You were once a sperm.

Not really. But let's pretend you were for the sake of the argument, to debunk the pro-choice claim that if zygotes are people, then gametes must be people as well.

First for background, where does this claim come from? It stems from the idea that human beings cannot begin actualizing their potential as people until the material is formed that makes the manifestation of human cognition possible. In other words, until the brain is "born" so that a self-consciousness mind may develop, humans are merely potential people.

For instance, premature infants don't have self-consciousness, but we give them the same rights as people, because they have the potential of people. We treat a premie as an actual person because we know that right now they are making their potential into their reality.

Premies actively manifest their potential in their present existence, which is called actualization. If we just protect and sustain them, then over time they will develop, ultimately reaching a target state of being in which we can definitely recognize them as actual people. They have potentiality, also known as active potential.

This is where pro-lifers will insist, but brain birth is not where the process of actualization begins! It's an arbitrary milestone along the continuum of development! If a premie who has undergone brain birth has the potential of a person, then so does the embryo from which the mind emerges!

And that's when pro-choicers will intuitively follow something like this line of reasoning: but zygotes are single-celled embryos, and they're not that different from sperm cells, and they come from sperm cells, so fertilization is also an arbitrary milestone! They'll then retort, if we must pick a milestone, it makes more sense to pick brain birth, because at least it's not just an empty body shell with no potential for a mind.

It's not a bad argument. In fact, on the surface, it appears common sense, so much so that anyone who thinks differently MUST be deluding themselves with some made-up belief, right? They can't prove their case, right?

Wrong. But I'm not going there yet. Let's go back to where we started and just accept hypothetically that the pro-choice position is right, and if you were once a zygote, then you were also once a lone sperm, because your zygote came from your sperm, right?

But where did your zygote come from? A germ cell. So you were a germ cell before you were a sperm. And because you are everything that once carried the potential of becoming you, you must have been an oocyte too. And you must also have been what the germ cells came from, which is your parents. So you were your parents.

This seems absurd! Surely, you think, this absurdity is only more proof that the pro-life position is untenable. But you'd be wrong about that, because this is only proof that you're wrong about what the pro-life position is.

To explain why, we have to examine the difference between possibility and potentiality, or between passive and active potential. And to best do that, let's continue to pretend you were once a sperm.

As a sperm, you had nearly unlimited potential. Every time your father interacted with a new female with a different set of ova you could fertilize, new potential paths into the future were generated, and your horizons expanded. Once you were ejaculated into your mother, anything that happened to you could open new options for your ultimate destiny.

As a fully developed sperm, you had already attained your peak form, and now you could become anyone. You were static, and your sole goal was to propel yourself forward. Your potential for progress was bounded by the space you happened to exist within, and your potential for change was constrained to your proximity to an ovum. If and when you changed, you'd cease to exist.

You could not activate your potential independently, so your potential was merely hypothetical possibilities. It was passive potential. The nature of your potential was generative, broadening your set of possible futures with every spatial relation. If kept alive and not killed, you would not self-actualize into a particular individual. You could be anyone.

By design of the process you were a part of — not of the kind of thing you are — you were impeded by your ovum. When you fertilized your ovum, the material of your sperm disintegrated and your RNA integrated to become DNA. You were no longer a part of your parent's bodies. You transformed into a fertilized egg, a zygote, a single-celled embryo: a new organism.

At this point many pro-lifers will exclaim — aha, proof! This is the radical change of nature needed to prove that your potentiality changed. It was at this moment that your latent humanity emerged, and you began the process of attaining its evident manifestation.

And they're wrong. This proves WHY your nature changed, but does nothing to prove HOW it did so do that. So it's not necessarily that they've picked the wrong milestone for the beginning of the process of actualization; it's that they've picked it for insufficient reasons. To find sufficient reason, we must now imagine you were once a zygote.

As a zygote, your potential became more and more limited with each passing moment. Every interaction with your mother not only brought new opportunities, but also sealed your fate further. New potential paths into the future were eliminated, and your horizons contracted. Once gastrulation determined which of four potential twin embryos you would be, your individual identity was set in stone.

Now you were just some single one. You were dynamic, and your goal was to propel yourself to follow a body plan – to self-orchestrate your development. Your potential for progress was restricted by the time you happened to exist at, and your potential for change was chronic, inherent to your form by design of the kind of thing you are. You were constantly changing all on your own.

