"PRO-LIFE" Debunked

WARNING: This Blog Post contains Pro-Choice opinions and mature language. Reader Discretion is advised.

Author's Note: Just to be clear, this is not to debunk the Pro-Life argument (though that may be a resulting consequence). This is to debunk the Pro-Life group here on FIMFiction.

So... I learned something from a Discord server I'm part of. If you type in "Tambelon" when searching for stories, there are 4 odd groups that come up in the recommended groups...

1. PRO-LIFE
2. Conservative Bronies
3. Conservative Republican Christian Creationist White Male Middle-class Young Adult Bronies
4. The LEGIT Christian Bronies

This Debunk is of the first in the list, PRO-LIFE. This is just me going through the comments on the main page. I'll likely to more debunks going into the forum posts later on. But for now, this is "PRO-LIFE" Debunked.

---

I suppose the best place to start is at the beginning. Specifically, the description of the group.

Every child deserves a chance to live. one child could make all the difference in the world.

This is technically true, for better or for worse. But the mass majority of them will end up being the next Joe Shmoe from Idaho.

Although hopefully, they'd become the next generation of Bronies. The world could use more Bronies.

One life is all it takes to make a better tomorrow.

And one life is all it takes to make the next school shooter. (Yeah, I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'm pissed about recent events. Fuck you, Texas!)

where is the justice in taking that life away. taking away something that could very well be the greatest gift to the world. the life of a small, innocent, unknowing child.

Well, the thing about Pro-Choice, as opposed to Pro-Life, is that abortion doesn't kill "small, innocent, unknowing children". At most, abortion only kills zygotes, fetuses, and small clusters of cells, each of which is parasitic to the mother.

Also, Pro-Lifers aren't actually pro-life, they're just pro-birth and anti-abortion. I'm sure that many Pro-Lifers are also gun advocates who end up being the next school shooters.

This group is to spread word of how every life is important, even the unborn life

This statement is false, even for people after being born.

Well, that was just the description for the group. There are already several issues with it. But wait until we get into the comments. If you're a fragile little snowflake who doesn't want your feelings hurt, turn back now.

---

If you're still here, it means that you want to see a good roasting of bad opinions. Don't worry. You won't be disappointed.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303459
As a notice for all future members of this group. we run this page based on the principle of love and tolerance.

*SNIFF SNIFF* Does anyone else smell burning pants?

we understand that other people hold opinions of their own regarding this matter.

And you know what they say about opinions. "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, most of them stink, and some of them are just shitty." (I added that last part myself.)

That's why I rely on facts. It allows me to be less subjective and more objective about my opinions. That's also why there's no such thing as a "personal truth".

As co founder of this group I would like to make one thing clear, their will be no counter hate comments permitted on this page.

Notice that wording...

It's supposed to be "there", not "their".

As for what's being said, take not of the fact that they said "no counter hate comments". That implies that hate comments are allowed, but if you have a counter to that hate comment, it's not allowed.

If you feel the need to repremand someone for their hate comment do it on your own accord but leave the rest of the group out of it.

At first, I thought it was just bad wording and was going to give them the benefit of the doubt. But this actually proves that I was 100% right when I was just being sarcastic.

Anyone found in violation of this rule will be banned from the group.

If you make a hate comment, you're welcomed with open arms. If you counter that hate, you get banished. That totally sounds fair, doesn't it?

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303460
We respect others oppinions here.

You literally just said otherwise. And that's not even counting the fact that the position you hold (Pro-Life) are adamantly against other opinions.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303502
s12.postimage.org/otsmiy1bx/roflbot.jpg

Ah, yes. The fallacy of Appeal to Emotion. And I'm extra sickened that they used MLP to promote that idea!

If you want to "save a filly", stop overpopulation, and stop all of these fucking school shootings! The founding fathers did not have assault rifles and other modern technology in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment!

...But I digress.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303509

1.When does the heart first begin to beat?
The heartbeat begins between the 21st and the 23rd day.

