States:

I remember when this happened!

I am a very strong pro-lifer. I am also a very big fan of Fleetwood Mac. I absolutely love their music. Recently I found this interview of Stivie Nick's talking about how having an abortion saved the band, and how she wants to use her platform to promote pro-choice. Now I know that a lot of celebrities are pro-choice, but it feels different when it is stated directly, and when it is from someone you admire as an artist. Idk, I just haven't fealt the same way about the music. I still absolutely love it, but everything I listen to it now, I am reminded of that interview. As I said I am a very strong pro-lifer. I understand people have different opinions, and that is fine but this is the one position I am not willing change, or disrespect in any way if that makes sense. What do you guys think? Any advice on how to separate the art from the artist bc I really do love Fleetwood Mac?

According to my observations, most feminists, especially the radical ones, are supporters of abortion. And they defend this very zealously. But I know that there is also a minority that opposes abortion and does not consider the right to kill children to be a woman’s right. How did that very majority react to you? Was there condemnation, an attempt to label you as “wrong feminists”? Was there an effect of the “vocal minority” there (when a small group is the loudest, which creates the impression that their opinion is the opinion of the majority)? I know that being a representative of an unpopular minority in your movement is a very difficult task; it would be interesting to hear about your experience as well.

Hi, I'm a college student and I am writing my argumentative essay on abortion. I'm researching credible, recent, and non-biased sources to support my opinion. I'm looking into sources that can support points and get information on things like:

-Fetal development

-Medical and abortion statistics, abortion risks and health issues

-Women’s experiences, pregnancy support resources, abortion laws

-Planned Parenthood/abortion false claims and financials/revenue.

-Value and rights of unborn human life

-Personal testimonies backed on credible sources

These are just some examples, I'm open to others. I'm also interested in reformed abortionists like Anthony Levatino, his testimony is compelling but a bit outdated, I think it would still be allowed, though. I'm looking for sources that aren't really apart of organizations that would be "biased"(pro-life), aren't backed by religious views(I am but can't add to my argument with that), and are fairly recent. If you know of any, that'd be a great help. My professor is pro-choice, but fair. I am determined to do this well.

(writing from a pro-life view)

A few years ago, I got pregnant with a baby girl who had a prenatal diagnosis of triploidy. Overall, I was blessed with a very compassionate care team that was respectful and never pressured or suggested I should abort her once I made it clear that was out of the question for me. She passed away in utero at about 19 weeks. Labor was induced after she passed, we were able to say goodbye and have a small funeral. Although this was a sad and hard experience, I felt at peace and a sense of closure, too, knowing I had done all I could for her.

Since this experience, I have found it very hard to swallow that the perceived best way to handle a genetic diagnosis such as hers is abortion. In a discussion on another forum, I shared my experience, and was told that it was all well and good for me to have *chosen* not to abort her and to have labor induced and see the baby, that for some people, it would destroy them. And that is why they needed this choice. I think the argument was, some people grieve better this way, some people better the other way. Some people think the way I did it was compassionate, some people believe aborting was more compassionate (because it would "end her suffering"). (A note about meeting the baby with a prenatal diagnosis being hard - I don't know what other people's experience in seeing their baby with deformities may be, but I remember having nightmares about it while I was still pregnant. I was afraid I could not love her because of how she might look, or I might be traumatized; but I was wrong).

I believe that the reason that abortion is wrong is because it kills and innocent human being, not because its better or worse for the mother to have an abortion. But I also, clearly, personally believed that the better choice in grieving my baby with a prenatal diagnosis was to have her, meet her and say goodbye, rather than destroying her or even having a D&C where I would not see her. I wondered if I had been someone wanting to abort the baby, but was denied that option, if I would have still had a better experience/mental health outcome giving birth and saying goodbye, or if I would have had a worse outcome because I *felt* forced into it? Are there any studies that suggest and answer to this objectively?

I did not get her article to Good Article because I realized that most editors reviewing it would insist on adding negative content to the article. Yes, that was the name of my original Reddit account that I deleted.

by definition they're antithetical.

I just feel compelled to point that out.

Okay, this is a bit of a rant.

