Abortion is the only topic where I can guarantee that a leftist prolifer and a right-wing prolifer will rarely, if ever, contradict one another. We all acknowledge the same fundamental truth. This might actually be the only political topic where I’ve seen such uniformity of belief between such a diverse spectrum of people.

At the same time, PCs seem to never agree on anything. One PC will say ”abortion is fine because the ZEF isn’t alive”, at the same time that another PC says ”abortion is fine because the ZEF is leeching off another person to survive.”

Any prolifer will think “what the fuck, these guys’ reasonings are literally contradicting each other??” but you will rarely see these PCs challenge each others’ stances. Neither of them actually care if there’s a life present or not. They won’t argue with one another because their priority is to justify abortion, not to be logically consistent or truthful.

I’ve debated them, read everything from PC “ethicists”, scrolled the PC wiki on reddit, and even found papers written on abortion by abortionists. You cannot get to the logical core of their beliefs because there is none.

They do not have a morally coherent ideology to back up their beliefs because it’s impossible to construct one from an immoral premise. They start with a predetermined conclusion (a desire to justify abortion), then they constantly change and manufacture whatever reasonable-sounding argument or excuse they can.

You’re not arguing with people who believe in anything.

You’re arguing with people who first and foremost want abortion to be legal, for whatever emotional reason they have, then throw out whatever excuse they have to justify it, consistency be damned.

I love the way that pro-abortion fanatics claim that we don't care about babies after they are born. How can they know this? They only ever pay attention to us when we dare to question their precious 'BoDiLy AuToNoMy', so they don't actually know (or care) about what we do.

In truth, the Pro-Life movement has far less of a budget than the pro-abortion movement, and still manages to advocate for unborn children and help pregnant women and new mothers, while the pro-abortion movement doesn't use their money to help anyone else who doesn't want to kill their unborn children. All that money is reserved for bribing politicians and lawmakers and pile-driving the sacred right to 'BoDiLy AuToNoMy'.

The hypocrisy is unreal, and they hate the places that actually do help pregnant women and new mothers, saying that Crisis Pregnancy Centers use 'misleading information'. Now that beings up another question: those people keep saying that women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Doesn't this assume that women are smart enough to make decisions about their own bodies irregardless of who they are? If that is the case, shouldn't they be trusted to make their own decisions at the Crisis Pregnancy Centers on their own? Why would the influence of the Centers bother the pro-abortion movement if women are capable of making good decisions?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaTTPY5z9t8/

This guys point is really not smart, legality doesnt equal morality. I also don’t understand because the entire point of the pro life movement is to advocate on how the law is wrong for not recognizing the unborn as a human being. The biological definition of a human being is a living organism belonging to the Homo sapiens species it doesn’t matter whether the law accepts it or not, laws can be wrong and unjust too. Appealing to the legal definition doesnt solve the moral debate. Slavery was literally legal at one point in history.

The most ridiculous quote, and racist, I just read about the lowering of crime in NYC and across the country:

"And while the drop in crime was particularly noted in NY, it was a nationwide phenomenon. 

Among other theories .... and very controversially, *access to abortion (the fetuses most likely to be aborted were also the most likely to be criminals). " *

As stated above, I need a little more clarification.

The following are the most common 'pro-choice' claims and slogans I've seen in debates and interviews. The counters include simple logical deductive arguments. All have the same structure (i.e., Modus Tollens mixed hypothetical syllogisms).

1. "It's not alive"

The scientific consensus is that life beings at the moment of conception.

>If unborn babies are not alive, then they do not grow and develop in the womb,
Unborn babies do grow and develop in the womb,
Therefore they are alive.

2. "It's not a human being; it's a zygote / embryo / foetus"

It's a human zygote / embryo / foetus. 'Zygote' / 'embryo' / 'foetus' is just a name for a stage of a human development, like 'child' and 'adult'.

>If unborn babies are not human beings, then they are other species (such as bananas or aardvarks),
Unborn babies are not other species (such as bananas or aardvarks),
Therefore, unborn babies are human beings.

3. "It's not a person"

'Person' is a legal - not biological - definition. The legal definition also includes non-human legal entities such as corporations, trade unions, and other organisations. Thus, some human beings - like unborn babies - are not legal persons, and some non-humans are legal persons.

>If 'person' and 'human being' are the same, then legal entities like corporations and trade unions are human beings while unborn babies are not,
Legal entities like corporations and trade unions are not human beings while unborn babies are,
Therefore, 'person' and 'human being' are not the same.

4. "It's just a clump of cells"

All multicellular organisms are. That includes you and me. All people are.

>If human beings are not clumps of cells, then they are single-celled organisms like bacteria or algae,
Human beings are not single-celled organisms like bacteria or algae,
Therefore, human beings are clumps of cells.

