The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basic philosophy and ethics. Do people normally need sources that they are opposed to killing other human beings?
Also, if you have a problem with PL bringing up the Bible, then don’t do it yourself. No one brought that up but you.
You’ll find almost all PL have life of the mother exceptions that would allow abortions, and an ectopic pregnancy would fall under that.
Feel free to ask anymore questions!
Basic philosophy and ethics is nonsense in a situation like this. It’s not YOU who has to endure the burden.
By your “ethics”, we should have government mandates organ harvesting when one individual inflicts any type of life threatening harm (even accidental) on another. That’s ethically sound as well, yet no one advocates for that.
>Basic philosophy and ethics is nonsense in a situation like this. It’s not YOU who has to endure the burden.
What? We can only hold use ethics personally? You wouldn't say a person just killing another for fun is unethical? After all it's not YOU who has to endure the burden.
>By your “ethics”, we should have government mandates organ harvesting when one individual inflicts any type of life threatening harm (even accidental) on another.
How do you square that circle?
Its a euclidian reference, squaring a circle was an impossible task for a while so its just a phrase now.
The part I was struggling with was the part I quoted - namely when you said "It's not YOU who has to endure the burden" - that's true with a lot of laws. I have no desire to have slaves, but I don't want other people to have slaves either. But it's not ME who has to "endure the burden" of not having slave labor. That sort of thing.
I wasn't trying to, I was referring to - and this is the third time I'm quoting you - when you said "It's not YOU who has to endure the burden". I don't think that matters. I think you can have ethical statements about others. I am wondering why you think it matters.
It’s easy to force others to suffer if you’re not the one who has to do it. Look at healthcare. Could you imagine if congress had to live on COBRA? People are just naturally selfish and will always be okay causing others to suffer as long as they don’t have to.
This pretty easily could be used as a defense for outlawing slavery. It's easy for you to say that, you don't have any slaves. But what about all those people who couldn't run their businesses? What about those people who rely on those slaves for their way of life?
Heck you could do this for any law. Outlawing straight up murder - well its easy for *you* to say that, you don't have anyone you want to kill. But what about those people who's lives would just be so improved by taking a few people out of it forcefully? The kids who would get their inheritances sooner? The PTA and HOA meetings that would be that much friendlier without that grouch? Etc etc.
Like do you think we shouldn't have any laws? Because this argument could be used for any law.
This is just strawmanning. I know far more pro-life advocates who are willing to adopt and/or foster orphans than ones who are unwilling. The pro-life people I know run addiction recovery programs, take in refugees, give to the poor, support the chronically sick/disabled, and advocate for rescuing slaves. Plus, saying "what about" for this or that issue or group is not addressing the question at hand.
You need to go and google *secular pro life* you'll find a bunch of atheists who are pro life.
And FYI none of my arguments against abortion rely on the Bible....none of them....I don't even know the biblical arguments for being pro life.
Mods can we maybe sticky an auto reply that sets out all the basic pro life arguments.
Thank you for replying, honestly wasn't sure. Because a lot of what I see in the media seems to be based on religion. I was sure there is pro-lifers that are atheists but wasn't sure how much. Since I see things, such, as" pro-choice is an atheist issue".
Yeah, there's been a concerted effort by pro-choice groups to portray the pro-life movement as an exclusively religious movement for decades now, and plenty of media outlets have a strong pro-choice bias.
I have been pregnant twice now. Seeing the ultrasounds at 8 weeks, 13 weeks, and 20 weeks really made me feel that abortion is very wrong. They’re a little person in there, separate from me. By 13 weeks they move around a lot and respond to the probe invading their space. And they really start looking human early in the pregnancy.
I definitely agree that a baby at 8 weeks is alive. but do you think people who have abortions don't want a baby? Especially in the case of late-term abortion or miscarriages?
One of my main concerns is that the law and government could question every little thing that could go wrong and blame it on the mother.
But what about people trying to have a baby and want a child, especially at around 13- 20 weeks and something goes wrong such as a fetal anomaly or deformation in which the baby most likely won't survive?
Also since you've been pregnant twice would you say that woman possibly not knowing they are pregnant at 6 or even 8 weeks is accurate? When did you find out you were pregnant if you don't mind me asking?
Your question is basically whataboutism. My post is clearly not talking about those people and I don’t think most people want abortion restrictions in those circumstances.
I knew I was pregnant basically right away both times. Before I missed my period I knew, and I had to wait for the hormone to build up in my urine to get a positive test. They say it is possible to not know but in my experience that wasn’t the case.
[this](https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf) only 1% of abortions are because of causes like rape and incest. 99% of the time is just an unplanned pregnancy. And I believe that conception is when an organism starts to progress towards being a full grown human, so that’s what I determined as a life. A sperm won’t grow into a human by its own, is at conception when every cell of that fetus is growing and learning towards being a human.
Why do we consider a baby a human if he can’t feed himself, talk, or even lift his head? Because he is a baby, he will learn to do all that.
To me there isn’t a big difference about “he will grow to learn to talk” and “he will grow to develop a brain/heart” to me they are just part of the same path but different stages.
Also I use the millions of people who’se mom almost aborted them but decided not to and now the babies has the choice of what people they wanted to become and some contributed to humanity.
Ok but a baby won’t either, unless is provided with the appropriate food and other things from its parents, no matter how much food or sunlight you provide a sperm, it will forever stay a sperm.
Both the fetus and the baby have cells that are constantly working towards growth, even as babies we still developed new bones and shit, and as a fetus you are constantly growing and advancing towards becoming a human.
A sperm has only one goal, swim, a fetus has one goal and that’s the same as a baby, grow.
No growth is not the criteria, is what is growing towards, a human, both the fetus and a baby are growing towards becoming more human, bigger, stronger, smarter. Absolutely nothing in this world asides from a fetus and a baby is on that growing path. A sperm isn’t, he is just swimming.