Seeing as the heart has it's own system that allows it to keep beat independent of the brain or even the rest of the body, using the heart to determine life is not a good goalpost to rely on.

2. When does the baby first begin to move?
The baby makes her/his first reflex movements around 40 days. Touching around the mouth with a fine bristle causes her/him to flex her/his neck.

Single celled organisms react to external stimuli as well. And some of those single celled organism don't even qualify as being alive. So congratulations, a 40 day old zygote is approximately as responsive as a bacteria.

3. Isn't it just a "blob of tissue"?
At just 8 weeks, the baby is well-proportioned, about the size of a thumb. Every organ is present. The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures of the body, 4000 are already present

Let's break this bullshit down.

1. Well-proportioned in relation to what? A kidney bean?
2. It may be the size of a thumb to someone with small hands.
3. Organs being present doesn't mean they're functional.
4. I already made a point about the heart.
5. I don't even know why the formation of the skull, elbows, and knees are important to the argument, seeing as 2 of the 3 aren't necessary for life.
6. Structures being present doesn't mean structures being fully formed.
7. Finally, why is there so much more to the answer than what the question entails? The question never said anything about "at 8 weeks".
8. And as a side note, I'm pretty sure that that's a strawman question.

4. How early can a baby survive outside the mother's womb?
Currently, twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum. However, this time is continually reduced as medical technology continues to improve.

Technically, the answer is immediately when it becomes defined as a baby and not a fetus. Because it's not definable as a baby until after the fetus leaves the womb. If you're asking how early can a fetus survive leaving the womb, that's actually 12 to 14 weeks. That's not to say the answer is wrong per se, it's just that it's not a fetus until 8 to 10 weeks. Before then, it's an embryo, and before that, a zygote.

(Note: This next question addresses nonconsensual sex, so I will be using the spoiler tag to censor all accounts of the related R-word.(

5. What about cases of rape and incest?
Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. A study of one thousand rape victims who were treated after the rape reported no pregnancies. There are few know studies of incest cases. The Allan Guttmacher institute interviewed women on their reasons for having an abortion. One percent reported their reason as rape, and less than half of one percent reported incest as their reason. Rape and incest are terrible crimes that should be punished to the full extent of the law. But it is unfair and unjust to kill an innocent child for the crimes of another person.

This is very wordy and doesn't even get to the point of remotely answering the question until the very end. But I'll get to that later.

First of all, out of 1000 rape victims none of them were pregnant? Either that's a lie, or that's an impressive study seeing as statistically, 50 (5%) of them should've been pregnant. Then again, he's relying on a study that was old even when he posted this comment. And that was 9 years ago, making the most recent study he referenced being 9 years old at the time of posting. But that's relying on 1 study which may or may not have been biased. But I can explain why the percentage is as low as it is.

1. First of all, rape covers a lot of things, not just sexual intercourse. It also covers fingering, oral, anal, groping, and even nudity. I'm sure there's more I could add to the list, but I can't think of them now.
2. People assigned female at birth aren't the only people who can be raped. And not all people assigned female are capable of getting pregnant.

As for reasons for abortion, people sometimes lie or just not say the reason. The reason could be rape and/or incest, but they'd be too ashamed to admit it.

And the final nail in the coffin is that I'm surprised they were able to interview enough people to get as less than 0.5%, considering how uncommon abortion was 18+ years ago.

And now to address the point that I mentioned at the start. If it's not fair to kill a fetus because of the crimes of the parent, why is it fair to make the mother carry a child of rape/incest to term against their will? Why is it fair to make them have a reminder of their rape/incest for 9 months? Why should the child potentially be abused by a mother who doesn't love them because of being a product of rape? Or alternatively, why should the child have to suffer living in foster care? Considering the alternatives, abortion is perhaps one of the most moral things you could do for the fetus in the case if rape/incest.

6. Don't women get abortions for really important medical reasons?

Among other reasons, yes.