You would activate your potential independently, so you were actively attaining your peak form. It was active potential. The nature of your potential was eliminatory, narrowing your set of possible futures with every temporal relation. If kept alive and not killed, you would self-actualize into a particular individual. You would be someone.

When you were a zygote, you would be someone in particular in the future, so you already were a specific someone now, and always would be. As a zygote, your material body constituted a somebody. But when you were a sperm, you could become anyone, thus you were only ever no one. Your material form constituted nobody. So actually, your sperm was never anybody, ergo it was never you.

Therefore, you were never a sperm.

So we've proven a sperm wasn't you, not just because sperms aren't organisms, and non-organisms typically aren't people. With that out of the way, finally, we can prove how a zygote was you, a person!

Earlier we found that in order to be a person, a human must be in a process of self-actualization, in which they actively manifest their potential to reach a target state of being – a peak form. The debate was therefore, when does such a process begin? Does it begin with the materialization of the brain, or the organism, or another milestone altogether? Let's analyze the process of actualization and see if it offers any hints.

Logic offers us three possible modes of manifesting latent potential into evident form: attainment, retainment, and reattainment. In other words, you're always either gaining, keeping, or getting back the version of you in which others best relate to you as a fellow person. If you stop self-actualizing, then your relation to humanity as kin becomes passive, you lose your active potential – your potentiality – and you've died.

And so we return to the question at hand: when does this potentiality begin? We know a premie is attaining the best version of themself. We also know for certain they are enminding – attaining a mind – because they have the brain material to do so. Now, based on what we imagined when you were a zygote earlier, we can also surmise that a zygote is attaining a best self – or, enselfing. Rationally, both zygotes and premies actually have potentiality.

But doesn't that just bring us back to the original problem? Because if we are to say that a zygote has potentiality, then who's to say that a sperm doesn't have it as well? Aren't sperm also in the process of attaining humanity? Did I walk you in a circle of reasoning?

Fortunately not. Remember we've already reasoned that sperm are broadening their potentials, while zygotes are narrowing their potentials. This means that sperm have passive potential – mere possibility – while zygotes have active potential – actual potentiality.

Further, actualization converts latent manifestations of potential to evident manifestations. Manifesting eliminates potential paths into the future by activating potential in the present. The process of attainment is a mode of manifesting that narrows potentials to a target state. Given that attainment is a process of narrowing, and the nature of the potential of sperm is a process of broadening, then it appears sperm are in a process contradictory to attainment.

That means, the physical nature of sperm is not only different from the physical nature of organisms, but the metaphysical process of sperm is paradoxical to that of embryos. At fertilization, the material of the gametes not only undergoes a marked shift in biological behavior, but also a paradigm shift in potential. Human gametes are unlike embryos because they are not manifesting humanity – but we are, so we are like embryos.

If the pro-choicers aren't totally lost yet, they're probably thinking, whoa buddy, hold your horses. I can think of a lot of reasons embryos are more like a brain-dead body than they are like us. For starters, they don't have a mind. Sure, they might be enselfing, but surely a being without a brain can't be enminding. Sure gametes don't have potentiality, but the potentiality to be a person must start at brain birth when the fetus gains the potential to have a mind.

Not so fast! You're suggesting that when certain brain material arises, it will constitute the mind in the future. This means brain birth generates new potentials. But didn't we just find that attainment is a process of elimination of potentials?

Let me offer you a new way to look at it: the mind is a phenomenon that emerges as a consequence of a sequence of eliminations of potentials. This process began at fertilization, when your body began attaining your mind. Brain birth is just an arbitrary milestone, not just in the development of the fetus, but also along the continuum of your self-actualization.

Thus, your body began to enmind at fertilization. You, in all your potentiality – even the potential of your mind – emerged with your organism. From thereon, you began eliminating potential as you defined your reality. Not only did the material that would constitute your mind began making itself, but also the active potential that would define the boundaries of your individual mind began whittling itself down.

You, as a person, actually existed at conception. That's not arbitrary; it's the precise point at which the processes that define you began.

This concludes my logical proof that the correct milestone for human personhood is fertilization. Embryos and fetuses are people. You don't have to have a sentient mind, or even a functional brain to be a person – you simply must have the active and inherent potential of getting one.

Personhood thoughts.

Ii love abortion and abortion will never stop. It will happen forever and ever. Kill that foetus -Ghandi

I know you're trolling but this is also a great chance to talk about the book from Merton on Gandhi I've been reading and how it ties into abortion Rescue.

