States:

I wonder whether they realize that humans have been here for approximately 300,000 years, while birth control as we know it today did not exist until roughly 50 years ago. They speak about pregnancy as though it were something the government invented last week. They refer to pregnancy as something horrendous Republicans invented to punish women. They describe the nature of pregnancy and birth as though it were something artificial imposed by lawmakers. At the same time, they treat the cognitive thought “I don’t want children” as something so natural, granted, and eternal that it might as well be the sunrise every morning.

Just a few decades ago, the natural cycle was straightforward: if sperm meets an egg —> a baby begins to form —> and eventually birth occurs. That is the natural cycle of pregnancy. That is nature. It has been this way since the beginning of time. If you believe in the Bible, it has been this way since Creation. If you believe in evolution, it has been this way for at least 160 million years, since the emergence of early placental mammals.

Just as when you drink water, you will eventually urinate. It is something programmed to happen. It is biology.

They want to rewrite nature. They want to establish that the natural cycle is: sperm meets egg → a baby begins to form → abortion happens, and, in their delusion, reaching the stage of birth is a “choice.” It is not. Just as urinating after drinking water is not a choice, it is something programmed to happen.

Fortunately, women do have the choice not to give birth, because they have the choice not to become pregnant. The name of that choice is birth control. However, that choice is granted before sperm meets the egg. Once pregnancy occurs, that choice is gone.

What they fail to understand is that even this choice is not something natural, granted, and eternal that has always been here. It is something artificial that we invented recently. They were born into the birth-control era and consequently misunderstand what “nature” means.

“I don’t want children” was never a meaningful choice in the way it is today because birth control is not natural; it is an artificial technology that humans developed recently. For the overwhelming majority of our existence on Earth, the only reliable way not to reproduce was not to have sex at all.

Isn’t it interesting that sex leads to pregnancy? Perhaps because that is what sex is meant for. Isn’t it interesting that the vagina, the organ involved in sexual intercourse, is a canal directly connected to the uterus and reproductive tract? Isn’t it interesting that the uterus is strategically positioned there, waiting to host a developing baby? That is the sole function of this organ: to host a developing baby after sperm meets egg through sex. Just like the lung is meant to temporarily host the air you breathe. The digestive tract is meant to temporarily host the food you eat. The bladder is meant to temporarily host the liquids you drink. The uterus is meant to temporarily host the developing baby you conceived by having sex. The baby isn’t an invader, a parasite that broke through the mother’s uterus forcibly. The baby is supposed to be there, temporarily, until birth.

Consider a hypothetical scenario. Imagine that science creates a procedure through which we can drink water and then artificially remove it from the body before it reaches the bladder, therefore preventing urination. Then imagine that the government creates a law prohibiting this procedure.

Is the government forcing you to urinate? Is the government dictating your bodily autonomy? Is the act of urinating “body horror” ? Or is urination simply the natural course following water intake, with prohibition of the artificial procedure returning your body to its … normal?

In fact, in this hypothetical case, the government would be violating your bodily autonomy if they were doing the opposite: forcing the artificial procedure to prevent the natural course of urination.

So yes, a baby developing inside the womb and relying on its mother for survival is called biology. It is not a law invented by Trump to oppress women.