By contrast in the same interviews, 74% of the women said they obtained an abortion because "having a baby would dramatically change my life," 73% reported "can't afford a baby now," 48% said "don't want to be a single mother"nor "having relationship problems." (More than one reason could be given, so the total is more than 100%).

Someone doesn't know how math works. First of all, each of those answers falls under dramatic changes. Secondly, if more than 1 reason can be given, that easily has potential to fit the numbers into under 100%.

Mother's health problems accounted for only 12% of the study, and the health of the fetus came in at 13%. Clearly the reasons woman have abortions is more to do with convenience than medical reasons.

That doesn't change the fact that you just admitted that people get abortions for medical reasons.

7. But what about the child with disease who will die a slow death or live his/her life as a burden to his/her family?

The worst thing about this question is that it's 2 questions lumped into 1, making it a strawman. And CyberCommander answers as if they should have 1 answer instead of 2.

Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does- kill a human being.

The very first sentence misrepresents abortion in 2 different ways. First, abortion wouldn't kill those who are suffering or a burden, they would just be removed before they have the chance to suffer or become a burden. Second, what does he mean by "new" ethic? Asisted suicide is a real thing. It's literally with the intent to end one's suffering. Granted, it's with consent, but how is preventing suffering considered anything else but merciful? And on the topic of being burdensome, sometimes the reason the child may be a burden is because they are a PRODUCT OF RAPE!!! And even if you argue that some of the cases are inspirational, ALL of the cases are tragic, at least to some degree.

Also, this non-answer includes the most infuriating of misrepresentations of abortion. Abortion is NOT the killing of a human being. At most, the death of the fetus is just the consequence that's no more than a side affect. Absolutely nothing in the definition of "abortion" says anything about killing, or even death. Abortion is defined as nothing more than the termination of a pregnancy. That may or may NOT result in the death of the fetus. I'm sure nobody has any issues with people getting C-sections. But C-sections are abortions because they're terminations of pregnancies. Even giving birth itself is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. So literally 100% of people who get pregnant will have an abortion sooner or later.

References:
*Carlson,b., Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, Toronto: Mosby Publication; 3rd edition,2004

18 years old.

*Moore, K and Persaud, T., The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Philadelphia; W.B. Sanders, 1998.

24 years old.

*O'Rahilly, R. and Muller, F., Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2001.

21 year old. Seriously, these were considered old even back in 2013.

*AGI, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives found at: here

And a link to a non-existant page. I'll assume it was removed because it's now out of date, and new research has changed things.

---

This next part is part of a debate between Marozia and ForcePointMaster. Marozia brings up good questions. FPM's answers on the other hand leave something to be desired. But I will admit that his answers could've been worse.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303511
If it's alright with you guys, would you be willing to define exactly what is considered a hate comment in this group?

The debate technically hasn't started yet. But this is a good question. And the answer probably won't surprise you.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303514
By hate comment, I'm referring to any negative comments targeted towards the group and the groups ideas.

It's the same answer as the original. Second verse same as the first.

Usually given by close minded (ignorant) people or those who are looking to start a flame war.

The lack of self awareness is actually hilarious in my opinion. A group that LITERALLY relies on an ignorant, close minded worldview talking about ignorant, close minded people.

Basically if anyone posts this type of comment on our forums or on the main page either ignore them or maintain or values of love and tolerance and kill them with kindness. We will not allow hateful words to be spoken in this group.

This is completely hypocritical. But I'm sure you don't need me to point out the blatantly obvious.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303515
Do you tolerate people with different views than you if they are polite and kind about the way they articulate their views?

Not only is this a good question, but it actually does have a good answer.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303517
Yes, I believe that everyone is entitled to their own personal opinions and should accept that others may have different opinions. I believe it’s wrong to force your own ideas down someone else’s throat and that they have the right to believe in what they want.

And this is why I said the answer he gave could've been worse. This is a reasonable viewpoint to have. He may be on the wrong side of the argument (and later reveal that he is a hypocrite), but the fact that polite discussion with differing views is okay.

