secularprolifeconspectus

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Do you support the hospital using a braindead black woman to carry a baby that *would not survive no matter what* to term because the state was against abortion?

So I know that you're referencing Adriana Smith, and I will say that I think in her case the correct thing was done legally. Georgia has a law about advanced directives clearly stating that in the case of pregnancy, a brain-dead person must be kept on life support. While Adriana did not have an advanced directive, I believe the law still applied here. Was it compassionate to the family that they did not have a choice but to watch Adriana lie dead in bed for months? I'll be honest, I'm not sure. It does feel a little cruel. So I understand why their family is calling for a change to that law. Let me be clear; this was not an abortion ban.

However, in Adriana's case the issue is somewhat null, because baby Chance was wanted the entire time. Her family has not stated that they would have taken her off life support if given the choice; rather, they have implied the opposite in multiple interviews. Chance is loved.

I hate this narrative of her body being "used" by the State; I think this reflects the pro-choice imaginary's incapacity to view women as anything other than incubators and their underlying belief that women are objects. To see Adriana as a full person, we must recognize that at the time of her death she was actively fulfilling a maternal duty toward her child, and that the State promoted the continuation of her sacred duty. Y'all just can't comprehend that we owe preborn people anything. The fact is, in virtue of familial bond and protection of the most vulnerable, we do.

Adriana's death is obviously a horrific example of medical racism and malpractice. She should not be dead. Black women must be believed by their providers.

And okay, so you're changing the hypothetical to state that Chance was guaranteed to die, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this was somehow explicitly written into an abortion ban. I think in this case, examining the ethics of euthanasia, as well as extraordinary vs. ordinary care, become critical. Let's start with the latter: is continuing Adriana's pregnancy extraordinary care for Chance? I'm going to say no. That's just a basic need being fulfilled; Chance needs his mom, so keeping his mom's body alive was just fulfilling his basic needs. Very ordinary stuff, even in an extremely unusual scenario. If it were extraordinary, I would have little problem saying that it's okay to cease the care and let Adriana and Chance die.

Now euthanasia applies: is it okay to suffocate someone who we know is going to die anyhow? I'm going to say no here, because everyone is going to die, so why isn't it okay to suffocate everyone? We have to be consistent. We can't "save" anyone from death, ultimately. And we can't save them from suffering, as death is the ultimate loss one can suffer. All we can do is, through compassion, literally co-suffering, turn their time in this life into something meaningful and beautiful. No one has the right, or the justification, to take that away from someone else.

So I'm going to say, even in your imaginary hypothetical, that it would be wrong to let a mother's body die and kill a baby. But, if the human you have in mind you believe actually isn't a full and equal person yet, but is instead some kind of potential sub-human non-person, then I could see how my argument would make no sense. Yet again, it comes down to the reality of fetal personhood, which I am happy to discuss elsewhere. I hope this is clarifying.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

TRANS pro-lifers!!!

I am on a committee writing an open letter to the pro-life movement demanding that they cease hostility towards trans folks in pro-life spaces. I know because of my anon asks that several trans pro-lifers have come in contact with this blog; if you are a trans pro-lifer, please send me an ask with your username and I will DM you so you can sign the letter!!

We're not asking that pro-lifers change their views on trans issues (yet), but we are asking that they not tie those issues to abortion. I'll publish the letter here when it's ready.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

This is my godbrother, Jack. I love him. His family and everyone who knew him loved him. He's my greatest inspiration for being pro-life.

Jack was born with a rare neurological disorder. He couldn't do anything on his own, couldn't communicate, and basically had the mind of an infant his entire life. He was terminal, only supposed to live until 10, but lived until age 14. It was hard to take care of him (once I helped for a week), but it was so worth it. His life was meaningful, regardless of his capability to comprehend that. He enriched the lives of those around him, and because of the love of his mother and the access given to him by a robust community, he also lived a rich life. He loved to swing, he loved rides at Disney World, he was so human.

When I hear pro-aborts devalue and dehumanize a human, particularly a powerless one, because of their temporal and circumstantial cognitive capabilities, all I can think is, would Jack have been enough for them? Would Jack be a full and equal person in their eyes? Or would they see him as a shell, a burden, and a pity that is better off dead?

Jack, I miss you, and I fight for vulnerable people like you, the babies and the disabled, those whose lives society discounts and discards. I love you and I fight in your name.

Pro-choicers shut up forever challenge.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Very interesting to me how pro-aborts will insist that living humans aren't people before "brain birth" by comparing them to literal corpses after "brain death", but somehow simultaneously argue that brain-dead corpses are actually still people deserving of dignified treatment... Meanwhile, their symmetrical equivalents at the beginning of life, embryos, are fine to flush down the toilet, or puree into a viscera smoothie, or harvest for organs. So, are brainless bodies people or not?? Shouldn't a human with an undeveloped yet functioning brain have more right to protection than a literal corpse??? Where is the consistency?

[secularprolifeconspectus]

To quote my friend Kristina for the millionth time:

"In pregnancy, one person's existence doesn’t just cause but constitutes the organic state of another... The organic entanglement of pregnancy is reflected in social entanglement and interdependency of all us... This is relational autonomy: there is no self without the other."

