To use on normies that is. Not the single liberal women, you’re not going to convince them, but you can trigger them and convince the onlooker. The pro-abortion crowd doesn’t have a leg to stand on as far as logic goes; every argument they use is squid ink to disguise an infanticidal instinct which is incompatible with male civilization. And it’s not hard to make them blow their cover.
I usually wouldn’t bother with a post like this, but Twitter has been nothing but abortion talk for a solid week now and I’m taking pleasure in how destroyed the Left is feeling at the moment. So here’s a better set of weapons to trigger them more.
“A fetus is not a person”. That’s what you’ll usually hear. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that a baby in utero is not a person is an extraordinary claim. Every expecting mother will call it “my baby”. If she has a miscarriage, the normal human reaction is “my baby died”, not “oh, my body expelled some nonhuman fetal tissue, better grab a rag and clean this up”. Most normal human beings consider killing a pregnant mother a double homicide. Most of them consider beating a pregnant woman to induce a miscarriage a murder. The law prosecutes both crimes as such.
In other words, tell them that the burden of proof is on them. They have to prove it’s not a person. The interpretation of a child in utero as “not a person” is contrary to common sense morality and the way we treat pregnant women in everyday life. Demand their criteria for personhood. They’ll usually say something like this:
“Science says that a fetus is not a person”. Science describes the properties of a fetus. Science cannot determine the personhood of anybody. Personhood is a moral issue. If science says that a fetus is not alive, neither is a person in a coma. Science also tells us that the fetus is extremely likely to become a living human being if unmolested. Is it okay to kill someone in a coma who is extremely likely to regain consciousness?
“It’s not conscious”. Neither am I while I’m asleep, but that doesn’t make it ok to kill me. As soon as I regain my consciousness, I’m going to want to live, and that’s a perfectly reasonable moral assumption that makes it evil to kill sleeping people and people in comas. Same for babies. It’s extremely likely to gain consciousness soon, and once it does, it’s going to want to live.
“It can’t feel pain, it doesn’t know it’s being killed”. Again, neither does someone in a coma. Someone in a coma who has almost no chance of recovery is a different moral dilemma. The baby is nontrivially likely to gain consciousness and awareness of its surroundings if you don’t kill it.
“It’s not fully developed”. Neither is a baby after it’s born, neither is a 5-year old, neither is a 12-year old. At what point is development enough to consider it a human being? Why do you mark a specific point as a transition between human and not human? A retard with a 50 IQ is not fully developed, does not have the full faculties of a normal human; can it be killed at will?
“Birth is when it becomes a person because before that it’s dependent on its mother to live”. It’s also dependent on its mother to live after it’s born, until the age of four or five when its labor could be worth the cost of feeding it. You don’t gain the power of life or death over someone just because they’re dependent on you, at least not in normie morality. Before birth, can’t live without you, after birth, can’t live without you. No moral difference.*
“Your sperm has human DNA in it, why isn’t jacking off murder?” My cum isn’t going to become a human being by itself. An embryo implanted in your uterine lining will.
“I can do what I want with my body. The fetus is part of my body” No. A Siamese twin is also connected to your body. It’s murder to kill your Siamese twin.
“The baby is inhabiting my body without my consent. I didn’t choose to have it in me, I therefore have the right to get rid of it” Babies are the result of sex the same way death is a result of stabbing. Yes, you can try to stab someone in a way which will not kill them, but if they die anyway despite your precautions, you’re still morally responsible for killing them. You chose to do something that often results in the creation of a human being that cannot live without you, you bear the moral consequences of that act.
“I can kill a trespasser in my house, I can kill an unwanted baby in my womb” Even in a state with great castle doctrine, if I open my front door and put a sign out front that says “open house”, I’ll still be guilty of murder if I shoot everyone who walks in.
“You’re restricting a woman’s right to choose…” Nobody has the right to choose to commit murder. If a baby is a person, it’s murder. Why is a baby not a person?
“Why do I have to be forced to carry to term and give birth if I don’t want to?” As a man, I’m legally forced to care for a child I didn’t choose to have for eighteen full years. You can’t do nine months?
“Making abortion illegal will result in a lot of child neglect” It’s not the state’s job to stop you from being a bad parent outside of extreme abuse. It is the state’s job to punish you for committing murder. If it was a binary choice between being abused and murdered, most people would rather be abused than murdered.
“Making abortion illegal just makes abortions more dangerous. They’re still going to happen” Wrong. How many abortions happen in Taliban-controlled territory? Yeah, exactly. And if you’re so desperate to murder your child that you kill yourself in the process, good riddance dumbass.
“If you’re pro life you should be XYZ position”. I’m not pro-life, I’m anti-murder.
“You should do XYZ to prevent abortion instead of banning it” Policy that prevents murder from happening is a good thing. Doesn’t mean you can legalize murder.
“What about in the case of rape” That is a tiny percentage of abortions. The baby is innocent of the rape. If you get raped, the hospital will give you a morning-after pill if you ask for one. (Don’t say this part to normies, but most women are actually going to want to keep the rape baby. They know it’s strong seed, no matter how they choose to rationalize it. Notice it’s always pro-abortion men who hammer on the “rape exception”, not the women)
“What about incest” If it was rape, see the above. But really bitch, you want to fuck your brother and then be allowed to commit murder on top of it?
“What if the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy” Also very rare. This is a moral dilemma. Some mothers, when presented with this choice, save the baby rather than themselves. It’s a dilemma precisely because both of them are people. But sure, you can have this one.
I also have to take a minute to hammer on the moral weakness of “conservatives” who shy away from prosecuting the woman who gets an abortion. Prosecuting the doctor for murder and giving the mother a light penalty is hypocrisy that lends ammo to the pro-abortionists. If abortion is murder, the mother who gets an abortion is a murderer. If you hire a hitman to kill someone, both you and the hitman get prosecuted for murder. “Pro-lifers”, losers that they are, like to pretend that women are gaslit or pressured into abortion. No way. Women want to kill their kids. “Post-partum depression” almost always results in ideation of infanticide, and without the father or another male around, many women go through with it, like a female animal eating her cubs. Infanticide and hypergamy go hand in hand. So yes, the leftists are right, anti-abortion is the Patriarchy. But without the Patriarchy, women will kill their kids a lot, both before and after birth, and not really be too bothered about it.
*The only logically consistent argument for abortion is in fact this; that the parents have the right of life or death over their children because the children depend on them to live. The vast majority of cultures in history, from China to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Aztecs and the Inca, Pagan Europe, Carthage, etc. take this stance on infanticide. Naturally, this is up to the father and not the mother. But it also requires allowing infanticide up until the age of four or five, when the child can walk away on its own two legs and become a slave or a servant for someone else, thus no longer totally dependent. Not allowing infanticide is almost exclusively a Christian Europe thing, and it still happened quite a bit anyway. Infanticide isn’t totally against GNON’s will, when you’re a stern Spartan patriarch throwing cripples and retards and bastard children into the river. (This is one of the few points on which GNON and God disagree) But today, as practiced, it is contrary to GNON’s will and serves the purposes of DROM (demons real or metaphorical) so I’m against it.