I will point out however that nobody just believes what they want. I want to be able to fly DBZ style, or make portals Doctor Strange style. Wanting to be able to do those things will never make me believe that I can. If you believe something, it means that you're convinced that it's true. And you can't convince yourself that something's true just because you want it to be true. That's why there's no such thing as a personal truth.

But I digress...

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303519
I do not wish to force anything down the throats of you or anyone else, but I must admit that I disagree vehemently with you on this issue.

I am prepared, however, to debate and discuss the issue politely and decently.

If this is a problem in any way, let me know, and I will leave you be.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303521
Well I'd gladly discuss it with you. although I'm not sure what about it you would like to discuss?

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303523
I'm curious as to what your exact stance on abortion is. Do you wish for all abortions to be outlawed no matter what, or are you willing to make exceptions in cases of rape, underage pregnancies, and such?

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303530
In the case of impregnation by rape, I would understand abortion as an option. However the cases of pregnancy by rape tend to be in the lower numbers. As for underage pregnancy I would say abortion would be a more so selfish and unnecessary act, as you can put the child up for adoption. This is also a possibility in the case of rape, however I understand why someone would want an abortion. given the psychological trauma that often accompanies rape.

I went without commenting until now because I wanted to let this play out. Marozia is bringing up good questions. And I have to admit that this is not an entirely unreasonable answer.

However, I feel that I must point out that Marozia never asked anything about how often rape happens. I also find it unreasonable to expect an underage pregnancy to be brought to full term, then give the child up for adoption. Because putting a child into foster care is not good for that child. And what about post partum depression? The young mother may not want to part with her own flesh and blood. And most underage pregnancies are the result of lack of proper Sex Ed, so wanting an aboriton isn't selfish. And not to mention the fact that giving birth itself is considered a traumatic experience, and it's an event that permanently changes the body. So, it literally prevents that trauma from being reversed.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303531
In the case of underage pregnancy, if the child involved in giving birth wishes to get an abortion, is it right to force them to give birth?

From what I've seen, giving birth is an intensely agonizing experience, particularly for a young and still-growing body.

It seems rather cruel and unjust to force a young girl to give birth and suffer the agony and discomfort of pregnancy to ensure the survival of the unborn child.

I understand that unborn children are important, but so are the children that have already been born, and if they want to have an abortion and not suffer the pain of childbirth, I think that should be their decision.

This is where things start to go downhill... I think. It's complicated because the debate doesn't continue after the next response. If feels like it ended abruptly, and there are several deleted messages afterwords. So either the discussion was cut short and the deleted messages are unrelated, the discussion after this was deleted for some reason, or the deleted messages are unrelated, but they chose to continue the discussion somewhere else.

And spoiler alert. FPM doesn't truly answer the question, though I'm willing to grant the possibility that the wording of the question resulted in a misunderstanding.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303535
Let’s look at the possibilities here, on one hand you have the possibility that she was impregnated by rape. Which as I stated before, I don’t disagree with. However, if she did have sex of her own free will and didn’t think of the consequences of her actions. My point here is that just because you made a stupid decision that you regret, doesn’t mean you have the right to burn one of gods creations. It doesn’t give you the right to take what could be the greatest gift to this world and throw it away because of your own selfish desires.

We already get that you accept the possibility of rape victims as a reason to get an abortion. Marozia didn't ask that.

As for having sex of her own free will... that argument should be thrown out the window considering that teens are at an age when their hormones are running wild. This is exactly why we should have more schools teaching proper Sex Ed so that they can be better prepared rather than let nature hit without warning. Hormones remove the possibility of free will, at least to some extent. And this is the cause of most underage pregnancies. Hormones and lack of proper Sex Ed.

There's also the fact that they didn't ask whether or not they have the right to get an abortion, the question was whether or not the decision should be forced upon her just because it was a bad decision. I'm not necessarily pro-abortion per se. But I am pro-choice. And that means I support the right to choose, even if that choice is a bad choice.