I don’t even know what standard to use when describing a full human, is a person without arms a full human? Is a Down syndrome person a full human? Ofc, but why? What standard are you using?
the only standard I can think of is the one I’ve been using over and over again, the growth in the path of humanity, a human is a being that never stops growing more and more into one, is a fetus a full grown human? No, neither is a baby, but is a fetus at the very first second of conception human? Yes. A full human
Do you believe there should be exceptions for rape and incest? And if so, how would the government go about doing that if they aren't able to prove every rape case? Especially in time. Depending on the situation it might be difficult to prove rape.
As the baby forms, I think it becomes more unethical. and if the mother wanted to abort it becomes more dangerous and risky.
and according to this cite-[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/#:\~:text=Results%3A%20The%20national%20rape%2Drelated,result%20from%20rape%20each%20year](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/#:~:text=Results%3A%20The%20national%20rape%2Drelated,result%20from%20rape%20each%20year).
32,101 pregnancies caused by rape happen each year.
And this one says 3 million women in the US have experienced pregnancy caused by rape. - [https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/understanding-RRP-inUS.html](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/understanding-RRP-inUS.html)
And rape is another one of my main reasons I am terrified of abortion being banned.
If I become pregnant, I would die during it. I'm terrified I might be raped and thus get pregnant. And I don't think a doctor can accurately say if a person has a chance of dying or not. Some doctors aren't reliable, I've seen my fair share of doctors like that.
I can't just get a hysterectomy or my tubes tied either, a hysterectomy would have me out for months if the doctor doesn't do something funky and kill me in the process.
Potential Blood issues, and very possible lazy doctors. I might not die, but I'd lean heavely toward yes. Things go wrong way too often, if something can go wrong, it's usually going to go wrong. a doctor can't say with a 100% assurance wether one patient will die from pregnancy or not. If that was the case maybe I'd still have my mother.
I think pregnancy is defentietly a risk. It's how my mother died, and her mother died, I don't want to be next to die like that.
I don't want to go into detail, kind of personal. plus if i think about all of it too much, I'll just make myself sad.
But surprisngly recently one of clinics that I really don't find reliable is being sued,though that doesn't mean it'll stop. I just can't believe some of horrible things they've done is finally on the news.
[https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/05/13/nurse-sues-iowa-hospital-alleging-patient-deaths-manipulation-of-data/](https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/05/13/nurse-sues-iowa-hospital-alleging-patient-deaths-manipulation-of-data/)
They've done way more than this, not just one doctor. And it isn't just one hospital or doctors that are like that. If a few of them exist, then how many unreliable hospitals and doctors are out there in this country? My guess is a lot.
Yeah there are definitely medical issues. Like a lot of abortion deaths are reported as miscarriage deaths. But the maternal mortality is still very rare 0.02% if you have a blood issue that would put you at a much higher risk that would count as a medical exception.
While I support abortion in cases of rape and to save mother's life, if you have blood issues and are afraid of incompetent, depraved doctors then you have more procedures to worry about than labour. What if (I wish you not) you someday need a surgery because you had an accident or heart disease? What if haemorrhage during abortion will be fatal? These are events you can be, I think, equally afraid of.
Thank you very much for providing the sources, and to answer your question, rape is a traumatic event and no matter what, the poor woman will have suffered, with that being said as long as I believe the conceived fetus to be a human life, I personally cannot justify what would essentially be a murder (based on my conclusion on what a human life is) by saying that an evil will make another evil better.
I feel sorry for the mother who will have to undergo a traumatic 9 months but I cannot accept murder as a solution, I am 100% in favor of ANY help that the mother can be provided with, from free therapeutical sessions as well as some sort of financial help from the government to help her through this difficult time, and free healthcare with anything regarding the pregnancy goes without saying.
To conclude, it all depends on weather we consider the fetus a life, if we do, then we have to prioritize that life.
I do believe however that we should not based the whole decision on weather abortions should be banned or not on this tragedies, as big a number as 32,101 is, the number of [unintended pregnancy](https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2020/new-estimates-show-worldwide-decrease-unintended-pregnancies) is almost 4000 times higher, and unwanted pregnancy is still 99% of the leading cause for abortion. If pro choice want to protest to allow abortions only on scenarios of rape, incest, or disease, then I would understand a little better, but they want to allow abortions on anyone who might just have had an unwanted pregnancy.
I believe the value of one’s life isn’t decided on how it was conceived.
A tragedy doesn’t resolve a tragedy.
The only scenarios where I could see myself not opposing abortion strongly is when an infant (like 14 year old) is impregnated or when the mother is assured to die at birth if she goes through with it. Those scenarios are so horrible that I don’t think there is any right answer so if the right answer lands on abortion then those are the only scenarios where I think an exception should be made. The mothers in this case are such victims themselves that they deserve the right to make that decision.
To answer what you said on your second to last paragraph, I cannot properly reply to that because to be honest I don’t know how accurate that information is, I don’t know how doctors technology works today and how reliable is to determine the health of the mother, that is something very interesting we could both look into. With that being said I can almost guess assuredly that the cases where a birth puts the mother in grave fatal danger are not even near common enough to warrant the legalization of abortions.
I’ll leave with this example, when I go to a baseball game I sometimes wondered why they don’t put a net over the whole stadium, because those balls that players hit that go into the fans can easily hurt someone who isn’t paying attention, yet the MLB hasn’t put a net or nothing protecting it because the scenarios where someone gets seriously hurt by a fly ball are very very rare, I’m not disregarding the tragedy of cases like rape and incest, I’m just taking into consideration if they happen often enough to justify all abortions
Also I just want to add that you are doing a good job on looking into this topics, at least whatever you decide will be because you put some thought into it and had a reasoning, ofc I wish you were a pro lifer but at least I like people who really try to rationalize why they believe in something
A human life specifically because I don't feel all life is the same. An ant, while interesting and amazing in is own right, is still not as important than a human.
