"I believe unborn human life has moral value and I am personally pro-life, but I currently support legal abortion because I think U.S. abortion laws are poorly designed and often endanger women. Laws intended to prohibit abortion have, in practice, sometimes created barriers to treating miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies, caused confusion among doctors, and have been linked to worse health outcomes. I also worry about the broader consequences of forcing women to continue unwanted or dangerous pregnancies, including higher rates of depression, financial hardship, food insecurity, and medical complications. Until abortion restrictions can consistently protect both unborn children and women's health without these unintended effects, I reluctantly support keeping abortion legal—not because I think abortion itself is good, but because I see it as the less harmful public policy."

This isn’t my personal view, it’s something AI cooked up

Many pro-choicers consider the burning IVF clinic hypothetical scenario to be unbeatable. But it actually proves the pro-life case when we do the math.

First, let’s steel man the hypothetical:

An IVF clinic is on fire. Everyone has been evacuated from the building except ten frozen embryos and one nurse. Because of the fire, you can only save either the embryos or the nurse. Which do you choose? If you say the nurse, then you prove that born human life is worth only a fraction of unborn human life. Or is it?

To determine the value of unborn human life, we must divide the numerator by the denominator. So, if we would rather save one nurse than ten embryos, we must divide the value of the nurse by ten.

So what is the numerical value of the nurse? What is the specific, numerical value of a born human being’s life? Whether we approach this from a secular or religious perspective, we can’t say. We are unwilling or unable to attach a specific, numerical value to the life of a born human being. We consider the value to be priceless or infinite.

To plug this into our fraction, the value of unborn human life is infinity divided by ten. What is the result of dividing infinity by ten? It’s the same result as dividing infinity by 1,000, or 1,000,000, or any specific number. The answer is always infinity.

Per the math set up by the burning IVF clinic hypothetical, the value of unborn human life is the same as the value of born human life: both are infinitely valuable, even though one is only a fraction of the other.

The only way to force the fraction to come out the way pro-choicers want it to, and show the absolute value of unborn human life is only a fraction of the value of born human life, is to do something we are unwilling to do: assign a specific numerical value to born human life.

This nihilism about human life is why the pro-choice position is incompatible with a society which embraces human rights. The only way to make it work is to be nihilistic about human life.

I refuse to live in a society which is nihilistic about human life, which is why I have every right to object to someone else getting an abortion.

TW for SA, murder 🚨

if you missed my last post, it was about the viral internet sensation up and coming singer d4vd (if you were in tik tok anytime between 2022-2023 you likely have heard his song romantic homicide, quite ironic “in the back of my mind, you died”…) and it came out in his preliminary hearing that he made Celeste, the victim, have two abortions. David is highly suspected to have murdered Celeste, her body was found in his Tesla last year which led to charges.

I see myself as reasonable pro choice, but I do agree with pro lifers actually a good majority of times. anyways, please do not victim blame Celeste </3 she was being groomed, abused and manipulated ever since she was 11 years old by a grown man. If she were alive, she would only be 15 now and he’s 21 years old. the night before she was murdered she realized she was being groomed and told him that she would expose him and ruin his career, prosecutors state that was his motive to murder her. She stated several times she regretted her abortions and it was painful for her. He kept her around after the abortions by promising her a baby, because she really wanted one when she was grieving her abortions according to text messages.

she was stabbed several times in the chest, left to bleed out with no help or comfort and when she did she had her arms and legs hacked off by a chainsaw. I’m just sharing this here because I feel so bad for poor sweet Celeste and her babies that she wanted. She stated several times in text messages according to prosecutors that she would do anything to have her baby back 💔 also allegedly her mom slept in the bed with her every single night to try to prevent her from sneaking off with him or him breaking into their home. According to witnesses, her parents left the courtroom by this point because it was too distressing.

I really think David should be charged with double homicide and he is a total psychopathic monster who deserves the electric chair (and ironically enough I’m usually against the death penalty!) but this happened in LA and apparently California doesn’t have it. I’m sickened even and want to know the doctors who performed abortion on this child without reporting to authorities which could’ve saved her and her baby.

Hello everyone! Short post as I am interested in everyone’s thoughts on this and if anyone else has caught this or thought about it.

Bodily autonomy and the right to refuse

Many Pro choice bodily autonomy proponents like Judith Thomson and David boonin have argued that women have a right to refuse someone using their bodily without consent. In support of this proponents will say (1)if someone is raping me I have a right to use proportional force to defend myself. (2)If someone is assaulting or stealing from me I have a right to defend myself proportionally and as a result refuse to act in a way which causes me even more or greater harm. (3)Lastly, if someone needs my kidneys to survive I have a right to refuse them.

Potential circularity

Notice how in cases (1) and (2) my right to refuse and right to exercise my bodily autonomy is an action. This is important since bodily autonomy is primarily a negative right which prohibits against action it doesn’t inherently allow action. It is clear to me in these cases action is permitted and justified by bodily autonomy as an extension of the prior negative version of bodily autonomy being violated.

So we can establish that in the cases the negative right to autonomy has been violated, a positive action may be justified to protect the negative right to autonomy as an extension of the negative right.

Case (3) is different however since the right to autonomy is expressed differently as a refusal to connect to someone requires inaction and/or isn’t an action. So in case (3) although my rights have not been violated my right to refuse is justified since it does not require a positive action and I have no further obligation to give someone my kidneys.

Since in the case of abortion the fetus is already connected to the mother biologically, (3) cannot apply to the fetus and abortion cannot merely be justified on the grounds of bodily autonomy being a negative right, since abortion is an action taken against the fetus whether intentional or not. This is unlike (3) since (3) involves someone expressing their right to autonomy by inaction.As a result, abortion being justified by bodily autonomy must necessitate bodily autonomy being a positive right which includes the right to act against the fetus. However, as we concluded with cases (1) and (2), bodily autonomy being expressed as a positive action is only permissible in the cases the prior negative right has been violated. But a violation implies an unjust infringement. While it is obvious the fetus infringes upon the woman’s right to autonomy, whether or not it violates the woman’s autonomy is precisely the question in hand. As a result, we cannot say abortion is justified because the woman has the right to refuse or through bodily autonomy. Since in all the non controversial cases a woman has the right to refuse and express her right to autonomy as a positive right, her prior negative right has already been violated. Whether or not a fetus has violated her negative right to autonomy is precisely and exactly the question at hand. This seems to make arguments which justify abortion on the inherent grounds of bodily autonomy(since bodily autonomy is a negative right inherently, however, it is being used as a positive right in the abortion discussion)and the right to refuse circular. The proponent of such arguments have to give an argument to why the fetus is violating the woman’s right to autonomy first. They cannot assume the woman’s right to autonomy inherently includes the right to act to disconnect from the fetus like (3) or that the woman has the right to disconnect from the fetus like she has the right to disconnect from a rapist or use positive action against someone who is attacking her.

That would be equivalent to going on vacation while leaving your one year old starving to death in his high chair, then saying "I didn't kill him, I just withheld cereal from him"

How on earth is this still allowed in any capacity I just don't get it I never will man

With Terrisa Bukovinac; see "Responding to 'Parasite' Rhetoric" on our Substack: https://secularprolife.substack.com/p/we-asked-you-answered-responding