I’m sorry but how are you going to be an all welcome forum for pregnant women but only allow mothers who support killing their offspring? I’m sorry what? Im recently pregnant and I have no support or information. I’m 19 and looking online for more support as I have no one, but every place I go you must be pro abortion… I’m not even against abortion I am all for non elective abortions, I’m just against abortions that are done electively.. it just makes no sense. If there’s a support sub Reddit where you don’t have to agree to human rights violations please send me that way!

there is so many layers to this…

aside from acknowledging the baby in the womb is a baby and then acting shocked why McKenna might not want to „end the pregnancy“ (because that would kill her baby) my first thought was „ripping the baby away from their biological parents? You mean HER???“

So I'm a libertarian. At least for now until I find a better system. Although I am okay with monarchy existing in the world, I think libertarianism is better than the neo-liberal systems of the West currently.

What do libertarians have to say about abortion? Well apparently there is evictionism which is like this: a pregnant woman has the right to evict something she doesn't want from her body but she doesn't have the right to intentionally kill it. If the fetus can survive outside the womb then she should remove it without killing it.

This principle looks like it allows for abortion until 20 weeks gestation.

According to libertarian ethics there is only one right and that is the right to property. Wait, but what about the right to life and the pursuit of happiness? Redundancies. If you own yourself then you have the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. And following from there rape, murder and kidnapping are property crimes against a person. So there is only one right, the right to property which follows you get to decide what happens to that property.

So an unconscious fetus who cannot survive outside the womb, do they have this right? The right to not have their body destroyed. It makes sense to say no, since they cannot and do not have any preferences, but if you believe that simply having a body means that you have property that should be respected, I could see that working for law.

So libertarians can either believe in evictionism where persons can be removed from your body (your property) whenever you want but you cannot kill them if they can survive outside the womb.

Or they can believe that having a living body gives you property rights, meaning no one can ever kill you unless you intentionally aggress.

I think this is what the divide would look like between PC libertarians and PL libertarians.

Two experiences with religious pastors... Lord, have Mercy on us all.

Last week, I met a "Baptist"/ independent type preacher in the inner city, a very poor area, while placing a go order at a restaurant. We'd been having a good conversation despite so many differences in race, creed, sex, rural and urban upbringing/ life, economics, etc. We seemed to agree on Jesus.

I knew what his response would be, but I still had hope I would be wrong about his expected response.

When he finally took a breath in his speech *condemning* the part that (homo+)sexuality was playing in the world's demise, I jumped in.

I added firmly that we should be ashamed of the abortion factory across from the high school just down the road. That my belief is that abortion condemns our nation. Leads to other ills.

I wasn't sure at first, but it quickly became clear he thought abortion at any point, for any reason, was a gift from God. He condemned the protesters as hurting people, as against God. It hurts my soul so much to see someone who claims to be a 70 year old man of God advocate for death.

It didn't take long for him to tell us of his many children and grandchildren, with many women, unmarried it sounded. He alluded to women he impregnated having abortions (her/their choices, he said). It was so sad. I did my best to love him and be an example of Christ. But WHY? He works hard for his community, loves them. But... does he, really?

This reminds me of the Presbyterian minister in the safest suburb of the metro, when there was a vote on the ballot regarding abortion.

I had made some simple signs and found a proper, busy sidewalk corner. The building was quite a bit back from the corner, but it had a huge empty parking lot. I asked him nicely if I could park in their large empty lot on an election Tuesday afternoon, no polling places nearby. It would be possible I might need to leave quickly for my safety. He refused and made excuses. His meaning and intentions were clear. He didn't want his church community to be thought of as against abortion or for unborn life.

I was shocked. At that time, I never imagined any pastor or minister supporting abortion.

🤔

I did find a better location near the polling place, but outside the perimeter of the election space. The reactions from my fellow Catholics at the Church, school, and daycare across the street were tragically mixed. Reactions from firefighters and others were actually positive.

Abortion is the worst crime or action or sin of our time. It is against God. It's against Jesus in the womb. It's against humanity.

Lord, have Mercy on our souls.

I'm a 33 year old woman. I used to live an angry and troubled life and was in prison between 2016 and 2024. Within the last year I've become active in my husband's Southern Baptist Church and I've accepted Jesus as my savior and been baptized. I gave birth to the world's sweetest and most handsome baby boy on July 8 and I LOVE being his mother. I now live my life with deep faith and strong Christian morals and believe abortion is murder.

But when I was 21, well before I found Jesus, I got pregnant and had an abortion at 10 weeks. I never told anyone besides my boyfriend at the time. My husband doesn't know either. I never struggled with that choice until I accepted Christ as Lord. I'm now stuck trying to reconcile my new life with my view that I intentionally murdered my own child 12 years ago.

