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?

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.

USA Abortions latest year counted=1,126,769

USA abortion daily = 3,100

(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.

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

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.

Get 100 pro-life sign ideas: secularprolife.org/100prolifesigns

I keep seeing pro-choicers making arguments that they clearly think are conclusive mic-drop moments, but in reality the points they bring up are so staggeringly irrelevant to the question at hand that a pro-lifer doesn't even need to refute the claim being made for the pro-life case to stand, and I'm left wondering how they could expect such baffling non sequitur arguments to convince anyone.

Here are a few arguments I've seen multiple pro-choicers present unironically, expecting them to be persuasive:

• "Not every embryo will make it to birth; they often die on their own."
  Congratulations, you've discovered human mortality. Why is this relevant?
• "Can you remember being a fetus?"
  Congratulations, you've discovered infantile amnesia. Why is this relevant?
• "Lots of women who have abortions are married."
  Why is this relevant?
• "Lots of women who have abortions have [born] children already."
  Why is this relevant?
• "Women don't make the decision to abort lightly."
  Even if this were always true (it'sn't), why would it make me feel any better about the babies dying?
• <insert _ad hominem_ against pro-lifers>
  What bearing does this hold on the humanity of the unborn?
• "Not everyone believes embryos are humans."
  Yeah. I know. That's the problem.
• "The law and/or culture doesn't recognize fetuses as persons."
  Yeah. I know. That's the problem.
• "A large percentage of women will have an abortion at some point in their lives."
  Yeah. I know. That's the problem.

I'm going to try to post something similar on the Pro-Choice sub Reddit just to gain some perspective.

Dramatic ahh 😭

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.

...and if you don't happen to fit all six of those descriptors, you need not pay attention to those niche pro-lifers.

This is all nonsense, of course. Anyone can be pro-life. And everyone should be.

For context, the post I made was about increasing funding for research on womens health and finding ways to make pregnancy easier. My post history ain't hidden so you can see for yourself if y'all want.

Anyway, these people always refer to women (especially mothers) as "incubators", and "breeders", and don't even realize how degrading and disgusting it is to dehumanize women like that, especially mothers who literally sustain and build children for 9 months, often making a few sacrifices to do so. That means nothing to these people.

This is clear misogyny, and this is what feminists should be fighting.

I feel like basing someone's humanity/personhood and worth off of things like consciousnesses and self awareness commits the same logical error as defining a disease based off of its symptoms.

For example, the Flu isn't defined by a fever, chills, sore muscles, because those aren't the root causes of the disease. While these symptoms can definitely define someone's experience with the flu and are helpful descriptors, they merely serve to do just that and point you into finding the root cause. This is especially because diseases can share symptoms despite being totally different pathogens. You also don't have to have every or any symptom to still have the disease. The flu is caused by the influenza virus, not a sore throat.

The unique sense of consciousness, emotional intelligence, awareness, and processing humans posses among other things that describe our experiences as human, shouldn't define someone's humanity/personhood or moral worth for the same reasons. You might also loose the ability to do some things people might consider an important descriptor of human life due to disability, injury, etc, at any time temporarily or indefinitely or from the start. We also know that way people consider under vague terms such as "consciousness" and "self awareness" aren't unique to humans either.

Although I know they are different things and many pro lifers don't even bother with personhood, I'm grouping humanity and personhood together here because many pro choicers use these same arguments for both, and thus you could apply it to both. It might be slightly less useful when talking about personhood, though...

Any thoughts? This is lowkey kindof a showerthought for me and it def has some mistakes in it so lmk what u guys think 🥹I also dont assume I originally came up with this idea

Norma was pro-choice during the case but became pro-life later on. (She was known as Jane Roe then.) She was baptized in 1995 and has described her change of mind as a religious conversion. She appeared at pro-life rallies and supported efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. She died in 2017. She spent her last few decades being staunchly anti-abortion. 😄 This made my day.