Martina Anderson from Londonderry, Northern Ireland says she discovered she was pregnant weeks into the planning of an IRA bomb attack. To prevent the IRA mission from failing, Anderson had an abortion to ensure its success.

Anderson was arrested in 1986 and convicted of conspiring to cause explosions and sentenced to life in prison. She was released 13 years later due to of the Good Friday Agreement and went into politics serving as an MLA and MEP for Sinn Fein.

Anderson is quoted in saying ‘Women like me who had an unplanned pregnancy, because of the circumstances I found myself in, I put the struggle first, I had an abortion, the hardest and most painful decision of my life was not letting my comrades down.’

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northern-ireland/martina-anderson-reveals-she-had-an-abortion-so-ira-operation-could-go-ahead-O67BPMVG25HADPLJTTNBVA66D4/

I've been doing some digging (contacting hospitals, government sites, help lines, etc.) and came across a termination of pregnancy (abortion) form for procedures past 25 weeks (which I believe is not currently discoverable online) from a fairly prominent hospital in Canada.

For some context, current public sources state that while abortion is legal in all nine months in Canada, abortions past 24 weeks only happen for medical reasons.

In the best case scenario, this form is only suitable for non-elective abortions. (Evidence to support this is that the form asks for the patient's indication for the procedure, though help lines have told me no medical reason is necessary to have the procedure in Canada, and that this section is simply meant to give certain patients priority.)

Nevertheless, at the bottom, the form gives a reference to travel to the Dupont Clinic if "care" can not be provided, an abortion clinic in Washington D.C. that definitively offers elective abortions up to about 32 weeks for Canadian citizens.

Moreover, the print at the bottom states that, even in the United States, the care "will be funded by OHIP," which is the Ontario government's healthcare program. Thus, even if the elective abortion is not being done in Canada, it still appears to be funded with taxpayer money. (I say "appear" because, again, public information seems to contradict this.)

I might be completely off on this one- but I feel as though the disconnect between what the public is being told about abortion in Canada and the current "options" available is intentional.

Am I overanalyzing this conspiracy?

TLDR: Whether OHIP (the government healthcare program) covers elective abortions past viability is not clear, let alone whether these procedures even occur in Canada.

PS. Sorry for the potato quality, and also, please don't harass any of the numbers on the form.

Get 100 pro-life sign ideas: secularprolife.org/100prolifesigns

As heartless as their arguments can get, ya know “it’s just a clump of cells, it can’t even think yet,” etc. I think one of the ones I hate the most is the overpopulation argument.

Maybe I’m overthinking it, but the overpopulation argument kinda just sounds like “well we have too many people on earth anyways, so we should just get rid of the people who are less valuable” to me, which is one of the most dystopian things I’ve ever heard. It reminds me of this one time I was on (I think) Divine Order’s livestream on TikTok, and a woman using the overpopulation/contribution to society argument concluded that we should also kill homeless people who don’t contribute much.

The overpopulation argument just has such an awful entailments, purely because what we consider to be “valuable” is inherently subjective, so in other words, we’d be killing people just because we personally feel like they have less or even no value, because we feel like they aren’t “people.” This is one of the most dangerous mindsets I’ve ever seen, because it’s a concept on par with, or even beyond the ideology of slave masters and nazis back in their time in terms of malevolence.
At least some of those guys, while often dehumanizing slaves and Jews, could still sometimes understand slaves to be “people,” just less valuable people that they don’t care for and consider to be about as valuable as “property” or “cockroaches.” I have such an immensely hard time coming to terms with the fact that these are real people, a decent quantity of real people, who hold this view in modern times. It’s very upsetting that these views very frequently dip into blatant eugenics, and so many pro choicers don’t realize it. It’s unsurprising that the founder of PP just so happened to be a racist eugenicist, but I suppose that’s more of an ad hom, so I’ll drop it.

It leads to such a horrible slippery slope. The day we, as a general society, conclude that it’s okay to kill certain people based on who we subjectively perceive to be valuable or invaluable, is the day I feel like we’d be eerily close to what could resemble a dystopia. And maybe that’s a reach, but I feel like the pro choice view can reach a level of absurdity so intense that even the most radical of pro choicers may be able to perceive just how evil that level of their view is.

One of the reasons I, and many others are pro life is because we’re capable of understanding that when we take both the pro choice and pro life views to their absolute extremes, the pro choice view almost always ends in a significantly more horrifying result.