"A society that lives by organized greed or by systematic terrorism and oppression (they come to much the same thing in the end) will always tend to be violent because it is in a state of persistent disorder and moral confusion."

The systematic oppression of fetal people under the regime of abortion is both a foundation and fruit of our violent society. Abortion is the moral confusion that has put us in persistent disorder, which keeps us confused as we attempt to survive social violence.

"The first principle of valid political action in such a society then becomes non-cooperation with its disorder, its injustices, and more particularly with its deep commitment to untruth. Satyagraha is meaningless if it is not based on the awareness of profound inner contradiction in all societies based on force."

If it is true that fetuses are actual people like you and I and abortion murders them, then the logical conclusion of this truth is that we must have solidarity with them. We must act as if abortion is actually murder by actually entering the killing facilities where it is happening regularly and attempting to stop it. We must do this despite the great cost to ourselves, because solidarity means sacrifice. We don't sacrifice ourselves out of commitment to potential. We sacrifice ourselves to Rescue people.

If abortion continues forever and never stops, then we will never acheive a society healed from its inner contradictions based on force. There is no such thing as basic human rights if arbitrary classes of human non-persons are recognized by our governments. We will not achieve societal progress without preborn people. Our definition of people must not be a function of external power and force, 'might makes right'; it must be a recognition of inner truth, by the self of the other.

Thanks for the inspo, anon. I'm dedicating my next clinic invasion to you specifically 😘

None of us are free until all of us are free. Total fetal liberation for all. We keep us safe. Fetuses are us. Enter the murder mills and practice nonviolent resistance. You will not lose your life, but you must be willing to do so in recognition of their truth. Go Rescue fetuses from abortion. They matter because we matter. We only have humanity when we recognize theirs.

Also, don't forget Gandhi actually said:

"[I]t seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime."

hi!! would you mind if i linked your blog on other platforms when a discussion about abortion is being held? i really appreciate the thought and time and resources you've put into your content, and my hope is that it changes a few minds at least. thanks!!!!

Yes, PLEASE link it. That's the whole reason it exists lol. I appreciate you asking!

Hello!

While we may not share the exact same politics and such, I really admire your work for the unborn and your intelligent arguments for saving their lives!

It's nice to see something different from the usual conservatives or the religious arguments.

Keep up the good work and have a lovely 2024!

I always appreciate an ally. Basic human rights should be something all sides of politics can agree upon. The right to life starts at fertilization! Thanks for the encouragement friend!

Imagine how many lives men abort in one ejaculation.

The knee-jerk reaction for pro-lifers is to respond to this with "but gametes aren't organisms". You're right, they aren't, and that IS an important distinction. However, it doesn't answer the point this person is (poorly) making at all. This person is not conflating organisms with gametes; they MAY be confused about embryology, but that still isn't the philosophical argument they're making. They're implying that the preborn are potential people because they lack some feature essential to being actual people.

Let's break this argument down.

So to actually challenge this point, you have to explain the condition by which early human organisms are people, and by what manner gametes do not fit that condition. "Human beings are equal people because they are human organisms" is circular reasoning, not logical proof. I know the next impulse of a pro-lifer is to start listing off the biological causes of human personhood, development following a distinct DNA plan being the most basic reason. Those are good answers to WHY early humans really are people, but not to HOW they are real people.

By skipping the step of explaining "how" the preborn are people before detailing "why" they are, we leave a huge hole in our pro-life accounts of personhood and leave confused pro-aborts in the dust. It's a disservice to not tie the physical facts to our metaphysical reality.

HOW are preborn humans actual people? The explanation is that the preborn are not missing anything essential to being a person. They have all the same essential features as the person they will be in the future, because our essential nature is inherent to their inherited DNA. Their DNA makes them a member of humankind in species. DNA also propels their self-directed process of physical development, and synchronically impels their metaphysical process of self-actualization (aka enselfing). Only a being that already IS a "self" can self-actualize!

Enselfment is the process of manifesting yourself in your prime through one of three modes: attainment, retainment, and reattainment. You in your prime are your "best self". Best is relative to our collective experience as humans, our humanity. You are actively enselfing now! Because we continuously change between modes of manifesting throughout our lifetimes, enselfment is a dynamic process. As long as we are alive, we are in one of those modes. When we are enselfing, we are actively relating to humanity and those also engaged in it: personkind.

This relationship to personkind is kinship. Any being in active and inherent relationship with humankind is kin with personkind, and is thereby a member of the kind of being that has personhood: in other words, a person! Our personhood is our relationship to other people.

