Found in the wild:

Pro-life goes against God's word.

Premise 1: The Christian God exists, and He is the ultimate arbiter of objective moral truth. His will is expressed in the Bible.

Premise 2: A pro-life position holds that a fetus and a woman have equal moral value and should be treated the same under moral and legal principles.

Premise 3: In Exodus 21:22-25, God prescribes that if an action causes the death of a fetus, the penalty is a fine, but if the same exact action causes the death of a pregnant woman, the penalty is death.

Premise 4: If God considered the fetus and the woman to have equal moral value, He would have prescribed the same punishment for causing the death of either.

Conclusion 1: Since God prescribes a lesser punishment for the death of the fetus than for the death of the woman, it logically follows that God values the woman more than the fetus.

Conclusion 2: Because the pro-life position holds that a fetus and a woman have equal moral value, but God's law explicitly assigns them different moral value, the pro-life position contradicts God's word. Therefore, a biblically consistent Christian cannot hold a pro-life position without rejecting God's moral law.

Thoughts?

First time poster here.

When is comes to the abortion argument, PC people always seem to bring up the grape argument. Usually, specifically minor grape and/or incestuous grape. Im curious how everyone responds to that argument.

So I was scrolling and a post appeared on a subreddit that is not in any way related to abortion. It was about a rare condition called "fetus in fetu", where an undeveloped twin forms inside the body of a baby. The treatment, obviously, requires to remove the undeveloped fetus from the baby's body.

There were a lot of comments saying how in the US this wouldn't have been possible because prolifers are so stupid and evil that they would consider the undeveloped fetus to be a person and therefore the baby would just have to live with it and deal with the consequences. Some of the comments were only joking, but many of them were actually serious and they were lamenting how backwards the US has become.

I wanted to answer to the comments to call them out on how ridiculous they are being, but I just don't have the energy. If someone actually believes something as absurd as that, to me that means that they actually aren't thinking seriously about what abortion really is and therefore no online comment on a Reddit post will make them think about it.

But I'm still indignant about the situation. I read the rules here and I don't think I'm breaking any, so I hope you all don't mind me just venting about this stuff.

Liberal pro-choicers: If you don't like abortion, don't do it. Don't tell me what to do.

Also them: I don't like Gone With The Wind because of the slavery depictions, so you shouldn't like it either.

They're offended when we say "don't kill a baby", but then they don't want us to watch classic movies.

No, this is not satire. Also please don’t bash my mother in the comments- she genuinely thinks this is what is best, and despite our differences I am still very very close with her. Basically her stance was that my other potential children would become neglected because I would be paying all my attention on the disabled child. Also please note in this instance she didn’t mean a child who had something like Down’s syndrome, she meant a child who would have to have a feeding tube their entire life, who would be unable to walk or talk, etc. She also said she believed this because all of the medical care for the hypothetical child would bankrupt me. Note she is an agnostic-ish leftist and I’m a Christian conservative/moderate. She would never force me to do this if I ever did conceive a disabled child- and she would respect my opinion to keep said hypothetical child- but she said that this is what she would want for me.

Currently 8 weeks 5 days: Thursday night I took the first pill and immediately made myself throw it up. My situation hasn’t been ideal but I don’t even know why I did it, I love my baby and I regret it so much. I had a little brown mucus discharge staring about 24hours later (Friday), I went to the doctor and he just did labs, I went to the ER they said my baby was perfect, measuring on time and the heartbeat was 169. Today is Saturday and I’ve been having a little of the same mucusy brown discharge only when I wipe, I go back for another ultrasound Monday. The ER diagnosed me with a threatened miscarriage. I feel EXTREMELY BAD, I’ve just been praying I’ve taken some magnesium as well as 2 progesterone supplements. Just praying everything is okay Monday!

the most prominent argument for pro-choicers is that a fetus the moment at conception is not a person. A person, however, philosophically has been very challenging to define for any party. And philosophers to this day cant agree on what it means. What is your best response to someone who says that at the moment of conception, the embryo is not a person from a philosophical/well developed standpoint?

