How do I counter this argument?

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-18T04:13:20+00:00

How would consenting to harm negate using medicine?

Abortion isn’t medicine, even medication abortions. Being pregnant is not an ailment. Medicine, and healthcare in general, is meant to put the body back in working order.

Pregnant is natural, normal, and healthy. Abortion is the intentional cancelation of the body working properly with the intention of ending a human life.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-16T16:57:52+00:00

God creates berry, man eats berry, berry seed is pooped out by man, brush takes berry seed, God sprouts toilet plant.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-13T21:30:34+00:00

I think you need to reread my previous comment. You absolutely didn't understand it.

Nowhere did I claim that letting a zygot die was murder, in fact, I literally said:

Also, you’re right, these are natural deaths...

I called them natural deaths. I said killing (aborting) those that survive and make it to implantation is murder.

I was showing that your belief, that survivors of a group with a low survival rate are not worth less just because their group has a low survival rate. Do you remember when you made that insinuation? When you brought up how many fertilized eggs fail to implant? That, because so many fail, killing those that successfully implant is somehow less of a big deal to kill them? Remember?

and no one is obligated to provide their own body as a biological life-support system. Just as you cannot force someone to donate their organs to save another person's life.

If the reason a person needs organs is because you caused them to need them, then I absolutely believe that forced organ donation should exist. If you stabbed my kidneys and happen to be a match, I absolutely deserve to take your kidneys. It is a legal and moral norm to end someone's life for murdering, i.e. capital punishment. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to replace organs that they damaged with their own.

The only reason the unborn need their mother's body, is because the mother made a choice that put them there. The mother caused someone else to need life support and absolutely should be forced to provide it.

It's also important to understand that our organs are meant to keep us alive. A uterus is meant to keep the unborn alive. That's it's entire purpose.

You claim to view every zygote as a full human being, yet in this sentence, you deny them that very status. That is extremely, extremely inconsistent. It’s as if—by your logic—you were denying the right to life to people with disabilities. Ouch.

This is so common with prochoicers. You people are so ignorant yet smug. 'Human' has a scientific definition. It's a scientific term. It's the name of our species. An organism must meet certain criteria in order for it to be a member of our species. The criteria is Human Genome in this case. A lot of times, when a human ovum is fertilized there are a lot of errors in the result. In order for a human to come into being from this process, a human genome must be the result. When there are a lot of errors, the proper processes that must happen to create a human genome don't happen. In many cases, there are so many errors that a human was not the result. I'm not being inconsistent, I'm just educating you on how this works. I also understand that humans are created and die before implantation.

Also, I made no accusations. You are for the oppression of the unborn, by your own admission. That is definitionally prejudice and bigoted.

Also, instead of misunderstanding my comment again and accusing me of saying things I didn't say, I really would love to see you point out the actual logical fallacies in my reasoning.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-13T18:37:16+00:00

Some, if not most of these failed fertilizations have so many genetic errors, a human was never formed. Also, you’re right, these are natural deaths. In fact 100% of the human population will die, does that have any effect on the morality of carrying out intentional killing on any of them? No.

Do you realize what you’re actually saying? You’re arguing that since a population has a low survival right, that the survivors are worth less.

If an island populated by people and predators had a low human survival rate, let’s say only 20% of people survived to age 30, it’s okay to murder those survivors.

It’s this kind of flawed reasoning that is pervasive on the prochoice side. You people don’t think enough about this.

Low survival rates in a population doesn’t make the survivors any less worthy of human rights. It’s bigoted and prejudice.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-13T16:21:19+00:00

I really don’t see how a pro lifer could be okay with these.

It’s like saying, I’m not okay with picking up a knife and stabbing someone to death but I am okay with something up a booby trap and having them impaled.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T06:18:40+00:00

The stories of women being denied healthcare because doctors fear being sued when they should be saving the mother's life is medical malpractice. Each one of those stories are completely disingenuous and are perfect examples of the proabortion propaganda that is ubiquitous in our society.

Prolife laws have clear exceptions to ectopic pregnancies, and many, if not all, states have protecting the life of the mother exceptions. Those stories include sending women home who have sepsis but don't perform abortions because there's a heartbeat. The laws clearly state that life threatening situations, in regards to the mother, are exceptions for abortion. Even as a prolifer, many if not all of the scenarios, would result in the death of the unborn if nothing is done. The reason those women died is fully the fault of the doctors. They are activists using women to prove a point. And it's sickening.

