50 Years Forward, Now Back Again

In their first claim, they always seem to say that life begins at conception; therefore, abortion is taking a life, which is murder. Now, this really does depend on your definition of what being alive is. There can be millions of different definitions for each individual based on their beliefs. But the official definition is literally just being alive or not being dead or inanimate. Now, I could lie and say that there is no scientific evidence that supports the concept of life beginning at conception, but there is, and I am certainly not denying the little evidence they have for this claim. But I have some evidence of my own. Have you ever swatted a fly and told yourself it was not murder because they don't feel anything? Or how about going fishing and having the common knowledge that fish don't feel pain — is that how you justify fishing? Well, a fetus doesn't feel physical pain until approximately the 25th week of pregnancy, due to incomplete neural pathways. I'm not going to stop with that analogy because being alive means you are surviving, and a baby can't even survive out of its mother’s uterus until approximately 24 weeks; survival before this point is very rare. How can you possibly be alive without surviving? The simple answer is that you literally can't. The simplest way I can say it is to imagine a seed. Is that seed the same as a tree? You probably said no. That's because that seed isn't a tree yet. If you set that seed on your desk, it won't grow, it won't grow a leaf, because that seed needs water, soil, and sunlight. Similarly, an embryo without the ability to live outside the womb isn’t the same as a fully independent life.

Now, of course, you could counter my argument by saying that a sick old person or a 3-month-old baby can't survive without being dependent on another. And to that I say: A newborn or an elder is like a car that needs fuel — and anyone can put gas in it. A fetus before viability is like a car engine that can’t even run unless it’s physically inside the factory. One needs outside support from anyone and can live outside of another person's body, while the other simply cannot exist outside of its one host. It’s not about whether we care for dependent people — it’s about recognizing that before viability, the fetus isn’t capable of living independently at all, no matter what resources are given. That’s a huge difference.

The second claim I'm going to address is that “all humans deserve a chance to live.” I love analogies because they seem to break things down in a simpler way for people who are reluctant to open their minds to new ideas. My analogy for this claim is: Imagine you wake up one morning to find yourself surgically connected to a famous pianist. The pianist has a deadly liver disease, and you’ve been connected to them because only your body can keep them alive. If you were to be disconnected, they’ll die. But here’s the catch: you never agreed to this — you were kidnapped and hooked up without your consent. Now the doctors say, “We understand it’s hard, but the pianist has a right to life. You must stay connected for 9 months.” Would you be okay with this? Chances are that you don't care about the consequences or the circumstances. All you want is not to be in charge of a life that you didn't even care about in the first place. Chances are, you don't want to sacrifice your happiness and life. Even though the pianist is a person with a right to life, that right doesn’t give them the right to use your body without your permission. Just like a fetus may be a developing human, it still can’t override the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy. The analogy I used in this paragraph is known as the “famous violinist” thought experiment, first introduced by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson in her 1971 essay “A Defense of Abortion.

You could argue with me and say that the pianist analogy doesn’t work because pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex, while being hooked to a stranger against your will is not. The woman played a role in creating the fetus; it’s not like she was kidnapped. That's easy to say when you don't dig deeper, so let me assist you. People who drive are obviously more likely to crash a car that doesn't mean you consented to being injured. Now, what if you went to the hospital to ask for care and they turned you away after saying that because you drove the car while knowing there were slight possibilities of injuries, you gave up your right to get emergency care? In other words, having sex is not agreeing to have a child, and it certainly does not erase their right to choose what happens to their body afterward.