5. "If abortion is murder, then so is discharging eggs or sperm, or removing a wart or tumour"

The part is being confused with the whole. In the same way a part of a car such as a tyre is not itself a car, and a part of a house such as a bathroom is not itself a house, a part of a human being such an egg, sperm, blood, wart, organ, etc., is not itself a human being.

>If discharging eggs or sperm, or removing a wart or tumour is murder, then these parts of human beings are whole human beings,
These parts of human beings are not whole human beings,
Therefore, discharging eggs or sperm, or removing a wart or tumour is not murder.

6. "It's a parasite"

Parasites are overwhelmingly different species than their hosts. Otherwise, no parasites of the same species are the offspring of their hosts. For example, some bees place their eggs in other bee hives to be raised (social parasitism), and male Anglerfish fuse with females after mating with them (sexual parasitism).

>If unborn babies are parasites, then they are either a different species (i.e., they are not human beings) or they are not offspring of their own mothers,
Unborn babies are not a different species (i.e., they are human beings) and they are offspring of their own mothers,
Therefore, unborn babies are not parasites.

7. "They can't survive on their own / are dependent on their mothers to survive"

Most people can't survive on their own as we are interdependent on one-another such as for food, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. This especially applies to babies, children, the disabled, the sick, and the elderly.

>If it is justifiable to kill an unborn baby for being dependent on another to survive, then being dependent on others to survive is a justifiable basis to be killed (e.g., babies, children, the disabled, the sick, and the elderly),
Being dependent on others to survive is not a justifiable basis to be killed (e.g., babies, children, the disabled, the sick, and the elderly),
Therefore, it is not justifiable to kill an unborn baby for being dependent on another to survive.

8. "They are not sentient / don't think / are unaware"

Neither are people that are unconscious, such as if in a deep sleep, a coma, etc.

>If it is justifiable to kill an unborn baby for a lack of consciousness or awareness or sentience, then a lack of consciousness or awareness or sentience is a justifiable basis to be killed (e.g., when unconscious, such as when asleep),
A lack of consciousness or awareness or sentience is not a justifiable basis to be killed (e.g., when unconscious, such as when asleep),
Therefore, it is not justifiable to kill an unborn baby for a lack of consciousness or awareness or sentience.

9. "Abortion is healthcare"

Being killed is neither healthy for nor caring towards the unborn baby.

>If abortion is healthcare, then being killed is healthy for and caring towards unborn babies,
Being killed is not healthy for nor caring towards unborn babies,
Therefore, abortion is not healthcare.

10. "Babies conceived from rape should be aborted"

Killing unborn babies conceived from rape punishes them for the crime, not the rapist.

>If it is justifiable to kill an unborn baby for being conceived by rape, then it is justifiable to kill an innocent for the crime of their father,
It is not justifiable to kill the innocent for the crime of their father,
Therefore, it is not justifiable to kill unborn babies for being conceived by rape.

11. "Babies with disabilities should be aborted"

Eugenicists like Margaret Sanger agreed, which is why she founded the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. She also wanted other 'undesirables' aborted, such as the babies of the poor, and especially of non-whites. Her own words in her own books. Sanger got what she wanted: the disabled, the poor, and especially non-white babies are the most aborted.

>If it is justifiable to kill an unborn baby for being disabled, then being disabled is a justifiable basis to be killed,
Being disabled is not a justifiable basis to be killed,
Therefore, it is not justifiable to kill an unborn baby for being disabled.

12. "No uterus, no opinion"

An unborn female baby begins to grow a uterus within about 6 weeks. Yet despite possessing a uterus, her possible opinion or desire to live is ignored.

>If the inability to do something such as to have an abortion prevents opposing it, then the inability to do things such as to own slaves or commit genocide prevents opposing them,
The inability to do things such as to own slaves or commit genocide does not prevent opposing them,
Therefore, the inability to do something such as to have an abortion does not prevent opposing it.

And

>If possession of a uterus entitles the right to oppose abortion, then female unborn babies are entitled to the right to oppose their abortion,
Female unborn babies are not entitled to the right to oppose their abortion,
Therefore, possession of a uterus does not entitle the right to oppose abortion

13. "My body, my choice"

Unborn babies have separate and distinct bodies of their own. The choice is about and concerns their bodies.

>If the choice to have an abortion only affects the mother's body, then that choice does not affect the unborn baby's body,
That choice does affect the unborn baby's body,
Therefore, the choice to have an abortion does not only affect the mother's body.

And

>If the body of an unborn baby is not separate from their mother's body, then pregnant women grow extra heads, arms, legs, etc.,
Pregnant women do not grow extra heads, arms, legs, etc.,
Therefore, the body of an unborn baby is separate from their mother's body.