The process of self-actualization can be thought of as a dialectic, a constant tension of existing along a spectrum between becoming, being, and unbecoming our best selves. As long as you are engaged in this dialectic, you are yourself. When you are disengaged, you've died. Well maybe you haven't *died*, but your person has ceased to exist. Your brain might be in a vat indefinitely, with the potential of being reactivated. At that point, your relationship to humanity has become passive, and your brain is not unified over time to your self.

Brain-dead bodies also aren't people. They are in passive relation to humanity and are disengaged with the dialectic of self-actualization. This is because they have lost the biological integration necessary to be a living organism; they're dead, and will not reattain their self. They were a person and so deserve dignity and respect, as any human body, but I maintain that the person that was once integrated with their body is now dead and gone.

In order to be an actual person in reality, as opposed to a potential person in theory, a being must have diachronic unity with the person they have been or will become. Ongoing self-actualization is that unifying tie. When you began actualizing, your self began to exist.

You began self-actualizing when your self began to exist. Your self began existing at the start of your lifetime. The creation of your unique DNA instigated your self-actualization process. Your DNA formed at the start of your life cycle, when your life form was conceived. Your lifetime began synchronously with your life cycle. Your life form inherently began actively self-actualizing at conception because it inherited DNA of an essential kind. As such, it then actually had latent capacity to manifest the features and capabilities of a person.

In simple terms, your life began at conception. Your being was contingently incapable at the beginning of your life, but was actively and inherently enselfing, meaning your early life form was the selfsame person that you are now. Had that life been aborted, you'd be dead. Tl;dr An embryo is integrated physically by development and metaphysically by active relation with the person they will later manifest, so they already are that person latently.

But are SPERM self-actualizating? Aren't THEY actually real people too already? No!! There are too many selves that a sperm could potentially manifest for them to have moral consideration equal to ourselves. There are infinite combinations of sperm and ovum, which means a sperm can potentially actualize into anyone. A sperm lacks the specificity of a person.

Whereas before the primitive streak at day 15, a human embryo could bud four identical twins maximum. And prior to implantation, abortion isn't possible! The embryo may not implant until day 12. Women typically aren't concerned about a late period until day 14. Ergo virtually no abortions happen prior to the primitive streak, after which each embryo has the potential to actualize a particular individual. They're unified in identity to one specific person they will become in the future, meaning they are the selfsame person now!

And that, my friends, is a comprehensive overview of how to argue that fetuses are people.

"We must be able to confidently ground our pro-life conclusions in moral philosophy using a secular and shared basis of understanding. Our credibility relies on this foundation."

-Terrisa Bukovinac

Why We Must Sacrifice for the Preborn

Homo sacer refers to the concept of a type of being that is human but is not a person, in such a way that it is permissible to kill them for impetuous reasons, yet their lives would not suffice as a sacrificial offering.

In other words, that which you may kill but you may not sacrifice. The converse is that which is sufficient to offer as sacrifice but you may not kill at whim. That which you may sacrifice but you may not kill.

Thinking about this and Rescue, as well as Mill's classical liberalism, I arrived at this phrase:

That for which you may sacrifice but you may not kill.

Modern liberalism feigns neutrality on fetal personhood by positioning the unborn as a sort of Homo sacer legally. Fetal homicide is illegal not because it kills, but because it violates the pecking order. Homicide is for humans, not for fetuses! Feticide is for fetuses. You can't homicide fetuses, because that treats them as having sacrificial value. Someone could offer to take their place, which means they must be someones as well. Can't have that!

So it all comes back to a singular point: we must sacrifice for the unborn to prove the law is not neutral. The law has deemed the unborn to be that for which we may not sacrifice, and we ought to have the freedom to sacrifice ourselves for them. Give them liberty or give us death. (Ya know, metaphorically.)

Would you take their place?

Anthems for Punk Rockers, Grungelords, Metalheads, & Music Enjoyers who understand that Abortion Is Murder

Yes the first is reggae & the last is Whitney. You're welcome in advance.

1) fetuses are not conscious of their experience or their 'selves', they are essentially in a state of unconsciousness until healthy birth, with semi-conscious experience, as if feeling or hearing while asleep, appearing in the last months. They are 'alive' in the way that all cells are alive, and their consciousness never develops beyond that of a sleeping person until birth.