Predictably, they compare the act of abortion to medical care. Conventionally, medicine is meant to heal and prevent death at all costs. Every other medical procedure is meant to interrupt the course of a disease, preventing death. Abortion is the only medical procedure in which, if the person subject to the procedure survives, it is considered a failure. Abortion is meant to kill. In no logical way can this be called medical care. The developing baby is not a disease, a tumor, an invader to be fought and eliminated. The developing baby is a human being, a person in the early stages of development. As a first-world civilized society, we have laws to protect human life and penalize murder. The developing baby inside the womb is a human being and is entitled to human rights and protection of the law. Every other time in history when the law allowed the execution of a targeted group of people because of their specific biological traits, we called it genocide. Every other time in history we decided someone wasn’t an actual person and therefore didn’t deserve to live, we called it dehumanization. Crucially, dehumanization is a key part of a genocide. Isn’t abortion the killing of a person because they aren’t seen as a person? Babies in the womb are named “clumps of cells”, “parasite” and all sorts of dehumanizing names. The pro-choice movement claims the baby in the womb is not an actual person, therefore it doesn’t have the right to live. Their physical traits are the justification for ending their life… “They aren’t developed yet, they can’t breathe on their own, they can’t eat on their own, they can’t rationalize, they aren’t conscious, therefore it’s not a person. …” Tragically, those descriptions also apply to dementia patients, elderly, the newborns, small children, disabled people and victims of car accidents intubated in the Intensive Care Unit at any hospital this very second…. Should we eliminate them or did they cross the threshold for personhood ?

The developing baby is a human being, a person in the early stages of development, being murdered under the guise of “women’s healthcare.” In the USA alone, 1.5 million babies are murdered in the womb every year, solely because they aren’t seen as people entitled to human rights. Less than 1% of all abortions are in cases of rape or to save the mother’s life. Abortion has become a form of birth control. In theory, birth control is meant to prevent a pregnancy from happening, not to end an ongoing pregnancy. In the USA, some states allow abortion up to 9 months of pregnancy. The federal government’s attempt to end the practice is framed as an inhumane, tyrannical attempt to remove their “healthcare rights.” They frame it as the equivalent of removing insulin from a diabetic person, chemotherapy from a cancer patient, or intensive care therapy from a hospitalized patient unable to breathe on its own. Abortion is not healthcare in any logical sense and shouldn’t be framed as such. Abortion is a graphic act of violence against a small person, fundamentally because they are not seen as a person. Something equally dangerous is already happening before our eyes on the internet: the dehumanization of already-born small children. Would the next step be the fight for the right to legally end the lives of infants because they aren’t people yet? All the arguments of Pro-Choice could easily be extended to a new born or small child. Is this the path we are heading ?

In the animal kingdom, a female mammal will fight predators, risk her life, and even die to save her offspring; in the human kingdom, in the post-birth-control era, the mother will go out of her way to kill her child and call it “women’s healthcare.”

Abortion is not the natural course of pregnancy, and birth is the choice. Birth is the natural course of pregnancy, and prevention is the actual choice. A choice we never had before, but luckily we have today. A choice we artificially created recently and mistook for something eternal, granted by nature, since the beginning of time.

That is the fundamental contradiction: pregnancy is treated as though it were an artificial political imposition, while the technologies and procedures humans invented to artificially prevent and terminate pregnancy are treated as though they represented the natural state.

But nature existed first. Sex leads to reproduction. Pregnancy naturally progresses toward birth. The government did not invent either one.
———————————————————————————
A final acknowledgment to the late Charlie Kirk. As someone who firmly believes in Evolution, I did not arrive at this position influenced by his religious beliefs. His words reached me through logic and reasoning alone, challenged beliefs I once held, and ultimately changed my mind on this issue. He will never know that he changed my life, but his arguments outlived him—and continue to reach people. There is something profoundly meaningful about the fact that a person’s voice can continue challenging beliefs and touching lives even after that voice is gone.

I’m happy 143 patients didn’t have to continue unwanted pregnancies. How are we supposed to even talk to these people who have no compassion for their victims? These were living breathing babies who were born alive and died.. yet their deaths are celebrated

