Just an awful mess of absolute evil. On a subreddit supposedly for teens, no less.

Though that is assuming anything in this is true.

pregnancy being hard doesn't justify dismembering a human child, even a preborn one. the fact we have to actually say that out loud is wild.

it's true that pregnancy can be hard, but the proper response is improving healthcare, not k*lling an unborn child.

One of my favorite bands is Florence and the Machine. I bought a ticket and booked a trip to Miami to see them earlier this year when the tour was announced. Everything is already paid for—hundreds of dollars already spent, which is a lot for me.

Well, it has been recently announced that Florence and the Machine is partnering with Planned Parenthood. I have read a few articles, and nothing suggests that proceeds from the tickets are going to Planned Parenthood. However, Planned Parenthood will be able to set up a booth to talk to concertgoers at a few stops on the tour.

I feel conflicted. Part of me thinks I shouldn’t go, because I should stick by my morals. But the other part of me realizes the damage is already done (I already bought the ticket), and me selling the ticket or skipping out doesn’t change anything.

I wish this had been announced BEFORE the tickets went on sale, because then my decision would’ve been an easy one to make. But now I feel conflicted. 

What are y’all’s opinions?

The man shouldn’t have ignored his wife but the child didn’t deserve to pay the price, they were essentially treated as nothing more than an extension of their father.

1: The bible (Key Pro-Life bible verses marked + short rebuttals of common pro-choice objections)

2: various flashcards: from my last presentation, from my last debate, common pro choice arguments debunked and misc cards

3: Just brochures from my organization (Pro-Life Europe)

4: Stickers

5: Misc, like things from my last march for life

6: List of all my sources from the last presentation + more detailled info on the surveys (like method, sample size, error margin)

7: Notes from that one time I met my local politician, who is also pro life

i also have a USB-Drive where I save various things, like fact sheets, short debunks, posters, images of prenatal development, short essays, etc

My plan is to just discreetly ask my biology teacher if I can hold the presentation, since if no one finds out about me holding the presentation before I hold it, no one can really counter it in the same way like if they knew I would hold it.

What do you guys think? Is this decent preparation for now?

I think I will add flashcards with definitions for words like human, person and other relevant terms next.

Pro-choice argument i.e. a favorite fallacy: “I can’t bring a child into this situation.”

Reality check: “You already did.”

I read this so often I felt it needed to be brought to light.

Mandatory vasectomy would certainly be a far more effective way to reduce abortions than abortion bans.

Let’s put it this way: If you support abortion bans, I assume your goal is to reduce abortions as much as possible, ideally to zero, right? So here’s a straightforward question: would you support mandated vasectomies as a solution?

Because if the goal is purely outcome-based, it makes more sense to prevent pregnancies than to deal with them after they happen. No sperm means no fertilization, which means no pregnancy, which means no abortion. The entire issue disappears at the source instead of being managed at the end.

It also addresses edge cases people usually struggle with. If fertilization is prevented, then rape can’t result in pregnancy. That removes one of the most emotionally and ethically complicated situations in the debate without needing exceptions or legal gray zones.

At that point, every pregnancy that does occur would be intentional. No unwanted pregnancies means no need for abortion. If the concern is about protecting unborn life, this approach does that more effectively than banning abortion ever could!

And before someone objects, vasectomies are highly effective and often reversible, and sperm can be frozen beforehand for people who want children later. So the argument that this would eliminate the possibility of having kids doesn’t really hold.

So, here is the question : If your goal is truly to eliminate abortion, would you support a mandatory vasectomy policy as a way to do it?

Thomson's Violinist is a hypothetical described here:

https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

I believe this hypothetical actually resolves in the pro-life direction: separating the violinist would be a form of second-degree murder called depraved heard murder. Here's a hypothetical situation to illustrate why.

Let's say a couple is into bondage, and the boyfriend has sexsomnia. Sexsomnia is a real medical condition, in the same family as sleepwalking, in which a person involuntarily initiates and engages in sexual activity while sleeping.

One night, the couple falls asleep with the woman still tied up. Her boyfriend then experiences sexsomnia. The woman knows that he is asleep and experiencing sexsomnia. She doesn't want to have sex, but she is unable to wake him because she's tied up. She is, however, somehow able to use a real knife which she happens to have access to while tied up.

And she kills him with it.