[cont.] 2) is it okay to sell an infant for sex, compared to killing a fetus for money? Well, the reasoning for performing an abortion isn't for money as much as any other medically necessary procedure can be 'for money'. And I wouldn't consider it 'killing' in the sense of murder, it's 'killing' in the sense of killing part of a living being, or killing an unconscious organism, because it isn't conscious or independent of the mother. To sell a living, conscious person for sex would be evil, but again, fetuses are not conscious or people. 3) a fetus is actively in the process of becoming a person. Is a fetus the same person as she will be as an adult? You could say the same about sperm and eggs. Both have the function of potentially becoming a person, but aren't. You could take the exact sperm and egg, unfertilised, that would become you, which, left to its own devices, would fertilise, but that would not be a person. What's so special specifically about fertilisation that makes it 'you'? What you share is DNA, the same as any other cell in your body, billions of which die all the time. Also, you could say that the fetus itsself is not 'actively' becoming a person, because the growth and development are reliant on the mother. 4) it is extremely unlikely that any scientific evidence would come forward to make a fetus fit the definition for 'human being', in a way that killing a fetus would be murder. 5) The violence we use on fetuses is used on living beings all the time, to amputate or remove parts of the body. It's also used on living unconscious organisms such as plants, fungi, and animals when it is done for good reason, eg. removing a parasite. 6) the arguments and 'belief' that a fetus is not a person is solid enough to be considered fact, just as anything else non-person is not a person. A person is defined as a 'human being regarded as individual', and a fetus is not 'individual', being directly connected to and reliant on the mother, and also not a 'human being', the definition being a man, woman or child.

For context, this is a response to my comic post "Six Illustrated Responses to “A Fetus Isn’t a Person”", which has also been published as an article on Secular Pro-Life's blog.

@poofem I see you took a good-faith whack at a fetal non-personhood argument and you deserve a fair response.

1) Well, if consciousness is a red herring, then it doesn't matter if fetuses experience a "self" or not (although I would say they do, you can read my take on the theory of enselfment.) Human organisms are definitely alive in a very different way than ALL human cells are alive; not every cell is an organism. Human cells do not follow an integrated body plan as human organisms do; they do NOT develop, which is one of the 7 characteristics of life according to NASA.

A clump of human cells forming a tissue is alive but is not a life form. Human zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (ZEFs) ARE life forms. They have organic unity and are whole organisms, while cells are only parts of organisms. ZEFs are not missing any parts; they have all the parts and abilities appropriate for their development. Defining them as non-people because of their age and ability is ageist and ableist.

2) "the reasoning for performing an abortion isn't for money" babe the abortion industry literally makes over a billion dollars a year and most people cite economic concerns as a reason they procured an abortion lmao it's absolutely about money. So would you fuck a living fetus or not? Would you use THIS fetus for sex?

3) Actually you can't say the same about sperm and eggs, so it's clear you've completely misunderstood the argument. I've written about this common misconception in detail. While a gamete is merely a part of a rational being, a ZEF is a whole rational individual because they are a member of humankind, and they are unified by the same life processes over time and space with the capable person they will become. Their biological kind inherently defines their rational nature. This means they are in active relation with our collective humanity.

It's not just their shared DNA or common body that is coherent; it is their dialectical process of ongoing actualization that dynamically integrates them. Ergo the fetus and the human in their prime are the selfsame being, but contingently incapable. In other words, a ZEF is continuous physically by development and metaphysically by active relation with the person they will later manifest, so they already are that person latently. It's wrong to define a human as less than a person just because of their current circumstance.

Also, fetal development is self-propelled, not reliant on the mother. The fetus relies on the mother for sustenance and protection, not to grow and follow a body plan. You really need to read some of biologist Maureen Condic's work because the claims you are making are scientifically false. Here's an embryo moving at 9 weeks.

4) Personhood is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. We must DISCERN personhood from the nature of the being in question; when we DEFINE personhood for ourselves, we veer into eugenics. You've decided for yourself that the definition of a person is a conscious human being (you've also decided for some erroneous reason that you have the authority to define what morally significant consciousness is), which means humans in permanently vegetative states aren't people either and are disposable.

That includes my godbrother, who had Allan-Herndon-Dudley syndrome and never developed consciousness "beyond that of a sleeping person". You're telling me that it would have been alright to kill him because he was powerless to define and defend himself. Wtf.