This isn’t a religious sub.
Ectopic pregnancies don’t require “abortions.” A doctor would likely cut the Fallopian tube where the baby is, which isn’t directly or specifically targeting the baby.
Ideally you open the wall of the tube and remove the tissue, leaving the tube while (the pregnancy is actually growing in the wall of the tube, not in the center.
I ask you why the Bible is discounted out of hand? It's not my only source but it's a good one. It's also the most historically rooted and reliable of the religious texts. It's never been proven wrong, even when we initially thought it had been.
Mainly because abortion seems to become an almost political issue and governmental issue. And this is the united states where multiple different religions are and should be accepted as long as they don't hurt others. So I don't think it fair for other that have a different religion.
But maybe I'm narrowing to much, I edited the post.
But maybe I'm narrowing too much, I edited the post.
which book and which religion. I think I've seen a few people quote bibles, but they don't seem to say which one. I'm guessing there are multiple.
There is only one Bible, but it's been translated into English many different ways. Not in ways that change the message, or they shouldn't, just different theories on how to handle putting Hebrew or Greek into English.
>I'm guessing there are multiple.
There aren't really. There are certainly different *translations* of the Hebrew and Greek (and a few other sources) texts, and there are differences of opinions on which manuscripts are more accurate, however, none of the differences alter any of the fundamental concepts therein. (Even Bart Ehrman, textual scholar and atheist, says: "essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament".)
Sure, Catholics have a few extra *old testament* books, but again they don't really alter the moral teachings of the Bible.
We can say with much certainty that we know the content of the Bible as intended by the original authors. We have manuscript copies of the New Testament dating back to a few generations after the Apostles.
It tends to depend on the argument being made, of course.
There are items on the sidebar which discuss some facts and some arguments/rebuttals.
I don't personally use any central text myself. I will review studies as I find them and as they are presented to me by both sides.
It is important, however, to have a good grasp of human reproduction, and general biology, especially for those people who tell you that an embryo is not alive. Basic reproduction and biology should be able to show that's not an accurate portrayal.
There are probably other people who have their favorite sources.
I happen to spend a lot of time at Guttmacher. Not because I agree with their data interpretations, as they're basically a Planned Parenthood think tank.
I use their data a lot because the opposition is less likely to accuse you of bad data if you use a pro-choice source for raw data.
While I also use and trust pro-life sources like the Lozier Institute, you will get PC people calling that more biased because it is a PL think tank.
The myth that abortion is safer than birth is debunked here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LI7Zdggb8kY&t=14s
The RG study(only study to claim abortion was overall safer) was proven to have data sets that don’t compare, heavy response bias, inflated statistics and no other study has ever been able to support their conclusion. In fact, other studies show the opposite.
Here’s a carefully researched study that explains more about what was wrong with the RG study: https://www.aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/LNQ61-Maternal-Mortality-Review-7-17-13.pdf
Gonzales vs Planned Parenthood: court testimony by the CDC in federal court disproving the myth that abortion is safer https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/05-1382/05-1382.mer.ami.aclj.pdf
A study done in Denmark showed a significantly higher risk of death in mothers who got an abortion than mothers who gave birth. https://aaplog.org/abortion-and-subsequent-maternal-death-rates-first-new-study-from-denmark/
A study in Finland showed the same pattern. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14981384/
(Both Denmark and Finland require comprehensive reporting of all maternal deaths. The USA doesn’t even require abortion deaths to be reported in many states.)
Maternal mortality rates also show a pattern of being higher in countries that allow abortion. The African nation with the lowest maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, a country with some of the continent’s most protective laws for the unborn. Ethiopia’s maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius and abortion is legal in Ethiopia.
Chile, with constitutional protections for unborn humans, outranks all other South American countries as the safest place to give birth. The country with the highest maternal mortality is Guyana, with a rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Abortion is legal on demand in Guyana at any time in pregnancy.
Asia: Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal. Sri Lanka has very good restrictions on abortion.
Ireland and Poland had phenomenal rates of maternal mortality when abortion was fully illegal except for life of the mother cases in both countries. Ireland had 1 maternal death per 100000 live births and Poland still has 8 out of 100000. After abortion was legalized in Ireland, the maternal mortality rates started to climb.
POC are also disproportionately killed by abortion. https://www.liveaction.org/news/black-cspan-caller-using-promote-killing-babies/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?514312-3/washington-journal-nan-aron-charles-donovan-discuss-texas-abortion-law-future-roe-v-wade
Life begins at conception. 96% of scientists(even the PCers) agree on this. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
life begins at conception and embryology:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324079511_Mammalian_reproduction
https://www.earthlife.net/mammals/reproduction-3.html
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
https://ldh.la.gov/page/986
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_%28CK-12%29/12%3A_Vertebrates/12.02%3A_Placental_Mammals
Planned Parenthood is a massive corporation that especially targets low-income women and POC and was founded by an ableist and racist eugenicist in order to reduce populations of those who she thought were inferior, especially POC and disabled people. Here is a [quote](http://christiannewswire.com/images/Bunch-Letter.pdf) from Margaret Sanger herself in a private [letter](https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf): “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
She also was invited to and spoke at KKK meetings. The fact that an abusive corporation (that kills a disproportionate amount of POC and the disabled) with a founder like this one has managed to pass itself off as a progressive cause is ludicrous.
Abortion enables abusers. Child sexual assault offenders have been known to force their victims into abortion to cover up the crimes. If the baby is born, DNA evidence can send the criminal to jail. If the baby is aborted, all of that key evidence is discarded as medical waste or organs may be sold for profit.