At the time I didn't believe I did anything wrong. Now I believe I did something deeply wrong and inexcusable. I look at my son now and feel such love and pride and I'm so thankful to Jesus for the blessing to be his mother. But my first baby also trusted and depended on me and I made the choice to end his or her life. Please Lord forgive me.

When I was 15 I found myself pregnant at the end of my freshman year, I instantly knew I wanted to keep it. I had planned on not telling my mom until it was too late to get the procedure. But I ended up telling her because I got worried about medical care needs for my baby.
I regret ever telling her. Her instant reaction before asking what I wanted to do was she suggested we schedule an abortion. My step dad was verbally abusive and coercive about wanting me to get an abortion as well. It was everyday I felt like I couldn’t handle it at all. My mom said it was my choice over all but it never felt like my choice, it felt like I was shamed and un supported.
On top of this the father’s family was pressuring me and fed me lies that he molested his sister. After I had the abortion they admitted it was all a lie so I’d go through with it.
At 12 weeks I finally agreed to have the procedure and it was the most traumatizing experience of my life. Everyone says it’s just a clump of cells and that I would feel relieved afterwards. It was not. The planned parenthood staff were cold and cruel, even making jokes to eachother while I sobbed during the procedure. I honestly thought I’d feel normal and be able to just be a teenager again and I feel so stupid for ever thinking that.
After the procedure I dropped out of school for 6 months, I had so much self hatred and would cry myself to sleep every night just missing my baby and missing the life I could’ve had with my baby.
I haven’t felt the same for years. I’m 24 now and I have 2 beautiful living babies. Most days it still feels like I’m missing a piece of myself and my sanity. I’m suicidal year round and try my best to just get through each day but I feel haunted. I wish someone would’ve told me the actual reality of the procedure instead of the lies pro choice communities feed women.

My friend uses this argument that the disabled and children in poverty or with unsupportive parents will go through suffering in their lives that can be avoided by abortion. How can they say that when we live in a privileged position where we don’t know what these people go through. Also off topic, but I’ve managed to get good enough at debating abortion that one of my other friends has to resort to saying that killing people is sometimes justified. Here in England, I am disgusted by how prevalent these ideas are in this country. Thoughts?

I’ve only identified as pro-life for about 4 months. Before that, I considered myself casually pro-choice, mostly absorbing the standard narrative through osmosis: "The mother carries the child, so she gets to decide."

At the time, I viewed abortion as a grave, tragic decision that ultimately rested with the mother. However, as I saw public discourse shift toward treating abortion as something to celebrate or normalize reducing the fetus to "just a clump of cells" or promoting slogans like "Shout Your Abortion" it genuinely shocked me. Seeing that desensitization prompted me to step back, re-evaluate my assumptions, and look at the issue through a completely different lens.

When I started asking questions, the hostility I encountered only accelerated my shift. Facing immediate accusations of bigotry and dismissal "It's just a clump of cells dude" instead of genuine dialogue pushed me into a more defensive posture. It forced me to look deeper into the pro-life arguments, and I realized that side raised valid concerns that were being dismissed far too quickly.

• Hedonism

• Women Are Wonderful Effect

• Hating Babies

• No Accountability

• Poverty

Hedonism – don't really have to explain this one much. I had a conversation with a pro-choicer who laughed at the idea of having less sex. “What, do you expect women to have sex 4 times in their life?” Implying that she's okay with a woman having 3+ abortions in her lifetime in order to accommodate for her hedonistic choices.

Women Are Wonderful Effect – have you seen the stories of women committing enfanticide and the women in the comments section defending her by implying that she had no choice and if only abortion was legal in that area (even if abortion is legal in that area.) Well that's the women are wonderful effect. It's assuming that women are good and have good reasons for everything they do. If a man hits a woman, he is most likely the villain. If a woman hits a man, she is most likely defending herself.

Hating babies – need I say more. The fact that childless women are calling themselves “childfree”, likening children to cancer is a huge sign of the times. For years we have literally killed newborn babies who survived abortions in the hospital and not a single PC person cares about this or is trying to stop it. Kids are a burden and will end all your fun times. That's the message that's been repeated for decades.

No Accountability – why is it that PC women will not take any of the accountability for the fact that they “needed” to have an abortion? They will blame men for being promiscuous but they won't blame women for agreeing to have PIV sex. It's very strange. Women must have at least 50% of the responsibility when it comes to abortion. I personally think they have more than 80% because they often decide to sleep with men who don't wear condoms. They decide when sex happens and how frequent. The only reason they wouldn't be deciding that is if they're a victim of rape.

PC people won't accept that women are mostly responsible. What do you think? Who has most of the blame when it comes to abortion?

