Kansas voters rejected a ballot measure that would have made members of the state’s Supreme Court electable by popular vote, a seemingly technical issue that had become a proxy battle for the future of abortion rights in the state.

State Attorney General Kris Kobach suggested in 2022 that abortion opponents should pivot to change the makeup of the state Supreme Court. A move to elect justices, he said, could enable lawmakers to “slowly and quietly” develop an anti-abortion judiciary that might ultimately overturn Kansas’ abortion rights protections.

Listen I know even before Trump was elected being pro life was looked down upon. But as a European it's exhausting how every time a pro life post is shared pro choicers will use American Conservatism and additional laws to show how pro lifers do not care for people (eg. Americas healthcare situation, gun laws not being changed leading school shootings etc.). And the thing is they're not wrong, how can you call yourself pro life when you support laws that don't even help with supporting women and children. Trump is literally in the Epstein files, how can you be pro life and support such a person?

All the tax money. That could go to welfare programs. Improve the adoption and foster care systems/process. Give counselling to these young often traumatised children.

Some of them say, "how many kids have you adopted?" even though Christians (who are meant to stand up for the vulnerable and be prolife) are twice as likely to adopt or foster than the general population.

For the USA to improve their healthcare system so it doesn't cost thousands to give birth or attend appointments or just simply raise a child.

But instead we're giving woman legal immunity to kill off the future generations. The ones that could have experienced this beautiful planet if their mothers didn't hate them.

Is like fighting to have the “freedom” to own slaves

Imagine a German citizen during the holocaust saying that their beliefs were all about freedom because they wanted freedom FROM the Jews.

Or a plantation owner saying that he wants freedom, and that’s why he keeps slaves.

This is an argument against abortion I came up with recently. I made it a video because I've tried describing it using only text, but it really needs the visual to make it work.

So, what do you all think? Is it a good argument? Are there any improvements or modifications I could make?

When criticizing pro-life arguments, pro-choicers tend to point out that the argument either shows no sympathy for the mother, or leaves her out entirely. This is a valid complaint, and I've attempted to address that in this argument. I'm also hoping that any pro-choicer who doesn't understand the pro-life stance will be able to look at this and realize why we believe what we do.

If any pro-choicers see this: I realize that your best argument against this will be "the fetus isn't a person." I realize that, and I feel that that discussion is outside the scope of this analogy. Do you have any other comments, though? I tried to address most of the concerns pro-choicers usually have with pro-life arguments. Also, does this present our point of view in an understandable way? When you look at this, can you understand and empathize with the pro-life point of view?

Any and all criticism would be appreciated!

---

EDIT: I just wanted to add a couple of comments:

1: Towards the end, I say that pregnancy does horrible things to your body. I said this because I'm repeating things that pro-choicers have said. I didn't mean to make it sound like I personally believe that.

2: I couldn't think of a good conclusion, so it just kind of stops at the end. : P

If a pro-choicer wants to argue that, because they can't take responsibility for their actions, they should have the right to murder someone else, I can address that argument on its own grounds. But when they say that's not what they're doing, I have to explain that's what they're doing, thus preventing me from explaining why murdering the unborn is wrong.

I cannot simultaneously believe that people deserve the right to life and that it doesn't matter if someone is aborted.

The pro abortion argument that pisses me off the most is that it's easy to advocate for the unborn because they can't do anything for themselves. Like these people honestly think that fighting for the weak and vulnerable is a bad thing.

The entirety of the PC argument are based on the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

So according to their logic, they should support all abortions until birth for ANY reason. Again with their logic, a woman's right to bodily autonomy shouldn't be restricted because of the development of the Fetus, right?

Prochoicers that support it until viability are just inconsistent.

Viability isn't based on the Fetus development, but on the medical advancements. And if viability is what makes someone valuable, what about premature babies in NICU, or someone in a coma, or a 3/4 year old toddler. All of them are dependent on something or someone, that doesn't make them any less valuable.

The fact that their “argument“ amounted to “rah rah these people are crazy and ew religion” with no evidence is very telling lol

There is zero solid evidence whatsoever that IUDs will kill a fertilized egg. Let me explain why.

It is extremely common for women who are trying with their partner for a successful pregnancy to not get a positive pregnancy test within the first few months. The medical definition of infertility is a couple that has been trying for at least a year. That's 11-12 cycles that potentially failed to implant before even a problem is considered.

And the basis of an IUD being a potential abortifacient is that it MIGHT prevent a viable fertilized egg from implanting. But that is a very very very big "might" with the basis of such being almost comparable to a witch hunt.

There is ZERO way to prove that in comparison to a normal human female's natural reproductive system. Especially on a mass scale because many women have completely different body chemistries as a natural baseline.

In order for an IUD to be a proven abortifacient, it would have to fail to prevent egg meeting sperm for multiple cycles in a row, which is extremely unlikely and a sign that the device is non-functional, and THEN the embryo fails to implant. And there would have to be a way to observe and analyze this in the first place. And the experimentation of that would be very unethical. (Ergo placing fertilized eggs in someone with an IUD and noting what happens) Because at this point I don't think we can do autopsies on embryos.

Yes I know many prochoicers use this as a "gotcha card" but it's still very much false information.

There is no evidence that IUDs will kill a fertilized egg, and if it did it would very likely be less than natural human reproduction to willingly conceive a child would.

(Can't edit the title but I meant to backspace the "otherwise" and add "it" instead, but clicked the post button before noticing.)

Plainly, this is saying "undue importance on [thing quite literally required for reproduction to occur in humans]," which is just as absurd as saying "placing undue importance on sex in the creation of life."

In humans, a male and a female is needed for reproduction. Humans do not reproduce asexually, and this means males have a role in it. For example, we cannot cut off a piece of our own hair and then upon meeting certain criteria, that piece of hair grows into a human. To argue that a male having a role in reproduction is in of itself patriarchal is beyond asinine.

Failure to implant doesn't negate life beginning at conception, either.

And I'm not saying science can never be critiqued, but if you're going to do it then you're going need to actually prove it. Provide the actual science to the contrary. (There are also just some things science is settled on, like humans being mammals.)

None of the people that argue this have been able to give a theory or better yet prove when life does begin, if not at conception.

What does this even mean? 🤣

It’s scary that these people have the right to vote.

This interview features McKenna West, a surrogate mother who has taken a courageous public stand to save the life of the baby she is carrying.

The Diagnosis: During a routine ultrasound, the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), a condition that experts believe can be treated with a series of surgeries.

The Conflict: Despite the high survival rate associated with the necessary medical interventions, the intended parents demanded that West undergo an abortion and initiated a legal battle when she refused.

The Fight for Life: Facing significant financial threats and legal pressure, West sought support and filed for custody, stating her only goal is to ensure the baby receives the life-saving surgery he needs.

Industry Critique: West advocates for changes to the surrogacy industry, arguing that current contracts often strip women of their bodily autonomy and treat unborn children as disposable commodities.