5) I'm not sure what you're getting at here, are you saying a fetus is a part of the mother's body that can be amputated or like a plant that can be harvested? While those are both complete misrepresentations of what a fetus is (I think you might be thinking of a blastocyst), I'm pretty sure we don't crush the skulls of puppies while they're alive. Here's real footage of an abortion.

6) Wait... so you're saying a fetus isn't a person because fetuses are non-persons and fetuses are non-persons because they are a fetus, therefore a fetus is not a person. You do realize that's circular reasoning, right?

*I* regard a fetus as an individual and a child, so by your definition, fetuses must be people. It's not a problem with fetuses that you don't relate to them; that is a problem with YOU and your unwillingness to open your mind to the plight of the preborn and solidarity with the most vulnerable members of the human family.

You are afraid to acknowledge their humanity because you are unwilling to soften your heart. When we act from a place of fear rather than love, we lose our own humanity. I'm willing to sacrifice my reputation and freedom out of love for the preborn and loyalty to their parents. I defend them to keep my heart soft and humane.

Personhood is ultimately a sociolegal construct used to sanction discriminatory violence, much like gender. Abortion is not compatible with equality. It is abuse of the powerless by the powerful.

You're falling for the trap of neoliberalism and insisting that two beings must function as individuals rather than a collective. A mother and her child, from fertilization to late infancy, function as an individual collective, and that's not something you can reconcile within the framework of an atomized society under capitalism.

If we want to build a society based in radical collective care, then that care must begin with defense in the womb. Preventing abortion IS community defense. I'm calling you to radicalize, comrade. Can you imagine a world beyond abortion? Have you tried?

I don't wish this on you or anyone else. But can you honestly say to yourself that if you were raped with consequences, then you would be able to accept it, bear it, give birth and really sincerely love and take care of the child?

Can you honestly say to yourself that if you conceived a child from rape, then you would be able to suffocate, poison, dismember and really sincerely murder a helpless, vulnerable person who will unconditionally love you in the near future? Your CHILD?

Do you even know what an embryo LOOKS like at 9 weeks? Here's footage of an ectopic embryo flexing their arms, legs, and back.

Have you ever even WATCHED an abortion procedure? Here's the founder of NARAL narrating a first-trimester aspiration abortion (starts around 7:30).

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You're talking about abortion as though it's a contraceptive that prevents a person from coming into existence, like Plan B, which I am fine with and have written about here. I'm telling you that human organisms are people from the time of fertilization, and abortion brutally murders them.

I've already written about the ethics of abortion in cases of rape here, and the abortion exception here. Here's the testimony of a singer who aborted after rape, and a CSA survivor who was forced into an abortion. Both of them say that their abortions destroyed them, and worse, killed their beloved children.

Believe it or not, 50% of women who conceive in rape keep their babies and love them. My friend Ayala conceived in rape and loved her baby deeply. Titus O'Neil's mom conceived him at age 11 in incest, and she CHOSE to birth him and take care of him all on her own; now he's a celebrated WWE fighter. A mother's love is stronger than rape.

And here's another mother debunking the claim that children conceived in rape are harder to love. Women do not hate their children because they resemble their rapist. We are strong & resilient enough to overcome our triggers. Our bonds to our children are healing. The lie that our rapists destroy our bonds is a scare tactic used to sell us abortions by a predatory billion-dollar industry.

Don't fall for the propaganda and fearmongering. Rape survivors deserve better than child extermination on demand.

This is actual footage of a D&E later abortion from "Eclipse of Reason" (1987). I don't share this lightly. A baby boy is dismembered on screen at 5 months gestation, and it is extremely disturbing. I'm sharing it for education, and out of respect for this child. In the words of Dr. Miller, "it allows that little person to speak to the injustice that happened to [him], to prove [he] lived, and allows [his] brief life to change the world for the better."

It reeks of wanting a childen born but not alive when Prolifers care about children being born in America but care not at all for the children Gaza being killed for crimes they did not commit (including PREMIES)

Yeah... that's neoliberalism for ya.

Unfortunately so many good people I know, even "progressives", have bought into the IDF propaganda. And it's not a surprise that the GOP believes whatever the military industrial complex wants it to believe. This conflict is showing me which of my allies really are leftists, and which are only economically liberal. It feels like betrayal. And it's frustrating that they don't see the parallels with the abortion industrial complex. Everything is exceptional for abortion, it seems...

