States:

Ever since I became pro-life, no one has ever said anything that made me question my stance. Sure they've said things that made me feel bad for some women in bad situations, but nothing that would make me want abortion to be legal and accessible for any reason. I find it so strange that so many people believe and want that.

Fairly surprised I have never really encountered this argument. Actually I did, but I was too stupid and missed it I guess. I believe I equated this argument to the traditional consciousness/sentience one. They somewhat overlap though (•-•). The argument goes that if something doesn’t exist it cannot be harmed- it’s not just that it isn’t aware. This argument also hinges on the premise that humans are the conscious minds and not the human bodies. I actually agree- I have to appeal to potential/future experiences as well as “whom” I deem eligible to allow those potential to realize. 

To put things into perspective, let’s say that people subscribing to this view assign the same moral worth of gametes to fetuses prior to 24 weeks, arguing “there is no "someone" to whom moral predicates apply.” Okay, I have lots of things to talk about but I feel like words are failing me, so here goes nothing. If one of the gametes that constituted me had come in contact with a different gamete, I wouldn’t have existed. That can’t be said for a zygote. That zygote was me because within the window of the first 24 weeks after conception it still couldn’t have the capability to become my twin sister or anyone else but me. 

If it were up to me to describe it, I would utilize the concept of souls. Souls don’t wander around looking for fetuses 24 weeks and over to inhabit those bodies, they come into existence right at the moment of fertilization, sleep and only wake up at week 24. I don’t know if that framing is too nonsensical, but I think it captures reality quite well. So by aborting those fetuses, you’re also killing those souls which are very much real and definite. 

I understand there are many problems. I’m sitting at my desk with a note listing those down right now, but I think I will resolve them later. If I write too much no one will bother to read and what I need reviews on the most will end up being overlooked.  

Ah, in regard to the overlapping, I don’t see a difference between having a suppressed consciousness and not having one at all. The only reason why consciousness is valued is because it means the being can perceive the harm done to them. Well, one can argue that the capability for consciousness is needed for a morally worthy being. As a being that has been asleep many times and is pretty confident how not existing feels like/is, no…

im not the kind of person to start arguements and i am also religious. but i just need some arguements incase someone who is pro choice wants to debate with me. ofc i am against it if its r#pe, please be respectful. i also respect pro choicers but not their ideologies. thank yu

When you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Background information:

Accutane is an oral retinoid that is prescribed by dermatologists for severe or persistent acne, under very strict circumstances. Because the medication is highly teratogenic (i.e it can and most likely will cause severe physical and developmental birth defects in an unborn baby), female patients are required to use two approved forms of birth control or commit to continuous strict abstinence. They are also required to do monthly pregnancy tests in order to be on the medication.

OP did not answer my question regarding what birth control forms she has tried. Furthermore, OP feels strongly about men not needing to be on birth control for Accutane-treatment and seems to reply to science with emotions rather than logic.

I joined this small discord server. The owner was a female leftist who was pro-abortion. This is the last conversation I had on that server before I was banned.

I brought up abortion in the general chat cause I really wanted the pro-choice people to give me an answer to this: What do you think of late term abortion?

And by late term I mean past 20 weeks when the baby has all its internal organs. I specified that because it was important to me and the way I feel.

The answer I got was not them explaining how they feel about it. Instead they just let me know that late term abortion is rare and when it is done it is done for a medical emergency.

But two of those “medical emergencies” were written as “domestic violence” and “mental health issues” in the wall of text that the leftie girl gave me. I confronted her about this and she told me that being in an abusive relationship is enough reason to want an abortion. It can be serious and the woman could be murdered if she doesn't abort. I told her that this doesn't make me want to make abortion legal, it makes me want to support women more.

Things got heated when she told me she was in a relationship with an abusive man and had his baby. I told her it's great she didn't abort. She said fuck you. Cause the only reason she didn't abort was because she was scared he would kill her if she did. And now she and her daughter are suffering and her daughter was abused by him for a time.

The discussion taught me that most pro-choice women don't have logical reasons to want abortion to be legal. They think it will make life better for them and they think that some kids are better off aborted and that's it. I even talked to a pro-choice guy once who believed exactly that and admitted it.

I talked to another pro-choice guy who listed “post-partum depression” and “raising the child for 18 years” as consequences for why abortion is okay.

If you think like this, is it even possible to change your mind?

Comments on Facebook were celebrating this. I am appalled.

Is it survival of the fittest to kill off the young of your country out of convenience?

(For those asking I now consider myself more of a Christian Democrat/Red Tory later in life. But I think you can still be progressive and have this position.)

The pro choice argument of "viability" taken to its logical conclusion means that you should have a "choice" to kill infants, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, and people in comas if it burdens you. You might as well abolish disability and elderly benefits because it's a "burden" on society.

This is a soft eugenics position, increasingly becoming a hard eugenics position as many of the parties pushing eugenics are also pushing MAID.

Many NGOs promote abortion and birth control as a form of population control in third world countries using arguments that poor mothers in Asia and Africa having many children is bad, this would not be out of place in 1930's Germany. Additionally it is disproportionately the disabled unborn children of poor women who are aborted.

Let us take examples: - The idea that poor Asian and African mothers are having too many children is reminiscient of the Yellow Peril and Great Replacement conspiracy theory. - In 1930's Germany there were mathematics textbooks that brainwashed students into supporting the death camps by asking students how much money the government would save by killing vulnerable people.

I think pointing out the connection between pro choice arguments and eugenics is a better option than focusing on whether life begins at conception, because for most people the argument isn't about life but about "viability". This is a very bad slippery slope.

As a disabled person it was very easy for me to see the connection between eugenics and the pro-choice position. I think more of these arguments should be used and would be easier than focusing on whether life begins at conception or abstract concepts about "bodily autonomy". Concrete examples are always more convincing.

mentally or morally.

wth did I just read..

It’s PC ideology that makes it acceptable to call a dead baby “tissue”, I have never seen a prolife person dismiss a miscarrying mother this way.

This commenter is too dim to realise that if abortion is not murder to them, then THEY are the one who believes that miscarriage is not a real loss of human life.

but like... imagine ur neighbor bob. bob aint do nothing to u yet but he MIGHT play loud music later. u just gonna pop him? just to avoid being annoyed for a few weeks? thats literally the same energy and u know it

and i get it, if the moms gonna literally die or something thats different obvs, that's valid im not dumb. but just cuz ur scared or the timing sucks? we would never let that slide for literally anything else in life. but somehow when it's a baby its 'empowerment'??

make it make sense cuz i feel like im losing it frbut like... imagine ur neighbor bob. bob aint do nothing to u yet but he MIGHT play loud music later. u just gonna pop him? just to avoid being annoyed for a few weeks? thats literally the same energy and u know it

and i get it, if the moms gonna literally die or something thats different obvs, that's valid im not dumb. but just cuz ur scared or the timing sucks? we would never let that slide for literally anything else in life. but somehow when it's a baby its 'empowerment'??

make it make sense cuz i feel like im losing it fr

USA Abortions latest year counted=1,126,769

USA abortion daily = 3,100

I actually got this from a video where someone argued that many of the bad arguments you see online are from bots. It would make sense.

The fact that all the pro life comments get down voted while all the pro abortion comments have significantly more up votes just shows how our society has lost its morals.

Over several days, I tried to convince this person not to get an abortion, I showed her that in her case, there are so many alternatives, that the baby is viable, and the reality of abortion. She hasn't responded in a while, I hope I convinced her.