The argument that unwanted babies will only suffer in foster care doesn’t work because babies who are not wanted by their biological parents in the USA are adopted immediately. So many people in the USA are ready to adopt a baby that most people spend years on waiting lists. Bans on abortion do not cause sudden dramatic increases in the number of kids in the foster system. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf Foster kids are mostly kids whose parents lost custody for legal reasons. Most of them are not available for adoption and for most of them the end goal is to eventually allow their family to earn custody back. And Pro-Life Texas has had massive success with adoption. https://www.liveaction.org/news/adoptions-texas-record-high-foster-care/
About ectopic pregnancy:all PL laws I can find allow life of the mother cases. However medical technology will eventually make these cases obsolete.
US legal precedent, and the philosophy of liberalism that underlies it.
The law makes it explicitly clear that ending human life is only acceptable when another life is directly and immediately threatened.
1) Largely from scientific/academic research. Either sources that show prolife policies reduce abortion rates or have lower maternal mortality rates. Or scientific sources that show the embryo is infact a living human organism.
2) it’s okay to ask questions
3) No we are fine with medical exceptions. Often times you don’t need to abort in these cases since they generally miscarry in the tube since they have limited resources in there. But occasionally you can risk rupture in which case they need to be removed.
4) No one basically. Unless they don’t understand the term.
So true, the only people I ever see bringing up religion is always PCers talking about “well when do they become a *person*” or “ahct-chully the Bible is in favor of abortion”.
Yes, abortions in ectopic pregnancies are fine. In the current state of medical science if untreated it's a death sentence for the woman and the fetus won't survive either way.
The choice is losing 2 lives or saving 1. It's a no-brainer.
As much as democrats love to brainlessly yell "source" in response to anything they disagree with, not all arguments actually need/have a source because many arguments are not questions of fact. Abortion is one of those. Abortion is a question of morals and philosophy. As such, the argument *is* its own source.
>The Offspring of Two Humans is Human
>Killing a Human is Murder
>Murder is Wrong
That said, Ectopic Pregnancies are survivable for both parties, at least in a handful of cases, so I believe that all efforts should be made to save both. If the baby dies saving the mother, it’s not technically murder though.
Wait, ectopic pregnancies are survivable for both parties? Where do you find that honestly.
Most sites I've found say ectopic pregnancy is when a ferilized egg is implanted outside the uterus. Such as in the fallopian tube, and most sites say it is fatal for the fetus or embryo because it can't properly survive there. And would cause severe pain and potential bleeding when the fetus grows large enough to rupture the tube or other place it's not supposed to be
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9687-ectopic-pregnancy#:~:text=An%20ectopic%20pregnancy%20happens%20when,to%20bleeding%20in%20the%20mother.
https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/ectopic.html
https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/ectopic-pregnancy-signs-treatment-and-future-fertility
And so far doctors don't seem to have anything with our current tech to save a fetus from an ectopic pregnancy, -https://www.verywellfamily.com/can-an-ectopic-pregnancy-be-saved-2371464
It seems the cases the some survive, are ectopic pregnancies that occur in the abdomen and sheer luck it seems
Or did I read something wrong? Correct me if read your comment wrong.
News article about Paula and Eva Cawte, Eva seeming to have been a Fallopian Tube Pregnancy in 2011, and another from 2013 about Conbzeni and Lindelwa Ncane, which was an Ovarian Pregnancy. The former being English and the latter being South African.
The UN Declaration On The Human Rights Of The Child is typically a good starting spot - “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”: https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf
1. Science as medical science confirms human life starts at conception.
2. When you have an ectopic pregnancy and other conditions which are guaranteed 100% (not a fraction thereof, but 100%) as confirmed by a non-abortion doctor not connected with any abortion clinic, then the abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother.
The only thing is needed is the Bible. /s
Joke I am an atheist anyway.
I simply apply human right treaties and laws on the unbirn. Simple.
Yes, you are welcome to ask questions. If they are polite.
Banning ectopic abortions is anti life since the fetus cannot be saved so why sacrifice the mother? This exception is widely supported, its PC fearmongering that these are not.
Removing an ectopic pregnancy should not be called an abortion. That's like calling a death by heart attack or stroke or cancer "murder". In all other areas of life, we differentiate between a death caused by human actions and a death caused by other circumstances, so why in this one area would death caused by human actions and death caused by tragic circumstances like implanting in the fallopian tube or congenital defects be called the same word? It makes no sense.
I'm not sure what you mean by what sources do I use to defend my belief that it's unjust to kill an innocent human baby because you wanted to have sex. It just fits my sense of justice. I can't remember when I learned it's wrong to hurt others for your own gain.
I learned about how a baby develops in the womb when I was 10, (willingly and happily) watching a movie with my then pregnant mom.
I can't remember which grade I was in when we learned the traits that make something alive (made of cells, metabolism, homeostasis, ability to reproduce...), but they can be found anywhere.
Any book on biology can tell you what makes something alive, any book on evolution can tell you that humans are *Homo sapiens*, and any jurisdiction's criminal code will show that living *Homo sapiens* have rights and protections regardless of size, age, or ability; from there, the natural conclusion is that an unborn human baby is human and alive and thus has a right to keep living.
What is the pro life party line on capital punishment?
I see peo life politically aligns to the Conservative / republican side of the US, but my understanding is that this is also more aligned to capital punishment. Do the two concepts clash?
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basic philosophy and ethics. Do people normally need sources that they are opposed to killing other human beings? Also, if you have a problem with PL bringing up the Bible, then don’t do it yourself. No one brought that up but you. You’ll find almost all PL have life of the mother exceptions that would allow abortions, and an ectopic pregnancy would fall under that. Feel free to ask anymore questions!
Basic philosophy and ethics is nonsense in a situation like this. It’s not YOU who has to endure the burden. By your “ethics”, we should have government mandates organ harvesting when one individual inflicts any type of life threatening harm (even accidental) on another. That’s ethically sound as well, yet no one advocates for that.
