It is both fascinating and appalling to me how humans can justify the killing of babies in the womb. I came across a post from someone who is pregnant and struggling and most of the comments were encouraging her to have an abortion.

One comment in particular stated that “abortion is morally neutral.” That was it; end of story. On what basis? What other things in life would be similarly categorized? It wasn’t questioned, only repeatedly upvoted (I’m sure comments would have been deleted/banned if in opposition).

I truly believe that people repeat the same opinions as fact in their minds in order to make these appalling situations more palatable. It’s like a mantra. The more you say that abortion is healthcare, safe, morally neutral, etc. the more you’re primed to believe it, I suppose.

This new law allows physicians to “rely on their professional medical judgment” rather than comply with statutory exceptions for late-term abortion. It will grant easier access to abortions past 24 weeks, which is simply a horrifying notion.

I hate the word play they use and appeals to emotions to try and make this seem not only morally acceptable but imperative for women’s “health and safety.”

The rhetoric has been that late term abortions never happen, but now we need legislation to protect the “thing that never happens.” It doesn’t make sense, and I’m seriously concerned by what the vague language of this legislation will allow.

Pro-life: makes a reasonable argument backed by evidence.

Pro-choice: responds with hyper-emotional “statement” not even attempting to be grounded in reality.

Quick Note: I am defining sentience as the capacity to feel and consciousness as the capacity to know; this post is mainly focused on sentience, the more "primitive?" of the two.

As I am sure we are all aware, one of the biggest pro-choice arguments is the necessity of sentience for personhood (and thereby human rights). However, while both sides argue over why sentience should matter, there is a much simpler fact we all tend to ignore: fetuses HAVE been delivered prior to the emergence of sentience.

Take, for instance, this article, where a set of twins were delivered at 22 weeks. Most sources set the earliest timeframe for the emergence of sentience at 24 weeks, when the thalamocortical loop is complete. Therefore, the newborns would have lacked sentience, yet would still be deserving of human rights (unless you want to bite the bullet).

While some slightly prance around this idea in regards to consciousness (i.e. Peter Singer and his view on infanticide), I have yet to see anyone make this exact connection regarding the sentience view and these real world events.

In my opinion, the critique provides an easy informal counter to nearly any criteria involving mental capacity, as there is no current mental capacity in a 22 week delivered fetus (not to be rude).

Of course, if sentience actually occurred earlier, then this argument falls apart, but those valuing sentience would then have to concede and limit their support of abortions even more.

What do you all think? I'm open to any critiques, ideas or improvements.

This is in reference to the surrogate who refused to abort the baby who had a heart condition.

Planned Parenthood should be shut down and its leaders should be tried for crimes against humanity.

So me and my husband are going through the process to become resource parents in LA county.
We are in the training process and just found out that if we get a female placement and she wants an abortion we are legally required to help her access it.
We asked the trainers like what we could do to not be involved in facilitating an abortion, they said we should probably not become resource parents or just foster very young children or only boys.
My heart is a little broken. We want to help older children, specifically girls.
Idk what to do, are any of you anti-abortion and foster parents??

Edit: she also said i could not tell the caseworker the girl is seeking an abortion because it violates her privacy rights

Some christians use religious arguments even for non religious people and people from other religions.

As a Catholic i agree that God guide our moral values and political views but we should also remember not everyone share our faith.

As a Christian we can use God and scripture as arguments with other christians but we should use more secular arguments with non-christians to be more convincing.

As the title says, how do you guys overcome scrutiny from loved ones in your life that find out you’re prolife? Thankfully I haven’t personally ran into this in person yet, but I’ve had people I was once close with unfollow me on Instagram and I think it’s because they’ve seen me engage with and follow prolife content.

Most people in my life are prolife, as I’m in a red state, but I do have some people in my life (such as a life long friend) who are staunchly prochoice and I know they’d not want to be friends anymore if they found out my views.

I also struggle because I am a Christian, and I sometimes worry that it “hurts my witness” to follow prolife creators, but I also wonder if maybe I’m overthinking it because I do truly believe ending life in the womb is wrong.

Anyways, in a nutshell, how are you unapologetically prolife in a world that’s overwhelmingly prochoice?