The third debate claim is that “rape and incest are rare.” The National Intimate Partner and sexual violence survey estimates that one in every five women has experienced rape at some point in their life in America, and a 2007 report from the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault found that 17% of women in their surveyed population had experienced sexual abuse by a relative before age 16; however, national estimates are generally lower, typically ranging from 1% to 6% depending on the study and methodology. Dismissing abortion access in cases of rape or incest by calling them "rare" is both morally irresponsible and logically flawed, because the frequency of trauma does not diminish the need for bodily autonomy, compassion, or justice for survivors. When did human rights become based on statistics? Saying that is like saying, because only around 2% of America is disabled with a wheelchair, we should take away all ramps and take away all elevators. Or saying that because only around 0.17% of Americans need to go to the ER on Sundays, we should just ban all emergency care on Sundays. None of these things sounds reasonable. The point is that the word rare does not mean insignificant. Also, let's point out the fact that pro-lifers are deliberately undermining survivors. Your friend broke their leg. Are you going to comfort them, or are you going to say that because in America, only 1% of people experience a femur fracture, so their pain isn't important? Rare does not cancel out real pain. Making laws preventing rape survivors or any women from getting an abortion is like locking the fire escape during a fire; it traps people in harm’s way and denies them a way to safety when they desperately need it most. Or like is like forcing someone to carry a heavy, broken burden because “most people don’t have to carry one.” It’s a harsh refusal to relieve unbearable pain and suffering, ignoring the urgent need for compassion and choice in their darkest moments.

Next up is the claim that "society has the right to stand up for the voiceless.” Pro-lifers have no right to use this phrase because they consistently ignore the voices of the living, especially the women, girls, and rape survivors who are directly affected. You can't claim to protect the voiceless while silencing those who are crying out for autonomy, safety, and dignity. Women are literally voiceless and are never heard, and I don't want to hear anyone say anything different. This world we live in is literally run by men, no matter how you look at it. Women are 73% more likely to get injured in a car crash, and 17% of women are more likely to die in a car crash because of the outdated seatbelt tests. This is supported by a 2019 University of Virginia study and other safety research. Women are literally voiceless in most situations today; pro-lifers have no right to claim that they are protecting the voiceless when they are deliberately undermining the voiceless. You see, when pro-lifers use this claim, on the surface, it may seem almost noble, like a righteous stand for justice. But when you look closer, it becomes clear that it’s not about protecting the voiceless at all. It’s about control. Control over women's bodies, choices, and futures. They invoke the phrase “protecting the voiceless” to distract from the fact that they are actively silencing people, people who are already alive, already suffering, and already stripped of power in a system that wasn’t built for them in the first place. The phrase, "standing up for the voiceless," has been used for hundreds of years, often to justify control, not compassion. Throughout history, powerful groups have used it to speak on behalf of others — not to give them a voice, but to silence or dominate them in the name of protection. It’s been used in colonialism, in patriarchal systems, and even in movements where women were excluded from decision-making about their own lives, while it should have been a phrase to support us. If they truly cared about the voiceless, they’d be fighting for safer healthcare systems for women, for justice for survivors of sexual violence, for equitable access to resources and support. But instead, they’re pushing policies that force girls as young as 10 to carry pregnancies from rape. That’s not protection, that’s oppression masked as morality. Pro-lifers have no right to use this phrase, not until they start listening to the women and survivors they so quickly dismiss. Because standing up for the voiceless doesn’t mean speaking over the already silenced, it means amplifying them. And until pro-lifers are willing to do that, their claim to moral high ground rings hollow.