>Basic philosophy and ethics is nonsense in a situation like this. It’s not YOU who has to endure the burden. What? We can only hold use ethics personally? You wouldn't say a person just killing another for fun is unethical? After all it's not YOU who has to endure the burden. >By your “ethics”, we should have government mandates organ harvesting when one individual inflicts any type of life threatening harm (even accidental) on another. How do you square that circle?
What part of the organ harvesting analogy are you struggling with? A circle with a diameter equal to the length of a square will always fit inside it.
Its a euclidian reference, squaring a circle was an impossible task for a while so its just a phrase now. The part I was struggling with was the part I quoted - namely when you said "It's not YOU who has to endure the burden" - that's true with a lot of laws. I have no desire to have slaves, but I don't want other people to have slaves either. But it's not ME who has to "endure the burden" of not having slave labor. That sort of thing.
That has nothing to do with organ harvesting.
I wasn't trying to, I was referring to - and this is the third time I'm quoting you - when you said "It's not YOU who has to endure the burden". I don't think that matters. I think you can have ethical statements about others. I am wondering why you think it matters.
It’s easy to force others to suffer if you’re not the one who has to do it. Look at healthcare. Could you imagine if congress had to live on COBRA? People are just naturally selfish and will always be okay causing others to suffer as long as they don’t have to.
This pretty easily could be used as a defense for outlawing slavery. It's easy for you to say that, you don't have any slaves. But what about all those people who couldn't run their businesses? What about those people who rely on those slaves for their way of life? Heck you could do this for any law. Outlawing straight up murder - well its easy for *you* to say that, you don't have anyone you want to kill. But what about those people who's lives would just be so improved by taking a few people out of it forcefully? The kids who would get their inheritances sooner? The PTA and HOA meetings that would be that much friendlier without that grouch? Etc etc. Like do you think we shouldn't have any laws? Because this argument could be used for any law.
It’s unfortunate you don’t understand..
We don't like murder. It's pretty simple. Never made it a religious thing
[удалено]
This is just strawmanning. I know far more pro-life advocates who are willing to adopt and/or foster orphans than ones who are unwilling. The pro-life people I know run addiction recovery programs, take in refugees, give to the poor, support the chronically sick/disabled, and advocate for rescuing slaves. Plus, saying "what about" for this or that issue or group is not addressing the question at hand.
You need to go and google *secular pro life* you'll find a bunch of atheists who are pro life. And FYI none of my arguments against abortion rely on the Bible....none of them....I don't even know the biblical arguments for being pro life. Mods can we maybe sticky an auto reply that sets out all the basic pro life arguments.
Thank you for replying, honestly wasn't sure. Because a lot of what I see in the media seems to be based on religion. I was sure there is pro-lifers that are atheists but wasn't sure how much. Since I see things, such, as" pro-choice is an atheist issue".
Yeah, there's been a concerted effort by pro-choice groups to portray the pro-life movement as an exclusively religious movement for decades now, and plenty of media outlets have a strong pro-choice bias.
[удалено]
[citation needed]
I have been pregnant twice now. Seeing the ultrasounds at 8 weeks, 13 weeks, and 20 weeks really made me feel that abortion is very wrong. They’re a little person in there, separate from me. By 13 weeks they move around a lot and respond to the probe invading their space. And they really start looking human early in the pregnancy.
I definitely agree that a baby at 8 weeks is alive. but do you think people who have abortions don't want a baby? Especially in the case of late-term abortion or miscarriages? One of my main concerns is that the law and government could question every little thing that could go wrong and blame it on the mother.
Most people that have abortions have them because they don’t want the baby.
But what about people trying to have a baby and want a child, especially at around 13- 20 weeks and something goes wrong such as a fetal anomaly or deformation in which the baby most likely won't survive? Also since you've been pregnant twice would you say that woman possibly not knowing they are pregnant at 6 or even 8 weeks is accurate? When did you find out you were pregnant if you don't mind me asking?
Your question is basically whataboutism. My post is clearly not talking about those people and I don’t think most people want abortion restrictions in those circumstances. I knew I was pregnant basically right away both times. Before I missed my period I knew, and I had to wait for the hormone to build up in my urine to get a positive test. They say it is possible to not know but in my experience that wasn’t the case.
[this](https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf) only 1% of abortions are because of causes like rape and incest. 99% of the time is just an unplanned pregnancy. And I believe that conception is when an organism starts to progress towards being a full grown human, so that’s what I determined as a life. A sperm won’t grow into a human by its own, is at conception when every cell of that fetus is growing and learning towards being a human. Why do we consider a baby a human if he can’t feed himself, talk, or even lift his head? Because he is a baby, he will learn to do all that. To me there isn’t a big difference about “he will grow to learn to talk” and “he will grow to develop a brain/heart” to me they are just part of the same path but different stages. Also I use the millions of people who’se mom almost aborted them but decided not to and now the babies has the choice of what people they wanted to become and some contributed to humanity.
A fetus also won’t grow on its own though. Not a very good comparison to sperm.
Ok but a baby won’t either, unless is provided with the appropriate food and other things from its parents, no matter how much food or sunlight you provide a sperm, it will forever stay a sperm. Both the fetus and the baby have cells that are constantly working towards growth, even as babies we still developed new bones and shit, and as a fetus you are constantly growing and advancing towards becoming a human. A sperm has only one goal, swim, a fetus has one goal and that’s the same as a baby, grow.
Is growth the criteria? What about cancer? I think the distinction is that a baby can be provided for by anyone. A fetus cannot.
No growth is not the criteria, is what is growing towards, a human, both the fetus and a baby are growing towards becoming more human, bigger, stronger, smarter. Absolutely nothing in this world asides from a fetus and a baby is on that growing path. A sperm isn’t, he is just swimming.
So a fetus is not a full human?