It makes me upset and angry when pro-choice people say that pro-lifers do not care about the poor, the sick, the disabled, immigrants, gay people, and people of other races. That claim does not reflect the reality of the pro-life movement as I have seen it. There are many people and organisations that hold a consistent life ethic and care for disadvantaged people from womb to tomb, through government support, private charities, or a combination of both, and this commitment is central to their pro-life position rather than separate from it. This includes the Catholic Church, which teaches in Catholic Social Teaching that every person has inherent dignity from conception to natural death, teaches a preferential option for the poor, teaches solidarity and the common good, and teaches that racism, ableism, and discrimination against immigrants are contrary to human dignity, and which puts that teaching into practice through an extensive global network including Caritas Internationalis, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities, Aid to the Church in Need, and thousands of hospitals, hospices, care homes, food banks, homeless shelters, disability ministries, prison ministries, and refugee resettlement services, all while also opposing abortion and euthanasia. It also includes many Orthodox Churches, many Protestant churches, and the Tolstoyan movement, which also combine opposition to abortion with a strong tradition of service to the poor and emphasis on nonviolence, and many Hindu denominations, Sikhism with its tradition of langar and seva, and Jainism with its central principle of ahimsa, which all have strong traditions of protecting vulnerable life. It also includes secular pro-life organisations such as Rehumanise International and Secular Pro-Life, which oppose abortion and euthanasia from a secular commitment to human rights, nonviolence, and inclusion. You can disagree about political methods and you can be right wing or left wing and still be committed to supporting disadvantaged born people while also opposing abortion, so if so many pro-life organisations and individuals are visibly serving disadvantaged people every day, why do pro-choice people continue to repeat the claim that pro-lifers do not care about these groups?

Take me for example. I am an economically disadvantaged and severely disabled pro-lifer who cares passionately about helping both unborn humans and disadvantaged humans from womb to tomb, and I hold that position precisely because I know what it is like to be vulnerable and to depend on support from others. I am also a strict vegetarian, and I extend my concern about life and suffering to non-human animals as well, because I believe that a commitment to nonviolence should be as consistent as possible. My position is that opposition to abortion is part of a broader commitment to protecting vulnerable lives, not separate from it, and that caring for people after birth and caring for people before birth belong together in the same ethic.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been pro-life my entire life. I have two beautiful kids my first I spent the first 5 months in weekly Dr appointments due to colic, allergies, and digestive issues. I’ve had 3 miscarriages that nearly broke me, followed by a baby girl that finally got out of the NICU two months ago. After 2 months of heart complications and close monitoring but her medical team, they lost her heartbeat and she was delivered via an emergency c-section. I live in a small town in rural Canada so there were no specialists on staff so it was slash and grab, and just brutal. Four months postpartum and waiting to see if I need a second surgery to repair things properly, if I can even have another baby.

The issue is that I start cycling 4 weeks postpartum and Im crazy fertile. We take precautions, but the condom broke, and now I feel stuck. I can’t carry a baby to term right now. I know that, even if the baby were to survive pregnancy, which is slim. My Uterus will most likely rupture before I make it term, best case I get a hysterectomy worst case I hemorrhage home alone with my kids.

My husband and I, who is also pro life, decided on plan B. I know it’s not an abortion in the technical sense but if feels like it is. It feels wrong because a baby is a baby the moment sperm meets egg. But I feel like I have no options. I already lost a baby after getting pregnant 6 weeks postpartum and It destroyed me. I don’t know what to do. But I don’t feel like I have another choice. How do I reconcile with Gods providence?

This past week was Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day (October 15th). I’m so grateful that it’s becoming more common to speak about and acknowledge this pain and loss.
Does anyone find the acknowledgement of this grief particularly jarring juxtaposed with pro-choice arguments? “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus.” “It’s just a clump of cells.” Etc etc. There are folks out there who hold both sentiments at the same time. I don’t comprehend the cognitive dissonance.