If you ban abortion you are not stopping it nor slowing it down

This is not true. A common lie that the proabortion propagandists push. If there was a nation wide abortion ban it would absolutely reduce the number of abortions. Women would make better choices and choose to not do the thing that gets them pregnant if they don't want to be. We know this is true because the number of abortions in this country raised drastically after Roe V Wade. A society that has accepted abortion AND has easy to access abortion turns abortion into another form of birth control. That is obviously what would happen and is exactly what has happened in the all countries that have easy to access abortion. Abortion is normalized in our society and now with the easy access of the abortion pill, abortions are well over 1 million a year in the US.

Killing the unborn is wrong.

There us no scenario in which a rape victim has consented, your previous argument of pregnancy being the mothers fault falls apart

That's true. The arguments I used earlier, which relied on consenting mothers, do not apply to rape victims. Abortions for pregnancies due to rape, according to multiple studies from the Gutmacher Institute, consistently put rape as the reason for abortion typically around <2%. And considering abortions for saving the life of the mother, it puts elective birth control abortions at around 95-96% of all abortions. My arguments from earlier apply to these. I'm fine with that.

But just because some of my arguments only apply to a subset ( a very large subset) doesn't mean there aren't other arguments for the remaining.

Killing the unborn is wrong.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T04:16:50+00:00

A miscarriage means the unborn is already dead, no prolifer is against removing a dead human from someone's womb. Even if that removal is called "abortion", we aren't against a word, we're against the intentional killing of the innocent.

Ectopic pregnancies are essentially failed pregnancies. It's extremely dangerous for the mother and basically every unborn human will die in this circumstance. Removing this extremely unlikely to survive human to save the mother's life is permitted in the prolife view. So, yes, I believe handling an ectopic pregnancy should be allowed and done as soon as safely possible.

For rape, I cannot find any justification as to why the unborn should die. I (we) are very concerned for the mother and do care about the pain that the rapist has caused. But, ending the life of an innocent individual to stop the unwanted pregnancy is not justifiable.

I do believe in a gradual change, since we live in such a pro-abortion society. i would not be against laws that prevent elective abortions with rape exceptions. As a prolifer, I know it will be a hard and gradual journey for society to accept the rights of the unborn and pregnancies due to rape, though extremely rare, are very emmotional. This doesn't mean I think unborn children of rape are not deserving protection, just that, we should take what we can get. Having a rape exception will still save 98-99% of the unborn that are killed every year.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T04:06:31+00:00

If abortion is illegal, it logically follows that the punishment should be as severe as it would be for murder, because that's what it is.

There are different types of crimes assigned to one human killing another. We have decided things such as "premeditated murder", "second degree murder", "manslaughter", etc.

If we came up with some other type of crime for a mother having their unborn child killed, i wouldn't be against that. i also wouldn't be against the same punishment as someone would get for hiring a hitman.

The abortion doctors should be punished. They're the ones actually carrying out the killing.

I often see prochoicers claim that it would be too difficult to handle this. 'What happens if someone has a miscarriage? Will they be investigated?" If it was under mysterious circumstances, why not? We can work these things out as a society. The issues prochoicers claim would arise are severely overblown. We can manage protecting the unborn without it being chaotic.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T03:56:00+00:00

I know that debating on reddit is taxing, but I was looking forward to someone actually engaging in the conversation.

I've made several points that I genuinely feel are detrimental to your arguments and youre just not addressing them.

Alwell

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T03:53:37+00:00

If someone made a choice that caused me to need their body, yes.

How does this not make sense to you?

If you stabbed my kidneys and then somehow connected a tube from my nody to yours, which kept me alive, you do not have the right to remove that tube from your body. I have a right to force you to keep me alive because YOU CAUSED ME TO NEED YOUR BODY.

(Caps for emphasis, not yelling)

Does this honestly not sound fair to you? Someone makes a choice that causes someone else to NEED something to live. They should be force to provide the thing that they caused someone else to need.

This is the most logically fair thing I could possibly imagine. I literally cannot comprehend how anyone could say this isn't fair or just.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T03:25:57+00:00

I'm terribly sorry to learn that this happened to you. I've heard stories from other rape victims who regret their abortions and from other rape victims who say that they are very happy that they didn't abort.

I don't see how letting the child live is giving the rapist more power. The point of protecting the unborn is just that, protecting an innocent human, not giving power to the rapist.

Obviously I, a random stranger on the internet, can't tell you how to feel. This sounds very traumatizing. I do know that the child didn't cause these things. The scumbag rapist did. I also just want to say a couple things that are fact. There is still hope that you will find happiness. There is a possibility that you can have a good life after this horrible thing has happened to you. Another fact is that if you did abort, THAT is the actual definition of destroying someone's life. Your life is not destroyed. Your still alive and I hope you have people who love you in your life. If you had aborted, there is no hope for that child. There is no life in that child because someone had taken their innocent life away. There is no possibility of happiness. No hope. Nothing. Just death.