And since FPM brought up "God's creations", I assume he's Christian. And more likely than not, a Christian who has never read the bible cover to cover. The bible never condones abortion. In fact, the bible actually supports abortion. It's actually kind of ironic how many Christians are actually the antithesis of what the bible and Jesus teach. But I suppose I shouldn't label all Christians as "Conservative Christians".

If an underage person has the right to make the bad decision to have sex at a young age, doesn't she also have the right to make another bad decision (according to pro-lifers) to get an abortion?

And the reason the question was never properly answered is because the question was whether or not the decision not to get an abortion should be forced on someone against their will. And anyone who has any respect for the idea of free will should agree that the answer is no. If you want to argue that abortion is the wrong decision, that's your prerogative. It is your right to have a wrong opinion after all.

I also pointed out how he's a hypocrite...

We will not allow hateful words to be spoken in this group.

Claiming that someone getting an abortion is selfish is hateful because it makes an assumption rather than getting all the facts. It's also hateful because it means you believe some people should be forced to give birth against their will.

I believe it’s wrong to force your own ideas down someone else’s throat and that they have the right to believe in what they want.

Claiming that certain people have no right to get an abortion completely contradicts this claim, because as I said before, FPM believes that a decision should be forced on some people against their will.

Since the discussion ends here, shale we continue?

---

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/303697
I just felt like sharing a quote

"Hate is a dead thing. Who of you would be a tomb?" -Khalil Gibran (artist and poet 1883 - 1931)

Do you have any quotes that aren't a century old? Welcome to the 21st century, where apparently we had the technology to resurrect the dead.

And being a Brony, I personally think that hate should stay dead. I know you can't eliminate all hate. But the kind of hate we're seeing today is something I'm sure plenty of people agree should die.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/304422
Go Home Hitler You're Drunk!

On it's own, this comment is irrelevant. The reason I pointed it out is because it's required for context for a back and forth between Garbo and CyberCommader. Some of the context is missing seeing as I think it's related to some of the deleted comments. But...

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/307124
It's funny because I'm one of the few people who's here seriously. But gotta love that Hitler guy, though.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/307138
no

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/307186
No silly, I don't mean the user on here, I mean the real guy. He's probably the greatest political leader to live in terms of effectiveness. However, that's kind of overridden by the fact that he killed all those people and I'm anti-death in general. But Stalin was worse.

The back and forth continues, but it's an unrelated rabbit trail.

As for the claim... WHO IN THEIR RIGHT FUCKING MIND BELIEVES THAT HITLER WAS A GREAT POLITICAL LEADER? YOU ONLY HATE HIM BECAUSE YOU'RE ANTI-DEATH IN GENERAL? CONGRATULATIONS, YOU SHARE AN OPINION WITH THE MASS MAJORITY OF HUMANS! IT'S NOT JUST THE FACT THAT HE KILLED SO MANY PEOPLE THAT MADE HIM NOTABLE, IT'S THE THE FACT THAT HE TORTURED THEM, AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETTING JEWS! HE ARGUED THAT JEWS KILLED JESUS! FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS THE ROMANS (or was it the Greeks? I forget the details) WHO KILLED JESUS, NOT THE JEWS! AND LET'S NOT FORGET THE GLARING FACT THAT JESUS WAS A FUCKING JEW HIMSELF!!!

As for the Stalin comment, I'm betting that Garbo is a Christian and only mentioned Stalin because he was an atheist.

---

Sorry about that little trade. I needed to cool off. My points on the matter still stand and will not be removed because they are my honest opinions. But I needed to clear my head before I continued.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/317653
I wish more people could take a stand against this.

I agree. Pro-lifers need to understand that they can't continue to push pro-choicers around.

Even if your not religious, a life is sill a life.

Wait, you're arguing for pro-life, not pro-choice? Then what do you have to take a stand against? It's redundant, isn't it? You'd be taking a stand against people who are taking a stand against you.

Even if you are religious, a bully is still a bully.

Not even science has a the right to say when life turly begins.