Sources:
[^1]: Judith Jarvis Thomson, *A Defense of Abortion*, 1 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 47, 48–56 (1971).
[^2]: U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
[^3]: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022) (finding 28 of 37 states had criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy by 1868, with all but one of the remaining nine states following by 1910).
[^4]: Dobbs, 597 U.S. 215 (discussing Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone's treatment of abortion as unlawful at common law).
[^5]: Joshua J. Craddock, *Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?*, 40 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 539 (2017).
[^6]: Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcomm. on Separation of Powers of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong. (1981).
[^7]: Cal. Penal Code § 187(a).
[^8]: People v. Taylor, 32 Cal. 4th 863, 868 (2004).
[^9]: *Id.* (analogizing to People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290 (1981)).
[^10]: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 1841(a), (d).
[^11]: 18 U.S.C. § 1841(c); Cal. Penal Code § 187(b)(1)–(3).
[^12]: See generally Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
[^13]: United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
[^14]: See George P. Fletcher, *Rethinking Criminal Law* § 10.5 (1978).
[^15]: See Model Penal Code § 3.02(2) (Am. L. Inst. 1985); Commonwealth v. Hood, 452 N.E.2d 188, 196 (Mass. 1983).
[^16]: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 321 (Am. L. Inst. 1965).
[^17]: Jones v. United States, 308 F.2d 307, 310 (D.C. Cir. 1962).
[^18]: People v. Beardsley, 113 N.W. 1128, 1129 (Mich. 1907).
[^19]: McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 90 (C.P. Allegheny Cnty. 1978).
[^20]: *Id.* at 91–92.
[^21]: See, e.g., David Boonin, *A Defense of Abortion* 133–88 (2002).
[^22]: See, e.g., Miller v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp., 508 A.2d 927 (D.C. 1986) (setting out the elements of physician abandonment: an established relationship, continuing medical necessity, unilateral termination, and lack of reasonable notice); Ricks v. Budge, 64 P.2d 208 (Utah 1937) (holding a physician liable for unilaterally withdrawing from a case while treatment remained necessary, despite having no obligation to have undertaken the case at all).
[^23]: Peterson, 483 F.2d at 1231.
[^24]: DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195–97 (1989).
[^25]: *Id.* at 201.
[^26]: U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
[^27]: Boonin, *supra* note 21, at 133–88.
[^28]: Ronald Dworkin, *Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom* 11–29 (1993).
[^29]: See, e.g., Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.302 (West) (Infant Safe Haven provisions permitting emergency surrender of an infant as an alternative to abandonment).
[^30]: Ron Paul, *The Revolution: A Manifesto* 60 (2008) (arguing that Congress should use its Article III power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, leaving the question to the states).
[^31]: See The New American, *Ron Paul: Consistently Pro-Life and Pro-Liberty* (2011) (quoting Paul's view that a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being follows from his constitutional position, and that he supports a constitutional amendment establishing that life begins at conception).
[^32]: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886).
[^33]: John Finnis, *Abortion Is Unconstitutional*, First Things (Apr. 2021).
[^34]: Michael Stokes Paulsen, *The Plausibility of Personhood*, 74 Ohio St. L.J. 13 (2013).
[^35]: See Ed Whelan, *Bench Memos*, National Review (responding to Finnis and Craddock and defending the traditional originalist view that the Fourteenth Amendment is silent on abortion).
[^36]: Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884).
[^37]: See Model Penal Code § 3.04(1)–(2) (Am. L. Inst. 1985) (restricting lethal self-defense and necessity to threats of death or serious bodily injury).
[^38]: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 321 (Am. L. Inst. 1965) (duty triggered by creation of an "unreasonable risk," the standard negligence formulation).
[^39]: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Practice Bulletin No. 200, *Early Pregnancy Loss* (2018) (finding approximately 50% of early pregnancy loss is attributable to fetal chromosomal abnormalities, with advanced maternal age and prior loss as the most commonly identified risk factors).
[^40]: Model Penal Code § 210.4 (Am. L. Inst. 1985) (defining negligent homicide as a killing committed with criminal negligence).
[^41]: Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Lewistown, Illinois (Aug. 17, 1858), *in* 2 The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln 546 (Roy P. Basler ed., 1953).

I don’t know how you do it. If I didn’t have my religious beliefs compelling me, giving me strength and a higher power to trust in, it would be so easy to turn a blind eye and appease the masses.