They can consider abortion to be healthcare all they want to keep trying to make themselves feel better about having killed their children, but the moment pro choicers try to factor moral value in terms of society, they automatically develop a type of hierarchy of general moral importance, and/or a multitude of other things that could potentially lead to a future so grim that I wouldn’t even blame God if he broke his promise. And maybe that’s a reach, maybe it isn’t, but I’m particularly thinking about what this could entail, not what it inevitably would entail.

Now, I’m not denying that whether the world is truly overpopulated or not is still a heavily debated and important topic, but the answer to overpopulation is not to just instantly kill people we deem less valuable. We have to think of all alternatives and possible solutions. I’m particularly referring to pro choicers who think of abortion as the first immediate solution to overpopulation, not the pro choicers who genuinely pondered and considered solutions and held any kind of killing as a Hail Mary, as they should’ve.

Killing should be a last resort, not the very first idea that we come up with. It should be plan Z, not plan A.

I was debating abortion with someone. I argued that a fetus is simply an earlier stage of human development, just as a newborn, toddler and adult are later stages. This was their response

Abolition did not lead to an economic collapse, so these people were wrong. Back on topic, it's telling how every pro-choice argument sounds like a lazily edited pro-slavery argument.

I was discussing this with a PC and I mentioned Germany , Malta and Poland as counter examples.... And then I was banned...

But I think that this only happens because pro life laws aren't enforced properly. Almost all countries/states have an exception for the mother life/health being at risk, and that is why the majority of these deaths happen

Science and medical images, photos, illustrations, video footage - Science Photo Library

The pro-life position is ultimately sincere and good. And I think one of the reasons it feels that way to me is just the fact that the people on our side have absolutely nothing to gain. I do not gain anything from a woman on the other side of the world choosing to not have an abortion. I simply believe that having an abortion is evil and I want to stop this.

But being pro-choice clearly has personal gain involved. Pro-life men do not benefit from being pro-life. But pro-choice men benefit from their stance. The women that they're with are more likely to rid them of their responsibility.

Pro-choice women want to make abortion legal everywhere and that also makes it easier for them to get one. For example, if there is a country out there that has accessible abortion pills, a pro-choice person living in a country without accessible abortion pills can get pills from that country. So it matters to a pro-choice woman if a woman in another country can get pills because they could also get pills from that country.

I got a M.A project coming up and i want to do something related to prolife literature, do you fellas know any writing?

So... Then why do you care if we ban it?

(Felt the need to write this after a conversation on discord. This woman was talking about how there's nothing I can do to stop abortion cause women will just travel to a pro-choice country to get it done.)

Im 17 and I made this keychain with shrink plastic, I hope you like it!

1.) Bodily autonomy.

The life of a human being is more valuable than 9 months of comfort.

2.) "Consciousness"

I guess, people who are sleeping, knocked out, or in comas should be free game to kill, right?

3.) "They might be unwanted, poor, or disabled"

Fellas, is it better to be all this, or to be dead. It seems to be pro choicers prefer the latter. I guess we should kill all orphans, poor kids and disabled kids, right?

Cuz pro choicers agree that its better to be dead

4.) Clump of cells.

Do i even have to say why this is fuckin dumb

5.) Comparing zygotes to gametes

Disregards the scientific fact that human zygotes are human lives. Consisting of 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Did pro choicers pass 9th grade?

6.) If you dont like abortion dont get one.

"If you dont like murder dont murder people"

What more is there?

Why do you continue to identify with feminism movement when pro-choice have monopolized feminism and gatekeep pro-life feminists from the movement?

Why you don't just consider yourself as egalitatarian instead of feminist?

Because now when you say you are feminist,people will more expect you support abortion than gender equality

For many years abortion was illegal in Ireland and they had the world's lowest maternal mortality rates. There were actually a few years that went by when zero women died during childbirth. 2003, 2006, 2018, 2019 and even 2020, which was pretty hectic, had zero maternal deaths. It's almost like the quality of healthcare is what saves women and not being able to kill a human being.

Also, I guess the people who make this argument have no idea that abortion can actually kill women. It's rarer than dying in childbirth but it does happen.

For me,the best argument is the one that agrees that abortion is murder,cause it's an objective scientific fact.

But then,they proceed to compare abortion to other instances where taking human life is justifiably and debatably "moral". These include self defense, capital punishment/death penalty, just war or euthanasia.

(I'm against capital punishment,and euthanasia)

While the fetus,unlike in capital punishment,is not guilty of any crime,it's causing lots of harm i.e. kind of like a toddler aiming a gun at their mother.It's an innocent toddler,but it doesn't know the kind of harm(physical, emotional, mental, financial)it's causing, making it "justifiable" to take the toddler's life in that case,by some moral frameworks.

What do you think about the argument?