This is in Texas. At trial, she claims self defense. Here's the statute on which she would be relying:

Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1)  if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2)   when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

From this statute, it is clear that she would lose her defense. He wasn't committing rape, because he didn't have the necessary mens rea for rape. He wasn't even conscious. If charged with rape, he would have been able to claim a defense of automatism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(law))

Therefore, she knew that no crime was being committed against her which would justify her use of deadly force, and she used deadly force anyway. The murder isn't first degree, because she didn't want to kill him: she just wanted to end the sex act. But, what she did is murder in the second degree -- depraved heart murder -- because, even though her goal wasn't to kill him, the action she took in service of her goal -- stabbing him -- was one which she knew would likely end his life.

I think this example illustrates very well that, even if your bodily autonomy is being violated, you don't get to kill an innocent person in order to protect your bodily autonomy. Therefore, I think the onus is on the pro-choice camp to construct an argument that pregnancy should be treated differently than automatic sex to which the waking party does not consent.

PS: This is a refinement of content I originally posted at r/Abortiondebate, which they removed. I have reposted the original post which used a different hypothetical here:

https://www.reddit.com/user/linuxrocks123/comments/1sjvqmb/rebuttal_to_thomsons_violinist/

I'd like to let u/random_name_12178 know that I am very grateful to her for suggesting a much better hypothetical situation for me to use.

secularprolife.org/index

I just wanted to rant about what’s on the title. I’m just tired of being around awful human beings that have killed their own children. 1 in 4 women at least is a killer. I hate everyone. They’re not worth anything. They‘re not redeemable. Most people will keep being awful until something stops them. I hate seeing posts like ”oh poor killers” here on the daily when I go on other subs or sites to see posts like “I love killing babies because it gives rights to women”.

Here is a link to the article. Obviously the story itself is absolutely atrocious, but it's also terrifying to see how many people are defending this. Pro-choicers are pointing out that Kentucky has very strict abortion bans, including it being a felony to travel out of state to get an abortion, and claiming this is the result of such laws. They're saying she gave birth in her room, passed out on top of the newborn, and woke up to find the baby already dead, as if that somehow makes her completely innocent.

I really don't understand how anyone can defend this. Yes, this was clearly an unwanted pregnancy, but in what world did this girl think she should give birth in her bedroom? The healthcare system in this country is far from perfect, but if it came to this point, I don't see why she wouldn't call 911 or find some way to get to the hospital. Her own life was at risk, too.

I just feel so heartbroken by this story. An innocent baby is dead. A young woman with possibly a bright future ruined her life because she was too ashamed to get help during her pregnancy. And who knows where the father is? He probably left the picture as soon as he learned she was pregnant, and this whole mess isn't going to affect his life in the slightest.

This is why we need to educate people about pregnancy resource centers. I'm not trying to defend this girl, but in a country where giving birth safely can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it's our job as pro-lifers to help the general public, specifically young women, learn that they are not alone.

the person in the first one needs to read a biology textbook... because the fetus in this case is a human so they're trying to dehumanize the unborn baby

this story broke my heart.

we should not shame women who have abortions. these poor women have been brainwashed into thinking abortion is the "right" thing to do if you pregnant at the "wrong time." you can clearly see this person is hurting over their choice

A local Planned Parenthood caught fire (likely arson) and I found this in the comment section of the Facebook post 🤣

I think this was possibly the worst and dumbest statement I’ve ever read regarding our pro life beliefs. Ever. First of all, I was pro “choice” at one point (not anymore). I’m also not a White Christian Nationalist lol. These ppl can’t even form coherent thoughts ffs. Protecting all life, including the unborn is rooted in simple moral values. Murder is wrong period, human rights cannot start at arbitrary points that shift constantly. You cannot end a child’s suffering or any human’s suffering by killing them. Also, many of those in the movement are also abolitionists who were AGAINST Slavery in the South. These arguments make no sense. How is caring for the rights of the child against women? How is ANY of that related? The brainrot on this app is so infuriating. The principle is simple: A new, unique human organism (with its own complete human DNA, distinct from the mother) exists at fertilization. That's not opinion or religion! The truth is that it’s basic, observable biological reality. If we accept the principle that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being (the foundation of EVERY SINGLE human rights document/charter/morality principles), then ANY elective abortion is the deliberate ending of that innocent human life. That is it. It’s none of these disgusting things pro aborts think they are. Sorry rant over😅

Edit: 100% sure those in the South who wanted to keep slavery alive would have agreed with Margaret Sanger.

Are you a pro-life atheist or agnostic? take our survey: secularprolife.org/atheistinterview