You know you are

I’m not here to argue with anyone, I genuinely want to hear solid, thorough, pro-life arguments.

The abortion debate subreddit seems to only really have pro-choice arguments and I’ve honestly heard them all as I am in and grew up in a very left-wing environment.

I seldom hear a proper pro-life argument simply because I do not know many pro-life individuals and Reddit is very left-wing by nature.

I am not staunchly pro-life or pro-choice; in all honestly, abortion is an issue I’m very torn about and still trying to sort through my feelings.

So I would love to hear your best Pro-Life arguments that will hold up in a proper debate! I’m just here to observe and ask questions.

Go onto a specific pregnancy sub and you'll see without fail that late term abortions absolutely do happen. I browse it from time to time because sometimes the stories are actually heartfelt and sweet but they are few and in-between the heart breaking ones. The last post I read was of a girl finding out she was pregnant at 30 weeks (don't worry, she's keeping the baby as she is excited just scared and shocked) and while most were congratulating her, others were asking if she's going to keep it or does she need help arranging something. Another commenter mentioned their friend hadn't found out until 30 something weeks as well and decided to abort because she wasn't ready.

Late term abortions happen, and no, there's not always a medical reason to do so and I wish they'd stop trying to freaking gaslight us when they admit to EACH OTHER that they do. All. The. Time.

Sorry for the rant but this fact just makes me sick to my stomach as I'm holding onto my 4 week daughter right now and can't imagine life without her and her older brother anymore.

One pro-choice argument is that a fetus becomes a person when they develop consciousness. According to Dustin Crummett, “we are our minds, and our minds are objects composed of the parts of our brain that are directly responsible for our mental lives. They begin to exist when these parts reach the level of development and integration needed to sustain our mental lives. They cease to exist when we irreversibly lose them. So on this view, you are not the organism, you are a mind embodied within the organism.”

A thought experiment that gets brought to show that this view is very intuitive is imagining a cerebrum transplant is performed from person A to B, with B currently in persistent vegetative state. The body receiving the transplant gains consciousness after the transplant, leaving behind the donor body in a persistent vegetative state. If you follow the intuition that A survived (in other words, one goes where their cerebrum goes) you - according to this argument – admit that what you value is the mind, not the body. Therefore, if the mind isn’t developed yet you don’t exist yet and there is nothing wrong with abortion.

I recognise that our brain is the most important organ as its advanced development permits rationality, which is what sets the human species apart from the others (I would define a person as a member of a rational kind). However, I am not sure that this proves that we don’t value the whole human being thanks to these abilities and, while I am no philosopher nor neuroscientist, I wanted to share a thought experiment where I feel the embodied mind account is not very intuitive and see what you think about it / how it can be improved.

A neurosurgeon works at a hospital, where he comes across a known serial killer (or replace with any other disgusting crime) awaiting trial. Overwhelmed with rage, the neurosurgeon forcefully sedates him and then takes his brain out. In the hospital there is a patient suffering from a brain tumour who is on the brain transplant list. The neurosurgeon informs him that a healthy brain is now available, and the patient agrees to undergo the transplant. Should the person who wakes up from surgery be prosecuted for serial murder? And how do we describe the doctor’s actions? Did he murder the serial killer via forced brain harvesting, or did he perform a forced body transplant to the serial killer as well as assisted suicide of the patient with brain tumour?

My problem with these thought experiments (where we are making an assumption that a brain transplant would even work and we are ignoring the interactions between the brain and the rest of the body) is that if my brain was healthy and the rest of my body was failing, I would hope I could keep my mental life by moving the brain to another body as a last resort, but at the same time if my brain was failing and the rest of my body was healthy, I would hope I can get a brain transplant as a last resort.

New York is a state that has a shield law to protect doctors against this, so this could get pretty complicated.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-york-doctor-indicted-louisiana-prescribing-abortion-pill-teen-reports-say-2025-01-31/

I am really new to this, sorry if i sound really dumb, but isnt male masturbation also killing millions of unborn kids? Sperm being consider living or non living is a really debatable topic for a long time, but if we find out that sperm should be considered as a living organism then should or should not masturbation be illegal and also a debatable topic?

