Top products from r/prolife

We found 20 product mentions on r/prolife. We ranked the 33 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/prolife:

u/TobleroneElf · 1 pointr/prolife

This is a perfectly reasonable response. I just think our reasoning is heavily differentiated when it comes to bodily autonomy. If a fetus can not survive outside the body of the mother, it is not viable as human life.

The violinist essay to me has put it best in terms of an ethical stance. I would not be in favor of abortion after a time which a fetus could be viable (5 months). Even before that begins to be a bit too far along for me personally. But, there are far too many cases and contexts for any one person to be the arbiter of what is right ethically in each of those cases.

The young woman I knew, I had to counsel through the process, healing, and trauma. If she’d had the child, she would have lost her job as a bartender (yes, I know this is supposedly illegal, but try living in the real world), had few skills to recommend additional employment as she only had an associate’s degree, and would have suffered even more emotionally as a result of having a child she had to give away rather than raise - as a motherless child herself.

In the case of my friend’s miscarriage, the fetus was technically still alive. It was no longer viable for my friend to carry the pregnancy due to the uterine tear, and the fetus was largely not viable / the pregnancy could not continue. So by your standard of care, it would have been an abortion.

I think as a society we tend to underrate women’s pain and autonomy, and we rely on women’s self-sacrifice for care work. I think this colors the lens through which people often view early pregnancy, and there is a systematic bias against women, assuming they should have to perform care / host labor in order to create new life. (Some interesting if tangential work written by Anne-Marie Slaughter and Soraya Chemaly in this regard!)

I simply don’t subscribe to these ethics that treat women as second class humans. And I was raised Catholic. (Read a few Elaine Pagels books and got a degree in religion to undo that).

My arguments are not to try to devalue life. I think most women who become pregnant and don’t wish to be struggle tremendously if they have to terminate. I know I would. But I also think society should look to the care of the woman, financially and emotionally, before the care of potential offspring. We are so quick in American culture to ask women to create children, and then we ask provide no assistance once the child is born. We assume a woman will provide care. That this is what they are for.

In many other cultures, even ones I find sexist in nature, women are given a great deal more care after the birth of the child. In Arab cultures, other women come over and take the child off the mother’s hands so she can rest - for days or weeks at a time. They cook, care for the baby, let the Mother sleep. This example starts to become tangential to my main argument, but I think it shows a real difference in how American culture approaches pregnancy and motherhood. You just have the child, we can’t help you after. It is sexist on its face.

u/TheEconomicon · 3 pointsr/prolife

These are some good books that convinced me to go from pro-choice to pro-life. The first two are history books that demonstrate the universality of the pro-life movement as opposed to it often being relegated to being a conservative issue. The latter two are books that address major concerns held by pro-choice people. They're pretty academic and respectful of the other side.

  • Defenders of the Unborn by Daniel K. Williams - a history of the pro-life movement before Roe, and its roots in the anti-war and progressive movements. Though it elaborates on the arguments the non-religious used to justify the preservation of the fetus. It's unfortunately a very neglected historiography and this book does a great job of chronicling the motivations driving and influences of the pro-life movement.

  • After Roe by Mary Ziegler - a history of the pro-life movement after Roe.

  • Defending Life by Francis Beckwith - A book with arguments for why abortion is wrong. The arguments are not at all rooted in religion and is accessible to most everyone.

  • The Ethics of Abortion by Christopher Kaczor - Another great apologetics book on the morality of abortion.

    This Atlantic article article demonstrates how modern medical advances have given the pro-life movement new and important ground.

    If you'd like more resources, I'd be more than happy to supply more links to good resources online for pro-life arguments.
u/houinator · 2 pointsr/prolife

None. I don't think you are ever going to change someone's mind arguing online, the only benefits are for onlookers and to help sharpen your own arguments. The real changes are based on relationships, where you are directly interacting with someone who can't pretend you are the ridiculous strawman version of a prolifer they use to justify their positions. And those debate are not won through fiery rhetoric or logic (though the latter can help), but through compassion and love.

If it worked for Norma McCorvey (AKA Jane Roe of Roe v Wade), the literal face of the pro-choice movement, it can work for anyone.

u/KelinciHutan · 10 pointsr/prolife

No, the fact that these things are true makes them true.

> Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)
> A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.


> Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008, p. 2):
> [The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.


> Human Embryology & Teratology (Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996], 5-55):
> Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed[.]


> T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology (10th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, p. 11):
> Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.

There's more, but I find that going overboard on sourcing something tends to bore people rather than make the point. That an unborn human is a human and is alive is not a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of fact. What you decide with regard to those facts is a matter of philosophy, but the bare claim that unborn humans are humans and alive are facts and are settled.

u/RabidKoalaBear · 1 pointr/prolife

I am not sure if there is a better source out there, but he did write a book that gives some insight into his legal reasoning that you might find helpful:

"The Tempting of America" Robert Bork

u/you_know_what_you · 1 pointr/prolife

I saw this on and thought, oh, this should be good (/s), and then I saw Ross Douthat was the writer. I doubt he's pro-choice.

u/Donkey_of_Balaam · 5 pointsr/prolife

You're debating the title of a paper?! It's a three-part argument by a serious philosopher. You haven't made a single objection to any of it. One couldn't possibly read it in the time you've taken to respond.

u/cookielemons · 3 pointsr/prolife

Well, I am most persuaded by an argument that I sort of concocted myself. I largely agree with the philosophy of Schopenhauer, and so for a time I tried to determine what his position would be on abortion, since he never explicitly wrote on the topic and it wasn't a big issue in the 19th century. I concluded that he would likely be opposed to it, given certain of his claims and the fact that, despite being non-religious himself, he held many positions that would be considered "conservative" today.

One claim he makes, for example, is that it is wrong to forcibly deny the will of another to live, except in cases of self-defense. A human embryo or fetus naturally wills to live and so it is wrong to destroy it. The abortionist may counter by saying that the word "another" refers to a person, and a human embryo or fetus is not a person. But here Schopenhauer would be able to respond by saying that the will of the human embryo/fetus being aborted is its own distinct Platonic Idea, such that to abort it is to destroy an individual person.

One upshot to this argument is that it avoids all the debates about whether fetuses can feel pain, are suitably conscious, etc. My argument references not physical but metaphysical harm, as it were. The fetus's will is being harmed when aborted, if not its physical body. Even if one does not buy into Schopenhauer's metaphysics, I have noticed that similar arguments have been made, as in the following book (whose author speaks of the "substance" of a human being instead of Platonic Ideas, though they function much the same):

I also agree with the other arguments presented in this thread.

u/video_descriptionbot · 1 pointr/prolife

Title | Is Abortion Murder? (a response to “ABORTION IS MURDER - Your Argument Is Wrong” by TheNotAdam)
Description | This video is a response to a video called “ABORTION IS MURDER - Your Argument Is Wrong” that was posted by TheNotAdam (RJ Aguiar). SCIENCE: Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd Edition (click "Look Inside" to view page 8): Practical Ethics (page 73): THE LAW: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (or ‘‘Laci and Conner’s Law’’) ht...
Length | 0:14:28


^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)