States:

I guess in their eyes I'm anti-choice and I guess their right.

I'm against the choices that end an innocent human life for mostly selfish reasons. A lot of them (at all) use another woman's trauma (rape/sexual assault) as an excuse for their selfishness. It doesn't get more Misogynistic than that.

If we compare the two, Rapists are evil and disgusting because they use their bodily autonomy as an excuse to violate another woman's bodily autonomy. They think their autonomy is more important than the woman's. Abortion does the same. The pregnant woman uses the excuse of bodily autonomy to violate the bodily autonomy of the innocent human life she is carrying. Both are evil, as both violate the bodily autonomy of a precious, innocent human life.

And surely if the woman was raped and kept the baby, they could take a paternity test that would determine that the baby was conceived in that rape and convict the rapist?

Abortion also allows men to sleep around and escape responsibility of raising a child/getting a job to pay child support.

And it also implies that women HAVE to choose between a career or motherhood, even though women are capable and strong enough to do both.

I see this statement a lot in pro-choice propaganda. However, I find it ridiculous. It's such an insane hypothetical to even consider. One of the reasons why women are marginalized is because of their ability to give birth to children... that's one of the main proponents of misogyny--viewing women as baby-making machines, and reducing their worth to their maternal capacities. So the original statement is honestly more bs to make pro-lifers seem like raging misogynists. If anyone has a better idea how to respond to this, I'd be happy to hear it.

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.

[23F]

As an woman, even if a guy raped me and made me pregnant I would never get an abortion, it's absolutely not the baby fault, they are innocent and didn't even choose to exist in this context, I would be able to raise this child with all the love I can give them because again, they're innocents.

The baby do not deserve death sentence because of his "father" bad actions

I can't believe people would literally hate this child just because of what happened, they are pure angels no matter what.

I could never put my dog to an shelter, and even less abandon my baby.. I'll be their mother no matter what

Question’s in the title, am pro life, but not religious. Seeing if anyone knew any subs, 1,000,000 thanks.

I want to preface this by saying where I am coming from: I believe unborn babies are human beings with an inherent right to life. I believe human life has value from the moment it begins, and that abortion intentionally ends an innocent human life.

That said, I have been thinking about an argument that does not start by asking someone to accept that belief. Instead, it asks a question about how we should act when there is uncertainty and the consequences are irreversible.

Schrödinger's Cat analogy: Imagine a veterinarian is presented with a sealed box. Inside is a cat, but the veterinarian cannot determine whether the cat is alive or dead. Opening the box early will certainly kill the cat, but waiting until the scheduled time will reveal the cat's status.

What should the veterinarian do?

I think most people would say: wait.

The consequences of being wrong are not the same. If the cat is alive, opening the box destroys a life. If the cat is not alive, waiting does not cause additional harm.

This led me to think about abortion.

If there is a disagreement about whether an unborn child is a human life with moral value, and ending the pregnancy would certainly eliminate the possibility of that life continuing, should we not err on the side of protecting life?

If we wait:

• If the unborn child is a human life with a right to protection, we preserved that life.
• If someone believes it does not have that status, waiting did not create the same irreversible harm.

But if we choose abortion:

• If the unborn child was a human life with a right to protection, we have ended that life before the uncertainty could be resolved.

My argument is not simply "uncertainty proves the unborn child has rights." Rather, my argument is that when the stakes are potentially the loss of human life, and the action being considered is irreversible, caution should favor preserving life.

In summary: If we cannot agree whether an unborn child has the same moral value as a born human life, but ending the pregnancy would certainly eliminate that possibility, shouldn’t we err on the side of protecting life? When the cost of being wrong could be the loss of an innocent human life, caution seems like the more ethical choice.

I would appreciate feedback, especially from people who can identify holes in the argument. Where do you think this reasoning succeeds or fails?

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.