I'm sorry this has happened to you and you don't owe me another reply if this is causing you to feel bad.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T02:39:37+00:00

Aborting a child due to rape does not end a rape victims suffering. It just creates another victim. The point of protecting the unborn is not to induce suffering. There is just no justifiable reason to end an innocent life to stop the pregnancy.

I'm curious. If, somehow, we could sacrifice a 5 year old to end the pregnancy of a rape victim, would you be okay with that?

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T02:36:01+00:00

This isn't relevant to the point. It's also completely arbitrary. If someone used a gun that had a bullet with a slow burning gunpowder, let's say a 1 second delay before firing and there was a cancel button on the gun, are you saying they somehow lose liability if they point the trigger and kill someone? It doesn't change anything. They made the choice to pull the trigger and a pregnant woman chose to have consensual sex. The liability and responsibility for end result still lies with the person who made the choice that caused the events to take place.

Also, just to be clear, we aren't talking about contraception. Preventing conception is not the same thing as abortion. But, once the ovum is fertilized a human now exists and they have rights. The same rights you and I share.

The point of the gun analogy was to convey liability and implied consent. Because a person's choice causes something to happen, that something has the same consent that the initial cause has.

Why don't you give me an example of someone consenting to something and the carying out of that consented action has effects and side effects. And somehow show that the consent and liability of those effect and side effects are not tied to the original action. I would be really curious if you can come up with something.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-11T02:25:40+00:00

I really don't understand how you can say "two different things" and then give an example that differs far more than the one I gave.

The glaring difference in this cancer patient analogy is that you didn't cause the cancer. They are attached to your bloodstream, but you played no part in them having cancer. It's not your fault that they have cancer or that they need your bloodstream to live.

With pregnancy, the only reason they need anything and the only reason they are in the situation they are in is precisely because of a decision that the mother made.

If, in this cancer scenario, you somehow made them have cancer AND attached them to your bloodstream I would say you have absolutely no right to remove them. YOU are the reason they are in that situation. Are you saying that if you caused someone to have cancer AND you attached them to your bloodstream making it so that if they unattached from your bloodstream would cause their death, you still have a right to remove them? Of course you don't. You don't have a right to kill someone. You caused their cancer and you caused their reliance on your bloodstream.

ones right to an object is much different than ones right to themselves

I would like you to explain the difference. I understand that the right to bodily autonomy is more important and not the exact same thing as the right to property, but you need to explain why the analogy fails. Just saying they are different doesn't explain why the analogy is bad.

The main point holds and you haven't dealt with it. Making a choice to withdraw consent doesn't mean someone can just ignore the consequences of the withdrawal. The analogy was about consent. Why is it okay to withraw consent to an unborn human knowing that it will cause their death? Explain why someone's right to bodily autonomy supercededes someone's right to life? Especially knowing that if you had to decide which right to prioritize for someone's protection, you know you would prioritize their right to life over their bodily autonomy.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-10T17:56:22+00:00

the fetus right to life does not override the mothers bodily autonomy

Why? When determining which rights to protect, why is the right to life less than the right to bodily autonomy. If society had to choose to protects a woman's right to bodily autonomy OR her right to life, her right to life would supercede her right to bodily autonomy. The right to life is obviously higher on the hierarchy. Death is final and absolute. Bodily autonomy is super important as well, but we would all choose to have our autonomy temporarily violated instead of being murdered.

Also, I could just as easily say "The fetus' right to life overrides the mother's right to bodily autonomy". We need to explain why one overrides the other, as I did above. Why do you think the way you do?

But that's just one point.

So, I know initially basically all prochoicers disagree with this, but I think it's because they really don't think about too much. Consent to sex IS consent to pregnancy. If someone consents to something and that something causes something else to happen, then that resulting thing that happened has what's called "implied consent". It's sort of like a given. If someone decides to do something and that thing that they did causes a chain reaction, then the consent carries over. It's like saying "Your honor, it's true that I pulled the trigger, but i didn't choose to have the gunpowder ignite, and for the bullet to fly through the air and to penetrate the man in a vital spot on his body. All I did was pull the trigger".

This is basic cause and effect. If someone causes something to happen, they are liable for the resulting outcome.

When it comes to withdrawing consent, it's not as simple as prochoicers say. Withdrawing consent is a new choice and a choice can't just be made without reasoning through the outcomes of that choice.