That's because science doesn't have rights, it has facts. And the fact is that science is the best suited to determine when life begins. The only reason it doesn't is because it doesn't know. And it doesn't know because it's not as simple as flicking a switch on or off. At it's broadest definition, you're alive even before conception, since the sperm cell and egg cell are both technically alive. At it's most strictest definition, you're not alive until after you're born, since according to the bible, you're not alive until you take your first breath. That's 2 marks against pro-life. Not only is abortion supported in the bible, the bible says a fetus isn't alive.

If it can die, it is alive. And a fetus can die. That's the whole point of an abortion.

Wrong! The point of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. The fetus dying is just an unfortunate side affect.

Let's put it another way. The point of chopping down a tree is to remove the tree. If in the process, the tree falls on someone, that doesn't mean that the point of chopping down a tree is to kill someone.

Even if it isn't, your preventing a would be person from entering this world.

And it's nobody's duty to ensure that a person does come into this world. In fact, you calling it a "world be person" is you admitting that a fetus isn't a person yet. A would be person isn't a person.

People try an twist by presenting what if cases to make the issue more grey. The truth is, most people getting these abortions are people are more concerned with their own lives.

It's almost as if people don't want to experience a parasitic infestation followed by physical trauma.

I've now several adopted people in my life, one of witch was my teacher who was born before RvsW. He is a smart open minded man, who ran a War Hammer 4000k club at my school. Me and him spent an entire class departing the Star Wars prequels. He is an awesome man, who had he been conceived latter, might never have met him.

I don't even need to make an argument against this. Dash Attack had already made my counter argument for me...

People try an twist by presenting what if cases to make the issue more grey.

There is absolutely no reason to assume what Dash Attack assumed. Because Roe v. Wade wasn't the start of abortions, it was just the legalization of them. The reason why that teacher was born is because (presumably) his mother chose to let it happen. But the Pro-Lifers must be cheering for the Corrupt Supreme Court and their intent to overturn Roe.

I will never see this horrid practice as ethical.

And I will never seen the practice of so called pro-lifers as ethical. Because unlike pro-lifers, pro-choicers aren't bullies.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/318184
Amen to that

And fuck you too, CyberCommander.

---

Now here's the comment that inspired me to make this debunk in the first place

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/402049
I've heard people call us pro-life advocates "savage" with our arguments, and I can't say that's not entirely unfair. When it comes to such a moral issue as abortion, it can be hard to remain calm and collected with defending what is right.

You're telling me... though I don't know why _____________ (and yes, that is his username) is talking about defending what's right since clearly he has no experience doing so. Then again, the Confederates believed what they were doing was right, despite being on the wrong side of history as well.

I learned this the hard way last year when I took up debate club for public speaking practice. I was up against my friend [REDACTED]--

I doubt he had any permission to divulge the personal information of his former friend, so out of respect for the victim, his name has been redacted.

he represented the anti-life argument and I represented the pro-life argument.

I never knew you could represent a non-existent argument in a debate. I've certainly never heard of an "anti-life" position. Or does he believe that Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are opposites of each other? At best, you could argue that the debate was "Pro-Abortion vs Anti-Abortion".

The more and more research I had to do on abortion, the more disgusted I became with everything, including [REDACTED] himself. Eventually I just broke down into an emotional mess and told him that I had lost all respect and affection that was previously there for him.

Now, I've never actually been in a debate club. But I've heard that sometimes you need to defend a position that you personally don't hold. I know that some people actually do do that. Did [REDACTED] actually choose to defend Pro-Choice? Did he volunteer because nobody else would? How can you know if [REDACTED] holds the position he was arguing for?

So I lost a friendship over this.

Seems like a petty reason to end a friendship in my opinion.

And FYI, you aren't the one who lost a friend, [REDACTED] is the one who lost a friend. And considering the kind of person you are, it's for the better for [REDACTED].

On the day of the debate, I brought up said arguments:

- Life begins at conception, and abortion is preventing a person from living their life as intended.