Now, let's talk about how they say, “another alternative is adoption.” This argument is almost always thrown into the conversation like it’s a magic solution, as if adoption completely erases all the pain, trauma, and the complex reality of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. But let's be clear, adoption might be an alternative to parenting, but it is not an alternative to pregnancy. And for many survivors of rape, incest, or abuse, the suggestion that adoption is some kind of morally correct and compassionate compromise is not only dismissive, but also immoral, unethical, and honestly just it’s just cruel. Adoption does not erase the emotional, physical, and psychological toll of pregnancy. It doesn’t stop the person from watching their body change every day because of a violent act committed against them, or even just constantly knowing that, just because of one act, suddenly their rights are taken away. It doesn’t erase the medical risks. It doesn’t account for how the cruel society will react or the fact that for nine months, you are attached to something you don't even want. After all pregnant people go through, pro-lifers want them to be grateful for some kind of miracle solution, that doesn't even fix anything. Telling a survivor that adoption is a solution is like forcing someone to run a marathon with a broken leg, and then at the finish line saying, “It’s okay, you don’t have to keep the medal.” The suffering happened. The injury is real. And  giving away the result of that trauma doesn’t heal the wound. And let’s also talk about the reality of adoption itself. The foster care system is overworked, overused, and overloaded. As of 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that more than 110,000 children in foster care were waiting to be adopted, many of them bouncing between cruel homes, facing neglect and abuse. According to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 2019, approximately 90% of children in foster care were eligible for Medicaid. Furthermore, between 70% and 92% of children in foster care experience at least one chronic health condition, including asthma, diabetes, obesity, and malnutrition. Adoption is not a promise of safety.  It's a complex and heartbreaking system that gambles the lives of 2 people. If pro-lifers truly cared about those children, they’d be fighting for systemic reform, funding, and long-term support, not just forcing more children into a broken system. Saying adoption justifies forced pregnancy is like saying a person should be pushed off a cliff because someone at the bottom might catch them. It's a gamble with someone else’s body, life, and mental health. If adoption is a choice. Pregnancy should be, too. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will, not for nine months, not for one day. Survivors of rape, victims of abuse, and anyone with a uterus deserve the right to make decisions about their own bodies, without being guilted, shamed, scolded by society, or handed false narratives and alternatives claiming to fix their pain.

Pro-lifers also seem to say that “abortion is often used as birth control.”  This claim is not only misleading, it’s offensive and abrasive, and it implies that people are carelessly or selfishly using abortion as a backup plan, as if ending a pregnancy is a casual decision. That’s a dangerous oversimplification and a misleading reality of pregnancy. First, let’s get the facts straight. Abortion is not something people take lightly. It involves medical procedures, sacrifices, time, cost, and in many places, legal risk. No one wants to go through that entire process unless they need to. The vast majority of people who seek abortions do so because they are not in a position financially, emotionally, physically, or psychologically to carry a pregnancy to term, which is the most noble thing you can do as a human. That is not irresponsibility. If abortion is being “used as birth control,” what does that really say? It says people are desperate. It says that sex education is failing our youth. What we do for our youth proves whether our society has empathy, and obviously, we aren't doing much. If pro-lifers were actually concerned about reducing abortions, they would be pushing for comprehensive sex education, free or affordable access to birth control, and better healthcare, not criminalizing people who are already in crisis. Saying people use abortion as birth control is like blaming the fire department for being called too often instead of asking why so many buildings are catching fire. The problem isn’t the response; it's the lack of prevention, education, and resources that should have come first. It is literally just the lack of empathy our world has proved to shown. And let’s not forget: birth control itself isn’t 100% effective. Abortion is not a replacement for birth control. It’s a necessary option when birth control fails, when life changes, or when people face situations they never expected. Things happen, and if you refuse to acknowledge this, you're just plain cruel. To reduce abortion, we don’t need shame. We need solutions. We need access to education, healthcare, and empathy. Because people don’t get abortions out of laziness, they get them out of necessity, and they deserve support, not judgment. Now obviously, a pro-lifer would argue with me and say, “But if people don’t want to get pregnant, they shouldn’t have sex; there are consequences.” Almost every argument I've heard from a prolifer is all about punishment, not prevention. It’s based on the belief that pregnancy should be a consequence for sex, especially for women, and that’s not about protecting life. That’s about controlling it. People deserve to live without fear of being forced into parenthood because of one act. That’s not morality, that’s cruelty disguised as discipline.