No women shall abort. Exodus 23:26

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2023%3A26&version=JUB

Only translation that says the word all others say miscarriage. I'm amazed I found this cause all I knew was thou shall not kill.

I am pretty much desperate at this point cause I didn’t thought I’d end up here but I’m pregnant, I found out like 5 days ago. I’m 18 and I feel so stuck,the dad doesn’t want anything to do with me and I get him but because he told me to get rid of it. I live alone and have a terrible job,and an abortion is like 800$ and I have no idea what to do now. I don’t really wanna tell anyone else either.

Apparently, unjust laws don’t exist

This is long, but you will want to read it all because it is important we all understand why these changes are being made.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion here about what has been called the Abortion Abolitionist movement.

For a few reasons, this has finally reached a point where the moderation team needs to set some ground rules.

Abortion Abolitionism, as a movement, is an anti-abortion movement which sees itself as having two major differences from the "pro-life movement".

1. An insistence on abortion being made illegal with no exceptions and no incrementalism.
2. A focus on a Biblical worldview, which appears to be defined in Protestant Christian terms.

You can see a more detailed view from their own perspective here: https://freethestates.org/abolitionist-not-pro-life/

By themselves, these points can fit inside of an inclusive pro-life viewpoint, and represent valid discussions that can be had within this group.

This has, up until recently, led the moderation team to consider Abolitionists as just pro-lifers with a particular position which may be agreed or disagreed with on the basis of a shared goal of ending abortion on-demand.

However, we have noted over time that our view may have been somewhat optimistic about the intent of the Abolitionist movement in regard to the pro-life movement in general.

It has been noted that abolitionists tend to focus as much, if not more, blame on pro-lifers for abortion legality as they do on pro-choice individuals.

It is also clear from Abolitionist sites and discussions that Abolitionist viewpoints treat any secular or non-Christian efforts to combat abortion on-demand to be invalid, and even dangerous.

But worst of all, they have suggested that pro-lifers in general are not interested in permanently and completely ending abortion on-demand legality, but want to continue to permit abortion on-demand.

This position seemingly ignores the efforts of millions of pro-lifers over the decades to work to set the groundwork for the end of the entrenched Roe v. Wade decision and others which forced abortion on the United States.

I am not going to debate the truth of those propositions here, since that is a debate of its own.

Strategies like incrementalism vs absolutism are entirely debatable, and indeed, one may be better than the other in specific situations. I encourage us to have those debates.

What I will point out is that this is the pro-life subreddit.

If Abolitionists regard themselves as not being pro-lifers, and the pro-life movement as the enemy, then we have a problem.

As a subreddit, our goal is the end of legalized abortion on-demand and the support of those users and movements who have a similar goal.

While this does not require incrementalism or secularism, people who are pro-life from those perspectives who are honestly fighting for the end of legalized abortion on-demand must be respected as fellow pro-lifers. They deserve to be treated as allies and not as enemies.

Therefore, moderation will be altered in the following respects:

• Abolitionists who choose to identify as opponents of the pro-life movement, or who disparage pro-lifers as a group will be treated as external to the pro-life movement and external to this subreddits primary audience.

• Users who expound Abolitionist views will be subject to Rule 2 and while they will be allowed to continue to post and comment, they will not be permitted to do Abolitionist movement activism or recruitment here, and Abolitionist-specific content will no longer be prioritized as pro-life content here.

• We will NOT be eliminating abolitionist users or treating them as opponents by default. If Abolitionist users simply post generic pro-life consistent comments and posts, they will be approved as before.

• Users who may have adopted the "abolitionist" flairs are not required to change them, but should expect moderators to scrutinize their content. If you just liked the "abolitionist" flair but are not identifying as a member of that movement, it is recommended you switch to a pro-life related flair.