I'll ignore the fact that this is 2 arguments, not 1. How can you know that life begins at conception? And how can you know that a person's life has any intention beyond what that person gives themself?

- A three-month year old child should not be denied the same human rights as older children

First of all, what the fuck is being said here? Was that just bad grammar (I suppose it's bad grammar no matter what)? Was he adding the age of a 3-month old to the 9 months in the womb to get a year? Is he referring to a fetus 3 months into the gestation process? If it's the former, all children have the same rights more or less. If it's the latter, a fetus doesn't have rights until they leave the womb. That's how rights work. Your rights are forfeit if they infringe on the rights of others (Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose). And a fetus does in fact infringe on the mother's right if they don't want a child. Nobody has the right to use someone else's body without consent.

- You have no right to end a life that isn't yours, especially if the child is a result of your irresponsibility

Abortion doesn't end lives. Not in the way pro-lifers imply anyway.

-It is against human nature to kill life, especially your own child, since mothers were meant to protect their children

This is true. It's also irrelevant to the argument.

[REDACTED] brought up these arguments:

-"The baby is inside the mother, and therefore gives the mother the right to do what she wants with it"

Aside from the fact that it's not definitionally a baby until it leaves the womb, I'm willing to bet that this isn't how the argument was worded. But it's technically true. Nobody, not even a fetus, has the right to use someone else's body without consent.

-"Embreyos are not babies "(This is just denial)

Denial of what? This is just an objective fact.

And some other contrived B.S.

I wouldn't be surprised if the arguments he left out were left out intentionally because he knew that they were damning to his case.

I expressed my concern that he was putting a wall of excuses for himself so he wouldn't have to face his human moral compass telling him it was wrong.

Rather than point out my previous point, I'll just read this with the assumption that [REDACTED] does hold the pro-choice position. Nobody can know where someone else's moral compass points, because different people have different moral compasses. Which means it's not [REDACTED] who's making excuses.

I told him he was running away from his conscience and building a tower of denial to tell himself it was okay.

[REDACTED] just did his research. The one in denial isn't [REDACTED].

Upon making my apparently amusing metaphor, the class burst into laughter. I was disgusted with all of them for treating this issue so lightly and I ran away crying.

It was just a debate. You were the one taking it so seriously.

Sometimes it feels like living in a horrible distopia when you're the only prolife advocate in your school community.

I extremely doubt that you're the only pro-life advocate in your school. And even if you are, so what? Not everything is about the pro-life/pro-choice discussion.

I'm so glad to have found this group.

You wanted to be in an echochamber, now you are.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/402056
You will always be welcome here
Im sorry for what you had to deal with
But stay strong and you will prevail

Fuck you too, CyberCommander.

---

An interesting case is duckboy416. He starts off making good points. But in the end, he's what Pro-Lifers view Pro-Choicers as (as well as what Christians view Atheists as). Remember what I said about never hearing about an "Anti-Life" argument? Dispite the fact that this is one of the first comments I actually read, it wasn't on my mind at the time that this is actually and Anti-Life argument.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/411187
Though I am not a Christian, from a Christian perspective, aborting a fetus or baby is the best thing to do for them.

From a Pro-Choicer's perspective, that's sometimes the case. Would you want to bring up a child in an environment where...

1. Overpopulation is an issue
2. There's not enough resources to sustain the full population, (food, water, housing, etc.)
3. The parents are unable to support a child/another child
4. They child wouldn't be loved because they're the product of rape
5. The child would have to be put up for adoption
6. One of both of the parents are drug adicts/alcoholics and/or would abuse the child

I'm sure I could add more to the list if I really thought about it. But that's just off the top of my head.

The fetus or baby hasn’t yet heard John 3:16, and so is offered a choice when it dies: go to heaven or go to hell.

A baby can't be offered a choice because they are incapable of making choices because they do not have the mental faculties to do so.

But I suppose this is arguing about what the bible/Christianity says and not... you know... reality.

Because humans are self-serving and look for the easy way out, the fetus/baby will choose to go to Heaven, and all will be said and done.