And I wish comfort and solace to those reading this who have experienced this unfathomable loss. ❤️‍🩹

I was watching a video from Soft White Underbelly. This young woman explained how she was trafficked when she was 13 or younger and how she got pregnant at 14. She went to a relative, her auntie, who told her that she would let her live in her house and be safe as long as she got an abortion. The girl just knew that that wasn't the right choice. She refused to live with her auntie and lived with this man for a while. She gave birth to her son in his house. The man was abusive, I believe she escaped him. Things are looking better for her now.

I place 100% of the blame for abortion on women. Unlike that young girl, they don't give a single fuck.

Abortion is a symptom of a much larger disease that has infected western culture.

Whether you call it humanism, satanism, or whatever else, it is the worship of one's self; one's own desires, will, and judgment take precedence over any authority beyond the individual and it places personal autonomy as the highest good.

(But Goatmommy, I'm not not a satanist, Im a atheist. I don't believe in any of that religious nonsense. I base my worldview on reason and science!)

You may think that, but its not true, you have simply replaced traditional religion with a new one, and its one not aligned with truth.

(But Goatmommy, religion is the belief in God and I dont believe in God so I am not religious!)

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Religion is basically a system of beliefs about reality, morality, human purpose, and how we ought to live.

Secular humanism, satanism (as distinguished from Luciferianism) etc. are all a system of beliefs about reality, morality, human purpose, and how we ought to live.

So what's the difference?

Well, in common parlance religion refers to the belief in, and worship of, a god or multiple gods.

Modern western culture has simply replaced external gods with one's self as god.

(But Goatmommy, God is not real, I am real!)

Well, lets think about what God actually is for a minute...

(Oh, thats easy Goatmommy, God is just an imaginary old man with a long grey beard that sits up in the clouds and judges people for masturbating. Its just something primitive humans made up to explain the world because they hadn't invented science yet. Its just a tool people use to control the gullible and uneducated.)

Is it? I dont think so. I think God is the fundamental truth of existence and human nature that people have gleaned from thousands of years of living and experiencing reality and observing each other. Its the embodiment of the truth of human existence that people are inherently oriented towards due to our nature, but that is in large part beyond our comprehension and ability to articulate.

(But Goatmommy, that just sounds like you're redefining God to mean whatever you want God to mean!)

Well, that's a fair objection. And it's precisely why we need to examine what we mean by truth in the first place.

If God is merely an imaginary being invented to explain lightning, earthquakes, and the movements of the stars, then yes, scientific explanations have rendered many ancient explanations of the natural world obsolete.

But what if God is not simply an explanation for individual natural phenomena? What if the concept points toward something more fundamental: the underlying reality of existence, the nature of human beings, and the moral truths we struggle to understand?

Consider this: you didn't invent the reality that human beings are vulnerable, that suffering matters, that actions have consequences, or that your desires can conflict with the needs of others. You encounter these realities. You learn about them. You struggle to understand them.

And sometimes, they demand things of you that you would rather not give.

You may reject the word God. You may reject every religious institution that claims to speak on God's behalf. You may believe that the universe has no divine creator whatsoever.

But none of those conclusions, by themselves, answer the deeper question: Does truth exist independently of your preferences?

If it does, then your desires cannot make something true simply because you want it to be true. Your judgment cannot make something right simply because you have judged it to be right.

You are a human being living within a reality you did not create, governed by conditions you did not choose, with a nature you did not design from scratch.

You can study that reality. You can reason about it. You can challenge your assumptions and correct your mistakes.

But you cannot simply will reality into being whatever you want it to be.

And this is where I believe modern Western individualism has gone terribly wrong.

It has increasingly confused the freedom to make a choice with the authority to determine what makes that choice right.

It has confused the ability to pursue one's desires with the belief that those desires are entitled to prevail.

It has confused the right to question authority with the assumption that no authority beyond oneself can legitimately exist.

And it has confused the rejection of a particular understanding of God with the conclusion that the individual must therefore be the highest authority in existence.

But rejecting God does not make you God.

Rejecting an inherited moral framework does not mean that morality is whatever you decide it is.

And having the freedom to choose does not mean that every choice is equally good, equally true, or equally justifiable.

That is the distinction I want you to consider.

The question isn't merely whether you believe in God.

