States:

I thought it was about "my body my choice"

Why do we celebrate a woman who has had an elective abortion(excluding sexual assault in this case) and call it her "reproductive right", while we shun and legally punish fathers who run away from their pregnant mistresses and girlfriends?

In both cases, the parents of the unborn child have made a decision to abandon their responsibility to the individual in the womb.It's a selfish attempt to run away from the natural consequences of sex, in both cases."I'm not ready to be a mother right now,so I'll kill the child I have" and "I'm not ready to be a father right now,so I'll leave my pregnant mistress".Cause after an abortion,you're a mother(and father) to a dead child.

If a woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy (thus killing the fetus), a man can also abandon said fetus.Cause the law can conclude that "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" but not "consent to sex isn't consent to fatherhood"

Funny that abandoning a "clump of cells" is considered immoral but killing it is perfectly fine.

You’d think that abortion would be seen as a necessary evil. Something regrettable that they think needs to be done sometimes. But no. It's actually celebrated as an important aspect of women's freedom. But why? Why are they happy that poor women have to kill a human to succeed in life? Why are they happy to see a celebrity climb to the top because she had an abortion? Why are they happy about the deaths of disabled babies?

Now this isn't all pro-choice people. I think there are two camps here. The group that thinks abortion is awesome and important and the group that thinks it's sad and regrettable but doesn't want to impose. Both of these are terrible for their own reasons but why is anyone happy at all?

[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

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.

I have a question, based off a post I saw on here and also from what I have seen on TikTok (and some on Reddit too). I’m just curious to see broader views on the subject and situation. Also, I would post this to another sub like Conservatives but they only allow conservatives to post there last I checked, and this view seems to come more from the pro-life and conservative side.

Say a woman cannot have an abortion but does not want it. She is childfree and birth control failed. She hates being pregnant the entire time she is even though it goes smoothly, and she never feels anything other than aversion to what is inside her. When it is born, she doesn’t even want to hold it, and gives it up for adoption with the intention of never having contact in the future, as does the father (who also does not want it). She does not tell her family where it is, so they cannot adopt it and use it against her / force her to be around it or have a part in it.

Is it wrong for her to give it up for adoption? Should she have raised it? Obviously barring sterilization and “keeping your legs closed”. But why would she be wrong for giving it life but refusing to partake further in it?

Asking not to debate on whether abortion is wrong. Just curious about this whole “Adoption is Bad!” thing and that a couple people thought she not only should have birthed it but raised it despite how she talked about it.

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?

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.

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

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…

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.

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

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.