I don't see how babies in the womb deserve any less protection from bombs and bullets than forceps and aspirators, regardless of the location of their parent. Look at this Palestinian fetus killed by Israel. Not to mention the premies, as you said, who are dying because the siege has cut off hospitals from electricity and oxygen to power the NICUs. And the miscarriages being caused by the physical and emotional stress! Even more preventable deaths!

And in my opinion, there are two reasons the Republican party is the anti-abortion party of America: Planned Parenthood funding Democrats with blood money, and Jerry Falwell scheming with Ronald Regan to use abortion to make Catholics vote conservative. Because of this, pro-life leftists were shoved out of the Democratic party, and the GOP became the anti-abortion party. I digress.

That being said, there are many folks who are openly pro-life and pro-Palestine. Maybe not loudly so, but I know if you asked them they wouldn't lie about it.

Me and my homies made a video about being pro-life and pro-Palestine!

Rehumanize International has put out blog posts defending Palestinians.

There's a Pro-Life for Palestine Facebook group.

An open letter from a few of us.

And here's the pro-life pro-Palestine accounts I can think of across the internet:

Tumblr: @papirouge, @not-your-average-prolifer

Twitter: @repreaux, @EdwardVersaii, @BlackRadAnarcho, @CatholicClod, @RachelEnders3, @ClwnPrncCharlie, @andreasdueren, @xmountainmanx, @Vegans4Preborn, @MikeVickNews, @AnaXOXY_prolife, @wholelifedem, @cloudlessclimez, @QueerLilFetus, @couervivant, @LeftistKristin, @gaviotagavina, @terreliv, @dharmawarrior3, @chibicurmudgeon, @gojirama, @eritreanotaku

Instagram: @itsalexpinkney, @clementine_liberation, @theworldaccordingtoashley, @groovyprolifer, @hislittlelilly, @landlord.liquidator420 @flower.fetus709

"Unpaid state reproductive labor"!

Imagine being so capitalism-brained that any effort for another human being that isn't incentivized by money is a violation of your fundamental right to never help anyone unless it enriches you

Even Ayn Rand would tell anon to chill out

HAHAHA thank you comrade this made my night

Pregnancy is a fiduciary relationship, never transactional. It is an ordinary and foreseeable obligation to sustain the tiny person entrusted in your care by the parent-child bond. Abortion is not just aggressive violence, it is betrayal of familial trust. It's abuse.

That being said, I'm all for paid maternity leave from the state. Pay the caregivers of the preborn, and institute universal basic income while you're at it.

@papirouge  @not-your-average-prolifer If you look at the bottom of my post about why abortion is genocide, under the cut, you'll see me go off about the genocide in Palestine.

It's not anti-semitic to recognize and declare that the IDF has trapped innocent Gazan civilians in an open-air prison ghetto and is exterminating them systematically with bombs and starvation. It's proven that Israel and the US lied about this years ago to justify mass murder and they're lying again. Fuck the war industry propaganda.

Pro-Life means Anti-Genocide.

I gave up on being pro life publicly and online. The genocide in the Congo and in Gaza have proved it to me that many western women who run those pro life accounts don’t care for children. Many babies have been lost due to hospital bombings. More children are displaced with no families.

I’ve tried reaching out when they talk about saving children in generic posts because very real babies are losing their lives by IDF terrorism. And I get blocked or I get told “that’s different/ they’re Muslim/they should have left already/I don’t care” over and over and over again. The countless videos are already out that have children begging and crying for their families they lost or the homes that can’t be saved. Some of the worst messages I read criticized and blame the Palestinian men too that they should be protecting the kids, so when they die, it’s actually Palestinians fault. Not the IDF. Meanwhile those “young men” are just teenagers because their parents are dead. The Congolese topic is worst. Many are begging people to stop buying the iPhone 15 to raise awareness over the issues there but I got told by one girl who likes to call herself an anti woke submissive wife that she couldn’t care less about the Congo, she’s going to do whatever her husband wants, if that means ignoring genocide then that’s what she will do too. It’s her god given to have freedom over dead bodies l…

I’m fed up. I’m sick of the hypocrisy. I’m sick of seeing stupid homestead content of how they’re at peace taking care of a home as they purposefully condone genocide. If some hacker group exposed all these “submissive Godly trad wife” accounts as being agents for Israel to distract the west from IDF war crimes, I wouldn’t be surprised the least. Their apathy is demonic

@not-your-average-prolifer is the only pro life blog who passed the vibe check as far as I know. She reblogged posts about the emergency of pregnant women in Palestine and also post about mental health of middle east women. I think she is left leaning (correct me if I'm wrong!) so I'm not surprised to see her with more empathy about whatever's happening to women abroad, unlike Conservatives who are extremely stupid & uneducated when it comes to foreign affairs, if not straight up xenophobic.