I've also heard pro-lifers say “if it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant" This phrase makes everything seem so simple, but in reality pregnancy is not all black and white Pregnancy is not a one-size-fits-all experience, and not everyone defines the meaning of a pregnancy in the same way, it's usually based on your own experiences, beliefs and moral compass. What someone carries at 4 weeks is not the same as what they carry at 20 weeks. Medically, a pregnancy progresses through stages: zygote, embryo, fetus, and that development matters when we talk about healthcare, rights, and choices. The phrase “if it’s not a baby, you’re not pregnant” deliberately ignores those distinctions and tries to reduce the process of pregnancy and complex medical conditions into a moral trap. Pregnancy doesn’t mean someone owes their body to it. Saying “If it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant” is like saying “If it’s not a tree, then it’s not growing.” That ignores the entire process of development. Just like an acorn isn’t an oak tree, a fertilized egg is not the same as a fully developed baby. Yes, it has potential, but potential is not the same as reality. And potential life should never outweigh the actual, living person carrying it. People aren’t getting abortions because they don’t understand biology. They’re getting abortions because they understand their lives, their circumstances, and their own limits. This kind of slogan doesn’t reflect care for women or truth; it reflects a refusal to acknowledge that bodily autonomy must exist, even in the face of potential life. I predict a prolifer to argue this claim by saying "But from the moment of conception, that’s a unique human life — it has its own DNA. That makes it a baby," and I agree, it may be a unique genetic code,but so is a skin cell. Biology doesn’t determine rights in isolation. Rights come with consciousness, viability, and independence. More importantly, even if we do call it a life, no life has the right to use someone else’s body without consent. If a person is on life support, we don’t force someone else to donate their organs to save them, even if it means that person dies. Why do we treat pregnant people differently? Because at the heart of this issue, it’s not really about protecting life; it always comes back to controlling it. When pro-lifers say things like “If it’s not a baby, then you’re not pregnant,” they’re not making a scientific point. They’re making a moral accusation. They're trying to erase the complex reasons someone might choose abortion and reduce the conversation to emotional manipulation. But the reality is, no matter what stage of pregnancy, no matter what you call what’s growing, either a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, or a baby, the pregnant person is still a person. With rights. With a life. With the power to decide what happens to their body. And no, I'm not denying life. I am defending the right to live fully, freely, and with dignity. Because if you truly care about life, you don’t force people to sacrifice their health, their futures, or their freedom for the sake of a slogan that doesn't even make sense.

The eighth claim is that “It's cruel to punish a baby for another person's mistake.” First of all, pro-lifers shouldn’t be the ones using words like cruel or punishment. Because forcing someone, especially a survivor of rape or incest, to carry a pregnancy they didn’t choose is the very definition of cruelty. It's punishment without a crime. When pro-lifers say this, what they’re really doing is assigning guilt  not to the rapist, not to the abuser, but to the survivor. They are suggesting that someone who has already been violated should now be obligated to endure nine months of physical, emotional, and psychological trauma because choosing otherwise would be “punishing” the fetus. That is not justice. That is not compassion. That is control, dressed up in moral language. There is no “punishment” here. There is a person making a decision about their body, their health, and their future. Choosing abortion is not about punishing anyone; it’s about survival. It’s about healing. It’s about making an impossible decision in an impossible situation. Saying that abortion is “punishment” for the baby is like saying a person declining to donate a kidney is “punishing” the patient who needs it. Even if someone else’s life is involved, we don’t force people to give up parts of their body, not even to save another life. That would be seen as a violation of rights. So why do we treat pregnant people differently? And let’s not ignore the hypocrisy. The same people who cry “cruelty” when a fetus is aborted are often silent or even indifferent when real, breathing children are suffering in poverty, in foster care, in abusive homes, or without healthcare. Cruelty is cutting off access to reproductive care. Cruelty is shaming women into silence. Cruelty is allowing a ten-year-old rape victim to be forced into motherhood. If you're going to talk about cruelty, look at the whole picture. Abortion is not a punishment. It's right. And the real cruelty is pretending to care about life while denying dignity to the person who’s living it.