14. "If you don't adopt unwanted babies, then you can't oppose their abortion"

You don't need to adopt abused children to oppose their abuse, or take slaves into your home to oppose slavery, etc.

>If the adoption of babies to be aborted is necessary to oppose their abortion, then the adoption of abused children is necessary to oppose their abuse,
The adoption of abused children is not necessary to oppose their abuse,
Therefore, the adoption of babies to be aborted is not necessary to oppose their abortion.

15. "They're unwanted / will be born into poverty / will suffer"

Many people are unwanted, unloved, suffer, and/or live in poverty. That does not justify killing them. Adoption also exists.

>If it is justifiable to kill unborn babies for being unwanted, unloved, or for actual or potential hardship, then being unwanted, unloved, or actual or potential hardship is a justifiable basis to be killed (e.g., the homeless, children in orphanages, the unemployed, people with depression, etc.),
Being unwanted, unloved, or actual or potential hardship not a justifiable basis to be killed (e.g., the homeless, children in orphanages, the unemployed, people with depression, etc.),
Therefore, it is not justifiable to kill unborn babies for being unwanted, unloved, or for actual or potential hardship.

Trying to make some Pro Life materials to hand out and want a factual number.

I come from a country where abortions are very common. It's not a thing to be discussed casually, sure, but it's only because the matter is cut and dried already. Women get abortions and if they care enough, they go to a pagoda and pray for the liberation of the souls they abort. They may consider doing a few good deeds in the future to make amends too. That's how karma works in the East unfortunately. 

In primary school, I had a friend and she told me her mom was pregnant. We started talking about the gender of the fetus and she wished it would be a girl as she had a younger brother already. I wished her luck. I told my mom about it a week or two after but to my surprise(?) she said the friend's mother had had an abortion. I felt a bit upset that my friend wouldn't have a female sibling too like she wanted. But that's about it, no biggie. 

In fifth grade I was punching my stomach religiously because I was in chronic fear of getting pregnant. They say ignorance is bliss, clearly not my case. I thought talking to boys was enough to make me pregnant. I was certain I didn't want a kid so whatever was growing inside me had to die, and die fast. I didn't care if there was in fact nothing there, better safe than sorry you know. 

As you can see, abortions to me growing up were just something that happened. If the presence of something is unwanted, it'll get removed. Simple as that. No one ever questioned the ethnicity of abortions, and naturally I didn't either. That changed when I stumbled upon a Christian post discussing them. It dawned on me that such practice couldn't be morally permissible. I was given a chance to take a step back, a chance to question something I’d been taking for granted my entire life, and what came out of that was my opposition to abortions to this very day.  

However, I also understand that my position on this matter stemmed solely from 11 y/o me’s emotions, at least initially. So I felt the need to embark on a journey to justify my position intellectually. But does it really count if I did so with an already established opinion? Why would anyone take a bus just to see if that bus actually arrives at its destined destination? I would, and I did. Let me just tell you that the ride seems to be on the right track so far. But who knows? Perhaps it’s a shortcut. 

I like to think pro choicers are just like me as a kid, but they clearly think too and perhaps it’s me that never grows up. Everyone makes up their mind young. Everyone bases their opinions on emotions. Everyone works to make peace with themselves and their sentiments. Everyone wants to be right and hates to be proved wrong. Everyone gets terrified when their moral framework gets challenged. I can’t imagine myself having a change of heart on certain matters. Can I ever be changed? Can I ever let myself be? If I can’t then how can I possibly change other people’s mind? 

I can imagine, though, a future where I fail to defend my position and have to let my opponents have it their way while I spend the rest of my days dreaming of oblivion. I should know that’s what many people will feel too if I manage to force my opinions on them. But why does the truth leave so many in anguish? Why does the truth pain and make people bitter? The closest thing I’ve got to changing people’s mind was to make them say they’d reflect on their position. I don’t think I’ll ever say that.

Point is, although I’ve seen many people talking about going from PC to PL (or vice versa?), I don’t think they were emotionally and intellectually invested in their opinions like other pro choicers or me currently and therefore their transitions weren’t too painful or difficult. Is it really possible to win people over with mere debates? Can I really harbour hope and entertain myself? I would love to hear your stories of switching sides or when you convinced someone else to. 

Apologize in advance for all the weird wordings on my end.

I've recently watched some shorts about a lady who made an argument that no one would want governments to force people to give their organs in order to help a person from dying, so the same should be applied for women and their pregnancies.
(sorry in advance if my explanation is poorly written, wasn't able to find her posts)

I would like to know what are the thoughts of pro-lifers when facing this argument. How would you respond ?