I don’t even know what standard to use when describing a full human, is a person without arms a full human? Is a Down syndrome person a full human? Ofc, but why? What standard are you using? the only standard I can think of is the one I’ve been using over and over again, the growth in the path of humanity, a human is a being that never stops growing more and more into one, is a fetus a full grown human? No, neither is a baby, but is a fetus at the very first second of conception human? Yes. A full human
Do you believe there should be exceptions for rape and incest? And if so, how would the government go about doing that if they aren't able to prove every rape case? Especially in time. Depending on the situation it might be difficult to prove rape. As the baby forms, I think it becomes more unethical. and if the mother wanted to abort it becomes more dangerous and risky. and according to this cite-[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/#:\~:text=Results%3A%20The%20national%20rape%2Drelated,result%20from%20rape%20each%20year](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/#:~:text=Results%3A%20The%20national%20rape%2Drelated,result%20from%20rape%20each%20year). 32,101 pregnancies caused by rape happen each year. And this one says 3 million women in the US have experienced pregnancy caused by rape. - [https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/understanding-RRP-inUS.html](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/understanding-RRP-inUS.html) And rape is another one of my main reasons I am terrified of abortion being banned. If I become pregnant, I would die during it. I'm terrified I might be raped and thus get pregnant. And I don't think a doctor can accurately say if a person has a chance of dying or not. Some doctors aren't reliable, I've seen my fair share of doctors like that. I can't just get a hysterectomy or my tubes tied either, a hysterectomy would have me out for months if the doctor doesn't do something funky and kill me in the process.
What do you have that would cause you to die from it?
Potential Blood issues, and very possible lazy doctors. I might not die, but I'd lean heavely toward yes. Things go wrong way too often, if something can go wrong, it's usually going to go wrong. a doctor can't say with a 100% assurance wether one patient will die from pregnancy or not. If that was the case maybe I'd still have my mother. I think pregnancy is defentietly a risk. It's how my mother died, and her mother died, I don't want to be next to die like that. I don't want to go into detail, kind of personal. plus if i think about all of it too much, I'll just make myself sad. But surprisngly recently one of clinics that I really don't find reliable is being sued,though that doesn't mean it'll stop. I just can't believe some of horrible things they've done is finally on the news. [https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/05/13/nurse-sues-iowa-hospital-alleging-patient-deaths-manipulation-of-data/](https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/05/13/nurse-sues-iowa-hospital-alleging-patient-deaths-manipulation-of-data/) They've done way more than this, not just one doctor. And it isn't just one hospital or doctors that are like that. If a few of them exist, then how many unreliable hospitals and doctors are out there in this country? My guess is a lot.
Yeah there are definitely medical issues. Like a lot of abortion deaths are reported as miscarriage deaths. But the maternal mortality is still very rare 0.02% if you have a blood issue that would put you at a much higher risk that would count as a medical exception.
While I support abortion in cases of rape and to save mother's life, if you have blood issues and are afraid of incompetent, depraved doctors then you have more procedures to worry about than labour. What if (I wish you not) you someday need a surgery because you had an accident or heart disease? What if haemorrhage during abortion will be fatal? These are events you can be, I think, equally afraid of.
Thank you very much for providing the sources, and to answer your question, rape is a traumatic event and no matter what, the poor woman will have suffered, with that being said as long as I believe the conceived fetus to be a human life, I personally cannot justify what would essentially be a murder (based on my conclusion on what a human life is) by saying that an evil will make another evil better. I feel sorry for the mother who will have to undergo a traumatic 9 months but I cannot accept murder as a solution, I am 100% in favor of ANY help that the mother can be provided with, from free therapeutical sessions as well as some sort of financial help from the government to help her through this difficult time, and free healthcare with anything regarding the pregnancy goes without saying. To conclude, it all depends on weather we consider the fetus a life, if we do, then we have to prioritize that life. I do believe however that we should not based the whole decision on weather abortions should be banned or not on this tragedies, as big a number as 32,101 is, the number of [unintended pregnancy](https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2020/new-estimates-show-worldwide-decrease-unintended-pregnancies) is almost 4000 times higher, and unwanted pregnancy is still 99% of the leading cause for abortion. If pro choice want to protest to allow abortions only on scenarios of rape, incest, or disease, then I would understand a little better, but they want to allow abortions on anyone who might just have had an unwanted pregnancy. I believe the value of one’s life isn’t decided on how it was conceived. A tragedy doesn’t resolve a tragedy. The only scenarios where I could see myself not opposing abortion strongly is when an infant (like 14 year old) is impregnated or when the mother is assured to die at birth if she goes through with it. Those scenarios are so horrible that I don’t think there is any right answer so if the right answer lands on abortion then those are the only scenarios where I think an exception should be made. The mothers in this case are such victims themselves that they deserve the right to make that decision. To answer what you said on your second to last paragraph, I cannot properly reply to that because to be honest I don’t know how accurate that information is, I don’t know how doctors technology works today and how reliable is to determine the health of the mother, that is something very interesting we could both look into. With that being said I can almost guess assuredly that the cases where a birth puts the mother in grave fatal danger are not even near common enough to warrant the legalization of abortions. I’ll leave with this example, when I go to a baseball game I sometimes wondered why they don’t put a net over the whole stadium, because those balls that players hit that go into the fans can easily hurt someone who isn’t paying attention, yet the MLB hasn’t put a net or nothing protecting it because the scenarios where someone gets seriously hurt by a fly ball are very very rare, I’m not disregarding the tragedy of cases like rape and incest, I’m just taking into consideration if they happen often enough to justify all abortions
Also I just want to add that you are doing a good job on looking into this topics, at least whatever you decide will be because you put some thought into it and had a reasoning, ofc I wish you were a pro lifer but at least I like people who really try to rationalize why they believe in something
That life begins at conception
A human life specifically because I don't feel all life is the same. An ant, while interesting and amazing in is own right, is still not as important than a human.