They also seem to always bring up the “what if your mother had aborted you?” And while it’s meant to make people feel guilty or grateful, it’s a deeply flawed and emotionally manipulative argument. It assumes that the only thing that matters is that you exist, not whether the circumstances of your existence were safe, consensual, or fair to the person who gave birth to you. Here’s the thing: My mother didn’t abort me, and that was her choice. And that’s exactly the point. Choice. The fact that I’m here doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to make the same decision she did.  This argument tries to make people feel that being alive is more important than how that life came to be, or what it costs someone else to make it happen. But if your existence came from pain, coercion, or suffering, is that really something to celebrate? And more importantly, does that mean we should repeat that cycle with other people, just to keep more people like me around? Asking “What if your mother had aborted you?” is like saying to someone, “A stranger risked their life to save you from drowning, so now every stranger must be legally required to do the same, no matter what.” Just because someone chose something that had a positive outcome doesn’t mean it should be forced on everyone else, regardless of their circumstances. That question is not about valuing life, it's about using guilt to shut down empathy. It centers the hypothetical person, the “could-be,”  and completely erases the real, living person who has to carry, birth, and raise that life. It asks us to imagine the world without one life while demanding we ignore the damage done to the life of the one who gives birth. Here’s a better question: What if we trusted people to make their own choices? What if we supported people through whatever decision they made instead of emotionally manipulating them into giving up their freedom in the name of a hypothetical version of “you”? Because a compassionate society doesn’t guilt people into giving birth. It respects them enough to choose.

The tenth claim is that “everybody who is pro-choice has already had the luxury of life.” Yes, it’s true — we’re here. We’re alive. But that doesn’t mean we owe our existence to a system that forces people to give birth. Being alive doesn’t disqualify someone from having compassion. In fact, it’s because we’ve lived that we understand how complex and painful life can be — and why no one should be forced into it without support, safety, or love. Pro-lifers use this line to guilt people and to suggest that if you're alive, you have no right to defend abortion. But what they refuse to acknowledge is that life alone is not a luxury if it’s filled with trauma, neglect, abuse, or instability. Countless children born into homes where they were unwanted grow up not feeling grateful; they grow up feeling like a burden. Like a mistake. They feel unloved, unsupported, and sometimes even unsafe. And while not every unwanted pregnancy leads to a broken home, many do. Poverty, abandonment, mental health struggles, and generational trauma often follow when someone is forced to carry and raise a child they were never prepared for — or never chose. So when pro-lifers say, “You’re lucky to be alive,” the real question is: What kind of life are we talking about? Because we believe that life should mean more than just breathing. It should mean being cared for. Being safe. Being chosen. Being loved. Being pro-choice isn’t about denying the value of life — it’s about demanding better for the lives that already exist and the lives we choose to bring into this world. It’s about recognizing that forcing birth doesn’t guarantee a good life. It only guarantees a heartbeat — not a home. Saying “You’re alive, so you can’t be pro-choice” is like telling someone who grew up in a broken home that they should be thankful just to have a roof over their head — even if that roof was leaking, cold, or collapsing. But gratitude for survival doesn’t mean we stop fighting for better standards for those who come next. The real “luxury” isn’t just being born. The real luxury is being wanted. Supported. Safe. And if we’re going to bring life into this world, it should be because someone is ready to love it, not because someone was denied the right to say no.

​

In the end, this isn’t just about politics or religion; it's about people. Real people with real lives, pain, choices, and futures. The pro-life movement claims to fight for the unborn, but far too often it forgets about the already born, the women, the children, the survivors, and the marginalized. It forgets that life is more than a heartbeat; it's about dignity, agency, and care. Abortion isn’t a political tool. It’s a deeply personal decision that belongs to the individual — not the government, not the church, and certainly not strangers who will never face the consequences. If we truly care about life, we need to start listening to the people living it. Because protecting life isn’t about control, it’s about compassion, choice, and respect. Without that, we’re not preserving life, we're just forcing it.