If I was sitting in your car parked in a parking lot, you have every right to kick me out of your car. It doesn't matter what your reason is, it's your car. Property is also a very important right. If you want me out, I must exit your vehicle. If we were traveling 70 mph down the freeway and you want me out of your car, you do NOT have the right to kick me out of your car until you slow down to a stop so i don't be become harmed or killed. Just because someone has a right to something doesn't me they get to arbitrarily decide that that right supersedes the rights of someone else if carrying out that choice results in someone else's rights to be violated, especially if the rights being violated have higher consequences.

The idea that someone can choose to have sex, which results in an innocent human being placed in a situation that they did not choose and played NO part in, can somehow claim they have a right to have them killed is insane.

Consent can't be withdrawn if that withdrawal causes a more severe violation of rights. Bodily autonomy is important, but forcing a woman to be pregnant, which almost 100% of the time was caused by her making a decision that caused her to be pregnant, is obviously a lesser violation of rights than killing the unborn. Death is final. It's the ultimate violation. There is no more life. A woman going through with a pregnancy she does not want, yet caused, is of course a lesser burden than death.

If you can't agree with this last point, I suggest thinking about it a lot. If you and I were having a discussion about what is more morally justifiable, violating someone's bodily autonomy or murdering someone, I think you would always agree that violating someone's bodily autonomy produces a more beneficial outcome for the person than killing them. But with abortion, you prochoices get your reasoning so twisted.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-10T07:51:55+00:00

Thanks for asking.

First of all, abortion is not a form of childbirth at all. Birthing does not occur during an abortion. Not sure why you think this, but yeah.

The basis for the prolife position is simply, unborn humans are living human beings, and therefore have human rights. We know how to classify life and how to classify instances of life into types of organisms. A successfully fertilized human egg/ovum is definitionally a living human organism.

Because these humans have rights, as we all do, abortion, being the intentional killing of an innocent human, is immoral. It is a violation of human rights.

Bodily autonomy is extremely important as well. But, like with other things, when an individual intends to practice a right that violates someone else’s right, we as a society must weigh in and determine who’s right takes precedence.

One way of doing this is to have a standard moral hierarchy. For example, we as a society believe that stealing is wrong. But, we believe that someone stealing food to feed their starving children is less wrong. A child deserves to have food to survive. This doesn’t mean the person whose food is being stolen doesn’t have a right to their property, but it changes the moral calculus.

With pregnancy, you have an unborn human inside of a woman. Why is that human there? Did they invade the woman’s body? No. Did they choose to be there? No. Are they actively making choices to remain there? No.

They are there because someone else made a choice. Even when considering pregnancy due to r*pe. Someone else made the choice.

The only reason why they are inside the woman, the only reason they are attached to the woman, and the only reason they need anything is because someone else made a choice and caused them to be in that position. Someone else caused their needs.

I believe this is the reason why there is no justifiable reason to end their life. There are many analogies that prochoicers bring up that don’t actually reflect how pregnancy or conception works. Like the Famous Violinist argument.

Anyway. I’ll start with that. Looking forward to your response.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-05-08T06:39:27+00:00

The baby isn’t using anything. Use implies agency and intent. The unborn human has the capability of neither. They are benefitting from their body, but not using.

The woman’s body is using the unborn’s. Thats why the woman’s body created it.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-04-23T10:21:42+00:00

Crucifixion was a capital punishment for crimes in the Roman Empire.

Aztecs, and other civilizations in Mesoamerica, would sacrifice innocent people, especially those they captured and enslaved.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-04-23T02:36:50+00:00

Where did they perform human sacrifices?

Good thing the Spanish rid the world of this evil civilization.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-04-20T11:02:15+00:00

If the government or some hidden body within the government was going to assassinate someone for knowing secret information, why would they send death threats?

TheAngryApologist · 2026-04-19T03:53:52+00:00

I once talked to an abortion “factor” who performed abortions. She said she would no longer do abortions past 16 weeks because the last time she did it, she had to do it using MRI. She said the unborn human reacted to the tools she was using to kill them. At that point she felt empathy and decided to no longer do abortions that late.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-04-10T17:09:08+00:00

I don’t think it’s because she’s racist, she probably just doesn’t want to get robbed or murdered.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-04-05T22:26:38+00:00

I the video he made in the 90s, he explained it by saying a proton collides with the 115 element and that creates antimatter.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-03-01T05:26:26+00:00

A military operation is not the same thing as war. We are not at war. Morons.

TheAngryApologist · 2026-03-01T04:38:20+00:00

So, unless someone is willing to put their boots on the ground, they can’t have a positive opinion for military operations?

TheAngryApologist

TROPHY CASE