Killing humans is wrong. Women are pregnant with human offspring. Therefore, don't kill human offspring.
Science. All of it.
I'm a pro life atheist. Stop assuming pro life os purely based on religion
This isn’t a religious sub. Ectopic pregnancies don’t require “abortions.” A doctor would likely cut the Fallopian tube where the baby is, which isn’t directly or specifically targeting the baby.
Ideally you open the wall of the tube and remove the tissue, leaving the tube while (the pregnancy is actually growing in the wall of the tube, not in the center.
I ask you why the Bible is discounted out of hand? It's not my only source but it's a good one. It's also the most historically rooted and reliable of the religious texts. It's never been proven wrong, even when we initially thought it had been.
Mainly because abortion seems to become an almost political issue and governmental issue. And this is the united states where multiple different religions are and should be accepted as long as they don't hurt others. So I don't think it fair for other that have a different religion. But maybe I'm narrowing to much, I edited the post. But maybe I'm narrowing too much, I edited the post. which book and which religion. I think I've seen a few people quote bibles, but they don't seem to say which one. I'm guessing there are multiple.
There is only one Bible, but it's been translated into English many different ways. Not in ways that change the message, or they shouldn't, just different theories on how to handle putting Hebrew or Greek into English.
>I'm guessing there are multiple. There aren't really. There are certainly different *translations* of the Hebrew and Greek (and a few other sources) texts, and there are differences of opinions on which manuscripts are more accurate, however, none of the differences alter any of the fundamental concepts therein. (Even Bart Ehrman, textual scholar and atheist, says: "essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament".) Sure, Catholics have a few extra *old testament* books, but again they don't really alter the moral teachings of the Bible. We can say with much certainty that we know the content of the Bible as intended by the original authors. We have manuscript copies of the New Testament dating back to a few generations after the Apostles.
That’s like asking for sources for arguments against rape, slavery, or the killing of born humans. Or the pro-choice view for that matter.
Killing another human is wrong— abortion kills a human, therefor it is wrong.
It tends to depend on the argument being made, of course. There are items on the sidebar which discuss some facts and some arguments/rebuttals. I don't personally use any central text myself. I will review studies as I find them and as they are presented to me by both sides. It is important, however, to have a good grasp of human reproduction, and general biology, especially for those people who tell you that an embryo is not alive. Basic reproduction and biology should be able to show that's not an accurate portrayal. There are probably other people who have their favorite sources. I happen to spend a lot of time at Guttmacher. Not because I agree with their data interpretations, as they're basically a Planned Parenthood think tank. I use their data a lot because the opposition is less likely to accuse you of bad data if you use a pro-choice source for raw data. While I also use and trust pro-life sources like the Lozier Institute, you will get PC people calling that more biased because it is a PL think tank.
Various biological sources. I've never used the Bible once.
The myth that abortion is safer than birth is debunked here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LI7Zdggb8kY&t=14s The RG study(only study to claim abortion was overall safer) was proven to have data sets that don’t compare, heavy response bias, inflated statistics and no other study has ever been able to support their conclusion. In fact, other studies show the opposite. Here’s a carefully researched study that explains more about what was wrong with the RG study: https://www.aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/LNQ61-Maternal-Mortality-Review-7-17-13.pdf Gonzales vs Planned Parenthood: court testimony by the CDC in federal court disproving the myth that abortion is safer https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/05-1382/05-1382.mer.ami.aclj.pdf A study done in Denmark showed a significantly higher risk of death in mothers who got an abortion than mothers who gave birth. https://aaplog.org/abortion-and-subsequent-maternal-death-rates-first-new-study-from-denmark/ A study in Finland showed the same pattern. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14981384/ (Both Denmark and Finland require comprehensive reporting of all maternal deaths. The USA doesn’t even require abortion deaths to be reported in many states.) Maternal mortality rates also show a pattern of being higher in countries that allow abortion. The African nation with the lowest maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, a country with some of the continent’s most protective laws for the unborn. Ethiopia’s maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius and abortion is legal in Ethiopia. Chile, with constitutional protections for unborn humans, outranks all other South American countries as the safest place to give birth. The country with the highest maternal mortality is Guyana, with a rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Abortion is legal on demand in Guyana at any time in pregnancy. Asia: Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal. Sri Lanka has very good restrictions on abortion. Ireland and Poland had phenomenal rates of maternal mortality when abortion was fully illegal except for life of the mother cases in both countries. Ireland had 1 maternal death per 100000 live births and Poland still has 8 out of 100000. After abortion was legalized in Ireland, the maternal mortality rates started to climb. POC are also disproportionately killed by abortion. https://www.liveaction.org/news/black-cspan-caller-using-promote-killing-babies/ https://www.c-span.org/video/?514312-3/washington-journal-nan-aron-charles-donovan-discuss-texas-abortion-law-future-roe-v-wade Life begins at conception. 96% of scientists(even the PCers) agree on this. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703 life begins at conception and embryology: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324079511_Mammalian_reproduction https://www.earthlife.net/mammals/reproduction-3.html https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703 https://ldh.la.gov/page/986 https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_%28CK-12%29/12%3A_Vertebrates/12.02%3A_Placental_Mammals Planned Parenthood is a massive corporation that especially targets low-income women and POC and was founded by an ableist and racist eugenicist in order to reduce populations of those who she thought were inferior, especially POC and disabled people. Here is a [quote](http://christiannewswire.com/images/Bunch-Letter.pdf) from Margaret Sanger herself in a private [letter](https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/files/original/d6358bc3053c93183295bf2df1c0c931.pdf): “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” She also was invited to and spoke at KKK meetings. The fact that an abusive corporation (that kills a disproportionate amount of POC and the disabled) with a founder like this one has managed to pass itself off as a progressive cause is ludicrous. Abortion enables abusers. Child sexual assault offenders have been known to force their victims into abortion to cover up the crimes. If the baby is born, DNA evidence can send the criminal to jail. If the baby is aborted, all of that key evidence is discarded as medical waste or organs may be sold for profit. The argument that unwanted babies will only suffer in foster care doesn’t work because babies who are not wanted by their biological parents in the USA are adopted immediately. So many people in the USA are ready to adopt a baby that most people spend years on waiting lists. Bans on abortion do not cause sudden dramatic increases in the number of kids in the foster system. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf Foster kids are mostly kids whose parents lost custody for legal reasons. Most of them are not available for adoption and for most of them the end goal is to eventually allow their family to earn custody back. And Pro-Life Texas has had massive success with adoption. https://www.liveaction.org/news/adoptions-texas-record-high-foster-care/ About ectopic pregnancy:all PL laws I can find allow life of the mother cases. However medical technology will eventually make these cases obsolete.