Poverty – I had a debate with a PC guy on discord once who told me that children born in Africa are an asset to their parents. They go to work and provide something since young children are expected to do labour. But children in the West are a burden. They are not doing labour for the family and that's why abortion is common in the West. I was so aghast at the fact that this guy was so okay with Western babies being killed because they contributed to poverty and were not an asset like their African counterparts. I'm apparently just supposed to be happy that humans are dying because of money. It makes me want to tear out my hair.

Most pro-choice people are hedonists even if they don't call themselves that. It's why they see a bigger problem with killing a 8 month unborn baby than with killing a 1 month unborn baby. It has to do with how much any suffering can occur. Once I had a debate with a pro-choice guy who told me that the consequences of giving birth to a baby include things like post-partum depression and spending 18 years paying for the child. You can only say this if you're a hedonist.

Hedonism is obviously not the standard we're using. It can't be because we're not saying that a level of suffering makes abortion good, okay or understandable. If someone adheres to the principles of hedonism, I honestly don't know what to say to convince them to change their minds.

I think this is why debating PCs is so frustrating. They seem to think that they can change my mind by talking about all the complications of having a child. They don't seem to understand that if those complications were enough to win me over, I would have been pro-choice by now. Like what, do they think I'm unaware that having a baby is hard?! I'm arguing against using lethal force against a tiny human. All possible difficulties be damned. You don't have the right to kill someone for being inconvenient.

If you want to know why I reject hedonism I can say in the comments section.

Genuine screenshot from lecture slides in a 400 level crim class, at a very large state school. Tell me what you see.

As a society, we all (including prochoicers) ostensibly agree with and abide by certain principles.

One of those principles is that we do not harm other humans in a manner that we ourselves do not want to be harmed.

Personhood arguments try to make a special exception for unborn humans based on personal opinions about which humans deserve that same moral consideration.

Science shows us that a new human organism comes into existence at fertilization. That organism is the same kind of organism that we already give moral consideration to: other humans. It is the same continuous physical entity that later develops into an adult human being. Every person alive today was once a zygote and an embryo in the same way they were once an infant and a toddler.

Personhood arguments try to draw a distinction based on some capacity the organism has or has not yet developed. They argue that the entity that is "us" does not come into existence until sentience and so the organism that creates sentience and performs the function of the mind is not morally relevant until it actually does those things.

Science shows us that the organism that comes into existence at fertilization is the same organism that inevitably will develop those capacities if its life continues. Consciousness does not create a new human being. It is a capacity that develops within an already existing human organism.

It is not possible to separate the mind from the organism because the mind is a function of the organism. The organ that performs the function of the mind is the brain which is a part of the whole organism.

The mind can not exist without the organism and so any moral value one attaches to the mind must also attach to the organism that performs the function of the mind.

That is why the whole human organism is the morally relevant entity not the mind.

Because it is the same continuous human organism throughout development from fertilization to adulthood, killing it at any stage produces the same result: a living human organism is killed. Regardless of whether the organism is killed before or after a particular capacity is developed, the same human is harmed by the loss of their entire future existence.

This violates the principle that we do not harm other humans in ways we ourselves would not want to be harmed.

Subjective opinions do not change the fact that abortion violates the principles that we already claim to hold.

I created a fake pro-life org as part of an alternate history project on a different sub. I’d like your input

Basically, a while back, I created a fictional pro-life organization that was formed alongside both the abortion abolitionist movement and the pro-life movement, known as the Lawful Abolition Movement (LAM).

Its name is an oxymoron (but don’t worry, it’s supposed to be intentional).

Here’s what I figured out so far (the project is a work-in-progress):

⁠The organization was formed sometime in the 1990s, meaning this comes after Students For Life America (which was founded in 1988, according to my preliminary research) but before Abolitionists Rising (Founded as Free the States in 2011).

Regarding abortion:

Both the abortion abolitionist, pro-life and Lawful Abolitionist movements agree that abortion is murder, they disagree on foundation: the abortion abolitionist movement is grounded in the Bible and is explicitly a Christian movement. The Lawful Abolition Movement is secular, but there are followers of Christianity in the movement as members.

The BIGGEST disagreement is on how to handle abortion legally:

The abortion abolitionist demands the immediate criminal prosecution of mothers who have abortions and oppose pro-life laws as “showing partiality” using the Bible. They demand total criminalization for all parties involved with zero exceptions. They also oppose incremental measures and promote a doctrine called nullification and interposition.

The Lawful Abolition Movement condemns Nullification and Interposition as “Un-American”, claiming that states do not have a “divine right” to ignore federal laws they do not like, and such actions should face charges of treason (It’s why they are called the LAWFUL Abolition Movement).