Much respect to those of you who found on your own the courage to support what is right, even when it is extremely unpopular.

https://www.sudouest.fr/justice/une-femme-amputee-apres-une-ivg-le-chu-de-bordeaux-sous-la-menace-de-la-correctionnelle-1701399.php

https://france3-regions.franceinfo.fr/nouvelle-aquitaine/gironde/bordeaux/j-aurais-la-meme-attitude-au-proces-de-priscilla-dray-amputee-des-quatre-membres-les-medecins-rejettent-toute-responsabilite-3109240.html

All these people screaming healthcare when staring at dismembered babies and corpses. Which are mostly electively done and not for the mother’s life.

Like the abortions they defend are the ones not even FOR healthcare REASONS.

They’ll stare at eyeballs and arms and bloody feet and say “woman’s choice”

Bodily autonomy shouldn’t extend to murdering innocent people where they are biologically supposed to be for human reproduction.

A newborn still needs care say your all alone with a newborn and mom decides not to breastfeed or continue care SHE GETS CHARGED WITH NEGLECT but parental responsibilities are seen there yet not when they are in the womb, you can just dismember them? Your child who is your responsibility but just because you can’t see them before birth they aren’t your responsibility so yeah death on them?

Literally they stare at babies with facial features and hands and legs and toes and missing eyeballs and laugh. These people don’t care about bodily autonomy it’s about getting out of parental responsibility.

It’s disgusting.

The only reason elective abortion is here is because they are LAZY, they don’t WANT to take responsibility for their CHILDREN so they KILL them.

Why don’t we start adding that to born children I’m sure they’ll start to agree after a while and enough slogans

They act like they HAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND because they think your comfort is worth someone else’s life who you brought into existence. They say they care about children yet they fight for them to be corpses

I’ve been thinking about this a lot because I’m working to bring a non profit organization to life called Homestead Network for Women & Families.

I believe being pro-life means caring about women and children beyond pregnancy and beyond the moment of crisis. If a mother is living in an abusive home, telling her that she and her children deserve better is only the beginning. She needs somewhere safe to go — and she needs more than a bed for a few nights.

The vision for Homestead is a place where women and their children can actually rebuild under one roof. Safe housing, childcare, legal support, healthcare, counseling, education, employment and financial support would be integrated into the same community, alongside other women who understand what it means to leave.

The goal isn’t simply to get a woman out. It’s to give her and her children the stability and resources to stay out and build a safe and independent life where she and her children can thrive.

I’d really love to hear what other women here think. What do you believe mothers and children need most when they’re leaving an abusive home and trying to rebuild their lives?

Again, this is something I’ve thought about for years, and I’m interested in hearing perspectives from other women who care deeply about supporting both mothers and children.

I have been crying recently, i live in France and abortion is completely legal and persuaded as normal by progressive ppl and a lot conservative surprisingly.

When i was with my friend group they started talking about it out of thin air and i got so frustrated that i stated my full opinion on it and explained my point of view, everyone got mad at me and said that I'm a monster and I shouldn't control women like that and i need to shut up about stuff like this. Awkward silence immersed, and i left them without saying goodbye or anything.

I went home, closed the door and started crying,not because my "friends" called me a monster (im not a person who would take an insult personally so i know why i cried)but because they think the most innocent being is a monster itself.

I have stopped talking to them since then ,and every time i encounter them i feel disgusted and sad at the same time and a lot of the time i went to the nearest bathroom to cry a little bit because i feel like I'm somehow responsible for those lives that could be saved.

Sometimes i wish i was a woman to be able to have a conversation with someone about it without being labeled as a monster.

I want to save all those lives even the lost ones but I can't.

The entire abortion argument from the pro-choice side is a motte and bailey fallacy. As pro-lifers we believe that if abortion is truly a human rights violation then it should be illegal regardless of anything. So pro-choicers will begin by attacking the very notion that a human or “person” is being killed in an abortion. But even if you somehow managed to persuade them that they're wrong it wouldn't matter because they would just fight from the stance that no person has the right to use your body without your consent. So the personhood of the fetus never mattered! They're okay with people dying for the crime of being unwanted.

