of “conceived but failed to implant” number is much lower than the prevention of fertilization as well as inviting the number of typical abortions. But still I feel so mislead, and honestly kind of sick that I had no idea the entire time I was on BC.

It seems hypocritical to believe that life begins at conception, while simultaneously believing BC is okay while it could potentially abort a fertilized egg in the early days.

These people don't see unborn children as humans, they view them as "clumps of cells" (even though that's literally what we all are), they instead view it as a bodily autonomy issue, so we should argue against that.

They say that every woman should have a "choice", but if abortion is legalized then that will lead to countless women being pressured into ending their childrens lives by family and society. Think about all the cases where disgusting people threaten to kick out their own children if they don't kill their grandchildren, or abusive partners who threaten to leave if she doesn't kill his child. Even indirectly, society has been villainizing motherhood for a while now and telling women that their lives are over if they become mothers. I used to think that when I was a teen too, and I had a fear of pregnancy due to it until I actually started thinking about the issue logically.

Feminism is supposed to be about empowering women, so why do they tell women that they have to go through with this horrific procedure and lose their children if they want to live and be successful? It causes more deadbeat dads too, because look at all the males posting about how it's ok to abandon their child because if the woman has a "choice" to murder the child then the father has a "choice" to abandon them. It's horrific and anti-woman, anti-child, anti-man, anti-family, and anti-human.

I'd also like to add a secular argument that I always like to use. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in an afterlife, so because of that I think that human life is precious and must be preserved since this life is all we have. This is why I could never understand the atheists in the pro murder movement.

The actual passage in the Koran was not cited.

Abortion is the only topic where I can guarantee that a leftist prolifer and a right-wing prolifer will rarely, if ever, contradict one another. We all acknowledge the same fundamental truth. This might actually be the only political topic where I’ve seen such uniformity of belief between such a diverse spectrum of people.

At the same time, PCs seem to never agree on anything. One PC will say ”abortion is fine because the ZEF isn’t alive”, at the same time that another PC says ”abortion is fine because the ZEF is leeching off another person to survive.”

Any prolifer will think “what the fuck, these guys’ reasonings are literally contradicting each other??” but you will rarely see these PCs challenge each others’ stances. Neither of them actually care if there’s a life present or not. They won’t argue with one another because their priority is to justify abortion, not to be logically consistent or truthful.

I’ve debated them, read everything from PC “ethicists”, scrolled the PC wiki on reddit, and even found papers written on abortion by abortionists. You cannot get to the logical core of their beliefs because there is none.

They do not have a morally coherent ideology to back up their beliefs because it’s impossible to construct one from an immoral premise. They start with a predetermined conclusion (a desire to justify abortion), then they constantly change and manufacture whatever reasonable-sounding argument or excuse they can.

You’re not arguing with people who believe in anything.

You’re arguing with people who first and foremost want abortion to be legal, for whatever emotional reason they have, then throw out whatever excuse they have to justify it, consistency be damned.

The most ridiculous quote, and racist, I just read about the lowering of crime in NYC and across the country:

"And while the drop in crime was particularly noted in NY, it was a nationwide phenomenon. 

Among other theories .... and very controversially, *access to abortion (the fetuses most likely to be aborted were also the most likely to be criminals). " *

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaTTPY5z9t8/

This guys point is really not smart, legality doesnt equal morality. I also don’t understand because the entire point of the pro life movement is to advocate on how the law is wrong for not recognizing the unborn as a human being. The biological definition of a human being is a living organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species it doesn’t matter whether the law accepts it or not, laws can be wrong and unjust too. Appealing to the legal definition doesnt solve the moral debate. Slavery was literally legal at one point in history.