I hope for every single Christian I know to never open their mouth about uwu Christianism is from Middle east uwu ever again the next time someone calls Christianism white man's religion or I'll go berserk on them. They better shut up forever. They had no problem to keep their mouth shut witnessing the martyrdom of our brothers - they better keep it that way permanently and stop summoning their struggle once it's convenient to them. YES, they proved they definitely consider Christianism a white man thing, considering our little care they have for our (non white) Christian brothers overseas. They better keep them out of their mouth permanently.

"They're Muslim" it's been well documented that there are Christians in Palestine. But even if they weren't, Christ wants everyone to be saved and accept him as their lord and savior - refusing to extend some basic empathy to people being bombed and killed in their sin is not the way to go. Never forget that Jesus didn't heal or saved only Jews, but also pagans, prostitutes, etc. It's insane how so unemphatic "Christians" have become.

Christian Palestinians are actually some of the oldest Christians - like, where do they those idiots think Jerusalem was?? where did the Pentecost happen? IN MIAMI?? KANSAS?? "They should have left" WHERE?? aren't the ppl pulling out this argument the same crybabies whining about woke culture destroying western civilization? Why didn't they leave the western zone already??? Also aren't they the same against immigration and how men fleeing their country are lazy cowards? so why are they mad at Palestinians sticking to their land?? Damn, Western politicians/diplomacy have the opportunity to do the funniest thing possible and mass import Palestinians in western countries to abide Zionists requirements in Israel 💀

And LOL oh so now Palestinian men are supposed to protect children? what are they supposed to do when the IDF is bombing their house? Take weapons to defend/get back their land and shit? Oh my bad, that makes them terrorists (and let's be clear : what happened on October 7th is unjustifiable but let's not act like the Hamas wasn't called terrorist much earlier than that). It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they do nothing, they're cowards, and if they do, they are terrorists - because in this case, resistance is defiance. Ultimately they just want to deflect from their own lack on empathy and find a rational explanation to that.

Conservative scrotes are the LAST people who should lecture anyone about defending the children when there are acting bullying kids young enough to be their grandchildren calling them wokes, leftists, or whatever. I won't even start about gun violence and how deflective they are about protecting the children only to protect their precious right to carry. Ghouls. They only care abt unborn babies because they are unable to call them out on their bs yet. Once they do, they'll cuss them, call them woke, and all sort of -ists.

On TikTok there was a Christian girl saying how Christians are "too emotional" and how we should keep supporting "God chosen people" (Israel). I already made a post calling out how this "god chosen people " narrative didn't stand now that we were in the NEW COVENANT. But let's follow her train of thought: isn't humankind made from God image? Where do emotions come from? Didn't God himself have emotion? Why? What's the right or wrong place to have emotion? She and all the clown who agreed with her would never be able to reply those questions. We've all seen the videos. I did what I could to avoid them but they're quite unavoidable at this point. What's the correct emotion after seeing 2 kids younger than 10 carrying a third one crying while one of his foot was hanging with only one tendon?? This girl, along with every single Christian unmoved by this disaster has to shut up. Their heart is a stone and they should stop trying to lecture people who still have a heart made of flesh. We're not the same. Christ is PEACE. Not war or violence.

And girl, you really shouldn't even engage with women labelling themselves "anti woke submissive wife" 💀 why would you expect them to care about anything but their idol (husband)? Stay focus on what really matters. Peace and God. We're in the end times and God is slowly but surely unfolding the truth. The masks are slipping. Take note of all the so called who remained silent witnessing satan action, take proper action, and go on.

Index

Answers and Submissions

Apologetics

Documents

Tiny People

Conspectus

Debates

Full Feed

About me

Directories

Directories

Quick References

Frequently Asserted Quips

Index

Secular Pro-Life Advocates

Learn More

Looking for help?

Table of Contents

FAQs: Frequently Asserted Quips

by Pro-Choicers

Visit the links below to see if I have already addressed your point.

No one has the right to use my body.

I have the right to mitigate harm.

Violence is justified in self-defense.

Forced birth is fascist oppression.

Abortion isn't a big deal.

You don't care about child rape.

You don't care about born people.

I don't care about fetuses.

Yeetus the parasitic fetus.

F**k you people and f**k them kids.