Even the most selfless of people would refuse to choose to go to hell. Nobody in their right mind would choose hell over heaven. I'll gladly pay the price for my wrong-doings in life. But it doesn't matter how bad what you've done is. There is no such thing as an infinitely bad crime. All wrong doings are finite, so why would we have to pay for it with infinite hell?

Can you tell how stupid I think religious beliefs can be?

Also, the whole “thou shalt not kill” thing is very loosely defined, and ultimately it’s God’s decision as to who goes to Heaven or who goes to hell.

Especially since God is a massive hypocrite on that front. Why doesn't he go to hell when he's killed more people than any human in history.

If God really is that much of a rules lawyer and believes that every mother that needs an abortion to remain alive, is an ignorant teen mom, or otherwise is financially incapable of keeping the fetus/baby is thus a murderer, then that’s not a God I feel the need to follow. I’d prefer to stay Secular or Atheistic Satanist if someone’s that much of a dick to me.

Now this is where duckboy is more reasonable in what he says... mostly. You can still be a Christian without being a biblical literalist. Hell, you could be a Christian and support Pro-Choice and believe evolution. There are also several other religions that you could believe in, many of which aren't nearly as bad. You can still be a theist without being religious. What duckboy presented was a false dichotomy. But the message is clear.

But here's where things start to go South. It's not glaringly obvious at first if you're not paying attention. But I'll point it out.

From the Malthusian, nihilistic perspective, there are too few resources and too many humans on this planet to evenly distribute those resources for an extended period of time beyond 200-300 years.

I'm not sure what Malthusian nihilism is, or if those numbers are accurate. But the idea is there. The earth only has enough resources to continually sustain 2 billion people. We're now pushing 8 billion, 4 times more than what can be reasonably sustained.

If we are to (again, as Christians would say) save the tree, a few limbs may need to be cut off. There are simply too many people on this planet, and we need to cut down on the population. Moreover, we need to do so sooner rather than later.

Can you see the problem yet? If not, the answer to CyberCommander's question will make it obvious.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/411549
If using that reasoning then wouldn't that justify the killing of anyone?

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/411655
To be blunt, yes.

I don't have a problem with the idea of population control, seeing as we are overpopulation. In fact, I think at this point, population control is the most humane thing we can do in long term.

But what duckboy is suggesting isn't population control, it's population reduction. That's not the same thing. He is justifying not only murder, but mass genocide.

---

There's not much else I have to say. But there is something that A Man Undercover (yes, that's his username) said that I want to address.
https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/428306

People, born and unborn, are made to represent the glorious image and creation of God himself, and to kill of the unborn set to represent the wonderful Lord...

It is monstrously disgusting.

This is blatant proof that you can't be a Pro-Lifer without being religious.

Fun Fact: We weren't made in God's image, God was made in our image.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197899/pro-life#comment/436309
tell me about it.

Shut the fuck up, CyberCom- I meant... MarioBrony.

---

And that was the front page of PRO-LIFE.

A bunch of bigotted assholes if you ask me. But perhaps I'm being too harsh this is just the main page. Perhaps it's a bad representation of what I'll find in the Forums and Stories.

Maybe I'll even make my own counter-group and specifically call it "PRO-CHOICE". And if I do that, I really hope that someone from the PRO-LIFE group sees it and get's the wrong idea...or the right one.

I'm your Lord, King Cocoon. And until next time, I'll end by saying good bye.
Good bye.

Comments

[The Blue EM2]

Maybe I'll even make my own counter-group and specifically call it "PRO-CHOICE".

That's not a bad idea, actually. Another group you'd have fun demolishing is Warriors of Jesus. It's a Conservative echo-chamber absolutely full to the gunwhales with ass-kissing, strawmen, and circular logic. Not to mention the old favourite tactic of there's; telling somebody who disagrees with them they'll go to Hell.

Edit: Yes, I can see the downvote bombing their members are engaging in. Why not come out and face me, cowards?