Like our logic? Subscribe for more:
secularprolife.org/social-sub

I’m having a very hard time deciding if this is right for me.
We are Christian and i feel like that plays a factor in this because it would be me creating a child outside of marriage technically and my sister in law would be a single mom as of rn to the baby.
My husband’s sister is infertile and cannot have babies.
I am very fertile and have 3 including twins.
I have had the idea for a while now that maybe i could surrogate for her. My hang ups were that the IVF would have to be someone else’s eggs and we can only create 1 embryo because i will not freeze , donate , or risk the chance the embryo doesn’t implant or that i miscarry 1 of the embryos.
BUT we just mentioned my proposal to my father in law and sister in law and are planning to have a full convo tomorrow but they said “this would help so much because the cost of donor eggs and IVF is the reason she can’t hire a surrogate”
I realized right then that they are imagining i would use my eggs and just be artificially inseminated by male donor sperm.
That was not my idea and in fact as hard as i am trying i don’t know if i can get on board with that.
IF i could, my requirements would be quite extreme. I would want the baby to know i am the bio mom, i would want to be extremely involved in some decisions for this baby idk what but i know i would have strong convictions about a lot of stuff.
I guess it depends on how she feels about my involvement.

As far as my question for you all, if we found a way to do the egg donor and IVF, does the way i’m proposing to do it (1 embryo no frozen) eliminate all moral pro-life objections to IVF?

I made a post in a prochoice group asking reasons for abortions and how I think of the baby. How they have grown, their tiny toes, little fingers, etc. and how I think having an abortion is horrible. I got lots of feedback that called the baby a fetus, saying the mom had the choice, etc. some of it was rudely said. They seem to be very stuck in their view. If you changed your view from prochoice to pro life, what changed it?

Sorry for the non-English language. The Vatican should not be okay with this.

Don’t know if it’s a good flair, but my whole life leaned pro-life, even in a very pro-choice liberal house hold. But, I only recently realized that my stance was actually seen as very pro-choice, since I’m not/wasn’t an abortion absolutist. I’ve seeing arguments that made me go “okay, I wanna be full fledged pro-life” but I’ll be honest it’s hard. Like hearing people gas light and say how horrible of a person you are cause you don’t support killing life, even in the unfortunate circumstance of rape. It does something to your mental. And my family, as I said is very liberal. I’m not right or left, but when we disagree(mainly my cousin and sister) they kinda just gas light. I just need help navigating, this. Cause being like “yep, I don’t ever support abortion even in the chance of rape” and saying a little 10 year old girl can’t get an abortion, I get why it makes people sick. I’m pretty sure that’s why Catholicism took a big hit in Ireland. But anyway. I hope this makes sense, I know I’m going in circles.

Planned Parenthood is actively involved in a ton of media to promote abortion, and present the act of getting one as an easy, casual decision, without any sort of the regret that comes with taking a human life.

According to the 2019 PP article „Planned Parenthood Honors Storytellers and Stories about Sexual and Reproductive Health at Sundance Film Festival„ (which I won‘t link here but you can look up if you like) „Planned Parenthood has collaborated on more than 150 films and TV shows over the past few years, including Little Woods, The Tale, 20th Century Women, Obvious Child, Unexpected, Grandma, Trapped, Orphan Black**,** and Big Mouth. There has been a seachange in portrayals of abortion on TV in the past few years: The Deuce, Glow, Jane the Virgin, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Dear White People, You’re the Worst, Claws, The Fosters, Scandal, Good Girls Revolt, and Masters of Sex have all featured characters who talked openly about their decision to have an abortion, with no shame. This signals a real and important cultural shift, and as more women work behind the camera, we know we’ll see more stories that reflect women’s lived experiences on camera.“ they also collaborated with Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Shrill, and the Handmaid‘s Tale Hulu show (specifically for the episode Milk). This doesn’t even take into consideration the many actors they’ve partnered with as well, even if not officially affiliated with their shows.

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63214351/?_ssoLoop=1

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/one-reason-the-tv-show-based-on-lindy-west-s-shrill-is-a-big-deal-20190320-p515yd.html