That being said, they agree that incremental measures are morally inconsistent if you call abortion murder, but the LAM stops short of calling them evil; while the abortion abolitionist movement condemns them on Biblical grounds (Isaiah 1:10-17, Proverbs 20:10), the LAM tolerates them under a reading of Proverbs 24:11 that abortion abolitionists do not agree with (For those who are confused: according to my headcanon, they are a secular organization that doesn’t see an issue with quoting the Bible-they only have an issue if you use the Bible to claim a “divine right” the Constitution doesn’t give you, which is why they condemn nullification and interposition).

Regarding whether mothers should be given murder charges, the official stance is a hard “NO.” The reasoning the LAM gives here is, “The abortion abolitionist movement has twisted the concept of equal protection to mean a blanket criminalization of all parties. This isn’t just unconstitutional, but has monstrous implications regarding how we should prosecute other crimes outside the womb.”

In-universe, they basically have this idea that the Biblical definition of “equal protection” as espoused by the abortion abolitionist movement is really a euphemism for collective punishment (something that the Constitution of the USA forbids) at worst, or something that makes the legalization of collective punishment possible (at best).

They instead advocate for “rehabilitation programs” that teach women biology rather than giving them murder charges, while only levying murder charges against the doctors.

In short, the LAM contends that equal protection does not mean “Treat all parties as morally culpable individuals with full understanding of moral actions” (Like what Not A Victim does) and instead means “Be discriminant among different cases in order to ensure just outcomes for all parties in all murder cases. You can protect all parties without collectively labeling a certain group of people unjustly, something the abortion abolitionist movement either doesn’t want to accept or outright denies.”

What are your thoughts here? Any pointers on how to make the world building better?

Image credit (They depict the in-universe roster):
1. Suits Wiki
2. 13 Reasons Why Wiki
3. Scandal Wiki

​

Many Catholics and Protestants support abortion. Now can you please stop saying that this has to do with our religious beliefs? For many of us, it has to do with studying the information. That's how I became pro-life. My religious parents never talked to me about abortion. When I was 18 I looked into the subject and quickly became pro-life.

Hi this is my first time posting here so I hope it's relevant or the right place to post this.

Basically, I'm recieving healthcare from a doctor who also performs abortions for a living, and as a pro-lifer I'm deeply uncomfortable with this. I'm receiving a treatment that is completely unrelated to abortion, and I've seen him before (without knowing his other job) and it never came up or anything. But the thing is that I would hate to see a doctor and to directly put money in the pocket of a man who murders babies for a living.

It seems simple like I can just go elsewhere or find another doctor but where I live is a very small place, and he is basically the only doctor, I can't get a referral elsewhere because this sector of care is so niche. So, it's him or no one, and I don't know what to do. Should I just suck it up and ignore it and get the care elsewhere? Am I blowing this up to be a bigger thing than it is? It does feel like there's nothing else I can do.

Thank you

Estos son los requisitos para catalogar algo como asesinato

Premeditación: no fue algo impulsivo ni accidental

,Alevosía: busca formas de mantenerse protegido sin que la víctima se defienda

, Ensañamiento/Deshumanizacion : provocar dolor deliberado

Precio/Remcopensa/Beneficio : gana algo al cometer la agresión

Premeditación: Sostienen que no es un acto impulsivo, sino un proceso planificado que requiere pedir citas, coordinar con profesionales de la salud o adquirir fármacos.
Alevosía: Señalan que la persona gestante o el médico actúan sin riesgo personal, mientras que el embrión o feto no tiene capacidad alguna de defensa o resistencia.
Ensañamiento / Deshumanización: Argumentan que el lenguaje utilizado (como referirse al feto como "tejido" o "cúmulo de células") despoja a la víctima de su condición humana para facilitar el procedimiento.
Precio / Recompensa (Beneficio): Interpretan que la motivación del acto busca obtener un beneficio personal o evitar lo que consideran una carga económica, emocional o social a futuro.

No sé cómo creen que funciona la biología pero no es como si en el útero el feto es una una pelota y al nacer mágicamente se vuelve un humano como si los últimos minutos dentro del útero fuera completamente diferente a los pocos segundos que lleva de nacido son exactamente lo mismo tiene la misma cara el mismo ADN la misma capacidad de sentir y asta más fuerte que un adulto por qué sus receptores de dolor no están desarrollados y cada señal es un estímulo enorme

Obviously this is a pro-life version of the famous “in this house we believe…” sign. What do you think?

If you Google it, its says throughout history about 570 mill to 1 billion people have been killed by war.

On the other hand, since the 1980s over 1.5 to 2 billion babies have been killed by abortion.

I mean I knew the numbers where crazy, but this is actual insanity 😭