This action is a play to keep the pro-life subreddit inclusive, as opposed to exclusive. There will be no bans of people based solely on their identification as Abolitionists. Moderator action will be confined to rules violations based on the points above.

We recommend that if abolitionists wish to recruit and spread their specific movement's official positions and arguments, that they form their own subreddit for that purpose.

These changes will have immediate effect. Meta discussion of this change will be limited to this post only to keep this discussion organized.

Keyword: "Wider."

I say this as a Christian! I think religion does have a place in "localized" abortion discussions, i.e. in a group for that specific religion. However, movements advocating for specific laws and human rights should not be based in religion-- they should be based in humanitarianism.

People don't like being proselytized. Making religion the forefront of the movement is inaccurate and insincere. Conflating human rights with religion is a slippery slope if you also support freedom of religion.

Let's focus on saving lives and supporting families instead of pushing a religious agenda! Again, even I as a Christian can say this!

I have been lurking this sub for a while now, I've lived my entire life pro choice'ish, it is one topic that no matter how many debates i watch, it just really has not faltered. I would gladly change my views if given proof that complete abolition of abortions was at all economically viable, morally just and logically sensible, and i want to understand your thought process and perhaps even change my own views. My main theory is that differences between "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" trail down to fundamental differences in morality. But lets see where this goes

I grew up in a family that strongly advocates for abortion access. My parents told my little brother and I that abortion was a woman’s right and I was pro choice until some time in late high school. My brother is still down with it but I’m not. I think what happened was I originally got all caught up in the emotional stuff, and being sad about the disregard for babies. Lots of emotional pro life poetry. Don’t get me wrong it definitely is emotional but I wanted to consider going into the why than the emotions on top. It lead me to looking at biology and just concluding that a fetus is just another stage of life like an infant or toddler, so it’s worthy of the same protections. Not really a whole testimony about “finding out the truth” and a whole realization of everything I was taught was wrong, more so my own research due to some scientific inconsistencies I found in my parent’s logic. So naturally I just became pro life.

It’s been a couple years now and I think my anti abortion stance is stronger than it was when I first stopped being pro choice. I like to think it’s less emotions based and more based in science and sociology as I study the world around me. I find society and how this country is structured fascinating. I continue to study the role of abortion in society and how overall it’s been a detriment than it has ever helped. Not to mention, literally killing a child. It’s just interesting how people have engrained in their minds that abortion is a “must” and how many people are so unwilling to think anything else.

Also believe it or not, I’m not right wing or republican. I would consider myself politically independent, though I am Catholic which does influence my politics. I was raised catholic and my family is catholic, yes they are pro choice, no it doesn’t make sense and I’m aware. I’m just stating the facts. Oddly enough, I thought this would give me a belief in common with my trump supporting grandmother but i recently learned that she is also pro choice, somehow.

I guess if anyone wants to know what it’s like to grow up pro choice, all I can say is that it’s really just regular growing up. Just generally I feel like I was raised missing some important values.

I guess this is my story regarding how I was raised to value abortion to no longer accepting it as a good thing. I’ve been pro life for about 3 years now and hope to study the issue further.

If anyone has any questions, I guess this would be the place.

Most pro-lifers are against criminalizing mothers due to "societal indoctrination", while abortion abolitionists use the Bible to advocate for a "deontological ethics" approach for the criminalization of abortion, which explains why they call incremental laws that do not prosecute mothers for murder evil in God's eyes.

However, I'd like to propose the following hypothetical: Suppose in the near future, someone proposes legislation that criminalizes both the abortionists and the mothers, but there is a catch: the abortionists are the ones charged with murder, but the mothers are charged with child endangerment (Unless they take the abortion pill, then they'd be charged with murder too-this is what I mean when I say I support criminalizing mothers on a case-by-case basis).

Why? Because in most cases, the mothers aren't the ones killing the unborn child, but the doctors (This is according to pro-lifers; the website Not A Victim argues against this but that's a discussion for another time).

Now, the abolitionists might still condemn this as partiality but what would the pro-lifers say about legislation like this?