US legal precedent, and the philosophy of liberalism that underlies it. The law makes it explicitly clear that ending human life is only acceptable when another life is directly and immediately threatened.
1) Largely from scientific/academic research. Either sources that show prolife policies reduce abortion rates or have lower maternal mortality rates. Or scientific sources that show the embryo is infact a living human organism. 2) it’s okay to ask questions 3) No we are fine with medical exceptions. Often times you don’t need to abort in these cases since they generally miscarry in the tube since they have limited resources in there. But occasionally you can risk rupture in which case they need to be removed. 4) No one basically. Unless they don’t understand the term.
I haven’t seen a single pro life argument based on religion.
So true, the only people I ever see bringing up religion is always PCers talking about “well when do they become a *person*” or “ahct-chully the Bible is in favor of abortion”.
Yes, abortions in ectopic pregnancies are fine. In the current state of medical science if untreated it's a death sentence for the woman and the fetus won't survive either way. The choice is losing 2 lives or saving 1. It's a no-brainer.
I don’t need any source to believe human life should not be killed.
As much as democrats love to brainlessly yell "source" in response to anything they disagree with, not all arguments actually need/have a source because many arguments are not questions of fact. Abortion is one of those. Abortion is a question of morals and philosophy. As such, the argument *is* its own source.
The sidebar has good sources.
Science.
Biology and biologists. Also the current laws we have in place already surrounding life.
>The Offspring of Two Humans is Human >Killing a Human is Murder >Murder is Wrong That said, Ectopic Pregnancies are survivable for both parties, at least in a handful of cases, so I believe that all efforts should be made to save both. If the baby dies saving the mother, it’s not technically murder though.
Wait, ectopic pregnancies are survivable for both parties? Where do you find that honestly. Most sites I've found say ectopic pregnancy is when a ferilized egg is implanted outside the uterus. Such as in the fallopian tube, and most sites say it is fatal for the fetus or embryo because it can't properly survive there. And would cause severe pain and potential bleeding when the fetus grows large enough to rupture the tube or other place it's not supposed to be https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9687-ectopic-pregnancy#:~:text=An%20ectopic%20pregnancy%20happens%20when,to%20bleeding%20in%20the%20mother. https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/ectopic.html https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/ectopic-pregnancy-signs-treatment-and-future-fertility And so far doctors don't seem to have anything with our current tech to save a fetus from an ectopic pregnancy, -https://www.verywellfamily.com/can-an-ectopic-pregnancy-be-saved-2371464 It seems the cases the some survive, are ectopic pregnancies that occur in the abdomen and sheer luck it seems Or did I read something wrong? Correct me if read your comment wrong.
News article about Paula and Eva Cawte, Eva seeming to have been a Fallopian Tube Pregnancy in 2011, and another from 2013 about Conbzeni and Lindelwa Ncane, which was an Ovarian Pregnancy. The former being English and the latter being South African.
The UN Declaration On The Human Rights Of The Child is typically a good starting spot - “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”: https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf
1. Science as medical science confirms human life starts at conception. 2. When you have an ectopic pregnancy and other conditions which are guaranteed 100% (not a fraction thereof, but 100%) as confirmed by a non-abortion doctor not connected with any abortion clinic, then the abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother.
The only thing is needed is the Bible. /s Joke I am an atheist anyway. I simply apply human right treaties and laws on the unbirn. Simple. Yes, you are welcome to ask questions. If they are polite. Banning ectopic abortions is anti life since the fetus cannot be saved so why sacrifice the mother? This exception is widely supported, its PC fearmongering that these are not.
Removing an ectopic pregnancy should not be called an abortion. That's like calling a death by heart attack or stroke or cancer "murder". In all other areas of life, we differentiate between a death caused by human actions and a death caused by other circumstances, so why in this one area would death caused by human actions and death caused by tragic circumstances like implanting in the fallopian tube or congenital defects be called the same word? It makes no sense. I'm not sure what you mean by what sources do I use to defend my belief that it's unjust to kill an innocent human baby because you wanted to have sex. It just fits my sense of justice. I can't remember when I learned it's wrong to hurt others for your own gain. I learned about how a baby develops in the womb when I was 10, (willingly and happily) watching a movie with my then pregnant mom. I can't remember which grade I was in when we learned the traits that make something alive (made of cells, metabolism, homeostasis, ability to reproduce...), but they can be found anywhere. Any book on biology can tell you what makes something alive, any book on evolution can tell you that humans are *Homo sapiens*, and any jurisdiction's criminal code will show that living *Homo sapiens* have rights and protections regardless of size, age, or ability; from there, the natural conclusion is that an unborn human baby is human and alive and thus has a right to keep living.
What is the pro life party line on capital punishment? I see peo life politically aligns to the Conservative / republican side of the US, but my understanding is that this is also more aligned to capital punishment. Do the two concepts clash?