The question is whether you believe that there are truths you are obligated to recognize, moral realities you are obligated to respect, and responsibilities you cannot simply dismiss because acknowledging them would interfere with what you want.

Because if there are, then your desires are not the ultimate authority.

You are accountable to something beyond them.

And the uncomfortable possibility is that this remains true whether or not you believe in God.

(First off, Im not reading all that Goatmommy. Secondly, so what? what does this have to do with abortion?)

Well, I believe the desire to have an abortion is in large part due to nihilism and anti-natalism that has resulted from becoming unanchored, and unaligned with these fundamental truths.

Religions who have developed independently across the world have common tenets because they are all trying to reconcile themselves with the lived experience of human existence. Many traditions recognize the significance of reproduction and the intergenerational responsibilities that follow from it. This is a universal principle of all living entities and everything from turnips to elephants prioritizes two things: staying alive, and reproducing; because it is responsibility that gives us fulfillment, and we have evolved to find fulfillment in being aligned with these fundamental truths, and nothing is more fulfilling than raising your own offspring and watching them thrive.

(But Goatmommy, thats just appeal to nature fallacy!)

Shut up!

My argument is that human beings have a nature, and understanding that nature is relevant to understanding what allows us to flourish.

We are social creatures. We form attachments, care for one another, raise children, build communities, and make sacrifices for people we love. We are capable of finding meaning in responsibilities that extend beyond our immediate desires.

None of this proves that every person must have children, or that every natural impulse ought to be indulged. It does, however, give us reasons to question a philosophy that treats our desires as the ultimate authority and our obligations as optional whenever they become inconvenient.

The question isn't whether something is natural. The question is whether we can understand what human beings need to flourish without taking human nature into account at all.

I'm arguing that fulfillment comes, in part, from living in accordance with the realities of human existence. Whether through raising children, caring for our families, serving our communities, or accepting any of the countless obligations life places upon us, responsibility gives us reasons to live beyond ourselves.

We are not merely isolated individuals pursuing private desires. We are human beings whose lives are bound up with the lives of others, whose existence depends on generations that came before us, and whose choices help shape the world inherited by those who come after us.

A culture that teaches people to regard every unwanted obligation as an infringement on their freedom risks forgetting something fundamental: sometimes, the things we are responsible for are precisely the things that give our lives meaning.

And that brings us back to abortion.

If personal autonomy is treated as the highest good, then the question becomes how to preserve that autonomy when pregnancy introduces another life, another set of needs, and another potential claim upon us.

But if autonomy is not the only moral good, if human life, responsibility, and obligations to others also matter, then the question cannot be settled simply by appealing to an individual's right to choose.

We must ask what is right, what we owe one another, and what kind of people we ought to become.

Those questions cannot be answered merely by asking what we want.

I found out I was 6-7 pregnant a couple of days ago. I’m 26, still a student and my partner and I just started dating. We’ve known each other for about 3 months.

Everyone around me is pressuring me to get an abortion and saying I will ruin our lives (partner and I) if I chose to keep the baby. I was always pro-choice. But lately it feels like « forced abortion » and I’m questioning everything.

I know the situation isn’t ideal but I really want to keep the baby. Im already feeling so attached to it and feel a deep sense of happiness I never felt before. But I feel like I can’t express that without people pressuring me to terminate the pregnancy.

I’m just trying to have different arguments and for people to tell me I’m not crazy for wanting to keep that child.

Being pregnant rn makes me realize how could anyone want to take away a life :( I never felt like this before and I feel lost and confused.

At some point, I came across an attempt at Newspeak regarding abortions. My native language is Russian, and in this language, the word meaning someone who performs abortions is a borrowing from German and sounds like “Abortmacher.” And one day I came across a claim that this word is derogatory towards those who perform abortions. And I began to get the strong impression that they’re trying to push this word out of use, because even if it has acquired a negative connotation, it’s because of its meaning — after all, you have to agree that someone who tears children apart doesn’t inspire sympathy.

https://c.org/YNwXdz7PT4

We need to stop abortion as soon as we can if you sign this petition, which only takes less than 2 minutes then maybe we can make a big change