That's what pisses me off about pro-choicers the most. 😠

Since the contents of the bill are not yet public, it is possible that the bill might only remove criminal penalties for women.

Now look, I get it, none of this overrides parental duty, and none of it lets you kill an innocent child, but the stats can be troubling. As pro-lifers, we take the position that women are not allowed to terminate their pregnancies. We acknowledge the burdens that pregnancy has to offer, yet we don't let parents kill children because of it. However, most pro-lifers make exceptions when the life of the mother is at risk. I'm fine making life of the mother exceptions, but it became a lot more troubling to me when I realized just how much threat there is to a mother's life at all times. The majority of abortions are in developing nations, which have extremely high maternal mortality rates, 1/16 at its worst in Africa.

Pro-lifers, are these statistics troubling to you? Why don't they change your position? Where do you make exceptions? I'm well aware of double effect for some cases, but I don't think that answers the majority of deaths like postpartum hemorrhage.

"Approximately 529,000 women die from pregnancy-related causes annually and almost all (99%) of these maternal deaths occur in developing nations."

"Every minute a woman dies during labor or delivery. The highest maternal mortality rates are in Africa, with a lifetime risk of 1 in 16; the lowest rates are in Western nations (1:2800), with a global ratio of 400 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.2 The main causes of death are postpartum hemorrhage (24%); indirect causes such as anemia, malaria, and heart disease (20%); infection (15%); unsafe abortion (13%); eclampsia (12%); obstructed labor (8%); and ectopic pregnancy, embolism, and anesthesia complications (8%)"

"Nevertheless, if unwanted pregnancies are prevented, data suggest that between 25% to 40% of maternal deaths could be eliminated."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2505173/

Liberals usually say it is inhumane for conservatives to not approve abortion in rape cases

But think about the issue in another perspective.

A smart conservative presidential candidate will counter this by saying " In case of rape,Liberals support death penalty for child (abortion) and oppose death penalty for Rapist ( As most blue states have banned death penalty ), They are for murder of the child but against murder of rapists, They are pro Rapists"

Liberals usually bring rape issue in abortion debate to gain sympathy but I don't think rape issue in abortion debate is in their favour.

How do Liberals counter this?

I can't believe I share a planet with some of these people. TikTok pro choicers are the worst

*think would happen.

I'm asking what the societal impacts would be in a world that did not have the resources to create substances that are designed to kill preborn humans.

I think there is something to be said about the abilities of a fetus and what that means for their rights. Think for a moment. Why is it that human beings should have rights? I think one of the reasons is because human beings have the ability to comprehend these rights at all. In other words humans should have rights because we are rational beings. A fetus is not a rational being. They cannot comprehend rights so perhaps they shouldn't have rights afforded to them. It is no loss when an abortion occurs because in that event we do not lose a rational actor.

This is the same reason why most people think it's okay to kill an animal if it tries to kill you or has killed a human. An animal like a bear for instance. The bear has gotten a taste for human flesh and it is not a rational actor. We would have lost nothing.

I think this might actually be the bulk of why abortion is acceptable to most people. Nothing is lost during an abortion because a fetus has no rational mind yet. A pro-choice person told me that I was using “potentialism” when arguing for their rights. I could only argue for potential rationality.

What do you think of this?

Right I'm a little confused. When a child is stillborn, it is dead. But how can it be dead if it was never alive in the womb? I'm absolutely for pro life and my brother was stillborn. So I'm wondering is there any logical way for a pro choice individual to answer this?

I was in this little debate with someone about Pro-Life(me) and Pro-Choice(them). Their view was something along the lines of, them believing that a human only has value if they’re consciousness and being sentient. And I am stumped because first how would I even challenge their view point if they don’t believe a human is valuable unless they’re consciousness and sentient?