I honestly find it fascinating that for eons, literally since the dawn of human existence, midwives and other healers have viewed the mother and child as a dyad. They are two that form one in the sense that they are both their own people, but form one unit to ensure stability and survival. This has been seen scientifically through MRIs of mothers (and even fathers!) who bond with their babies after birth. We see this psychologically in mothers/fathers who are distressed when they are not near their child. We see how toxic and evil lack of maternity/paternity leave is when a mother leaves her 2 week old baby with a babysitter yet it’s illegal to separate a puppy from their mother before 8 weeks.

We also see this on the microscopic level. From the intricate workings of conception and fertility to the various changes in gestation. Each year we learn more and more about the inter-play between mother’s health and baby’s health. How their hormones and blood levels communicate with one another. How a sick mother creates a sick baby’s and vice versa.

Even today there are lactation experts and birth workers who call this interplay a dyad, a reflection of how nature functions and how that is seen in our primal humanity.

So why is it that hundreds of thousands of years can pass by, knowing this wisdom, yet people will change their tune to “unborn children and babies are parasites” in just a handful of decades? Why is it cool that the first female profession to exist is midwifery yet we ignore the wisdom and inherent knowledge of the dyad it has given us? Why are children able to become our enemies at the flip of a political switch, born or unborn? Are we enemies of our own mothers and children, or are we meant to be so much more than that?

[secularprolifeconspectus]

I agree with some of your points re: wider reproductive justice. I'm not opposed to fetuses = people. But it's misleading to call yourself an anarchist. "Government’s purpose is to safeguard our rights" is not an anarchist stance. This is anarchy 101: the State is inherently violent. Gov. law perpetuates more violence. I encourage you to improve oppressed people's lives in ways that don't amplify state violence. Incl. rethinking the individualistic way you define risk, choice, and violence.

First, I never personally said that – that's a quote from Calvin Freiburger that I included in my compilation posts. Second, the compilation posts are from 2017, which is about three years before I started learning and adopting an anarcho-communist perspective. I will state again: I no longer agree with everything in my older posts. Feel free to ask me about how my views have evolved. And thanks for reading some of my older posts, because I appreciate not having to dig up links for things I've already addressed.

To pull a quote of mine buried in this post: "when it comes to a literal genocide, I am first a pragmatist. If a genocide can be stopped immediately with legal sanctions, then I will accept that for now. Lives are on the line. My ideal sociopolitical framework can wait." I still stand by that. Yes, I do see the State as inherently violent, and how government law perpetuates abortion violence all the more exemplifies that; I have no qualms about working to reduce the violence of our government while it is still the system we exist under. I did that in 2020 when I advocated for policies to reduce police brutality while simultaneously calling for total abolition in the streets – go ahead, claim I'm fake for that, get off on your ideological purity.

I have a whole post about how choice should be collective (it's another oldie). I think "there are collective duties to pregnant persons that arise when we accept the existence of a pre-given burden and organic expenses of pregnancy" – and these include protection when pregnancy presents supererogatory/extraordinary risks, as well as recompense for organic care and domestic labor (my friend Kristina, a leftist, has a whole essay on this.) I discuss the definition of violence in this post, and I acknowledge the collective nature of violence – violence against any individual impacts all of us, for if we aren't all protected from violence, then none of us are.

If you want to learn more about pro-life anarchism, a friend of mine submitted this essay. And if you want to discuss any of this further, you can always send me another ask or reblog this post directly.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Do you believe the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy? I ask this because after a long conversation with my dad about abortion (he’s pro choice and I’m pro life) we basically just fundamentally disagreed on this specific issue; He believes bodily autonomy is simply more important than right to life (I obviously disagree), but we couldn’t get past that point in the debate because it just ended with an “I think you’re wrong” from both of us (He then threatened to kick me out of the house (I still live at home in my summers between school years because I’m eighteen) because I disagree with him, but I suppose that’s besides the point lol). How would you get past this point in a debate?

Thank you so much!! Have a nice day!

Yes and no.

I think the right to life is far more fundamental than the right to bodily autonomy. However, I don't think that the right to bodily autonomy applies to abortion: elective abortion is abuse, and bodily autonomy has never extended to abuse. So I don't see abortion as a "conflict of rights" issue, because bodily autonomy clearly reaches a limit with elective abortion before the right to life even becomes an issue.

As for your dad, you have to explain two things: first, that prenatal humans are people, and second, that their dependency does not violate their pregnant parent.

Okay, and it's really fkd up that your dad threatened to kick you out over a sincerely held belief??? Hello???? Does he need some therapy? I mean that in the most genuine way.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

A New Definition of Abortion

In the essay "Defining ‘Abortion’: a call for clarity", philosopher Nicholas Colgrove suggests six questions to help medical professionals, legislators, academics, and advocates define exactly what they mean by “abortion.”

Does pregnancy begin at conception or implantation?

Does enabling abortive acts count as performing an abortion?

Does abortion terminate pregnancy?

Does the intention of termination matter?

Does the provider need to know that they may kill a prenatal human?

Does the provider need to know that the procurer is pregnant?

Colgrove proposes his own definition of abortion:

Abortion: An act that, via medicinal or surgical intervention, secures the death of [a prenatal human] without regard for [their] survival.

He contends that adequate regard for a prenatal human’s survival means having a willingness to secure their death only under extraordinary circumstances.

I wrote an article about the essay for Secular Pro-Life, and I intend to use this definition in my future posts. What do you think about it?

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Living human embryo #24, approximately 8 1/2 wks fetal gestational age, removed via hysterotomy during the Davenport Hooker Experiments, which took place between 1932 and 1963. The embryo is prodded by a needle and you can see them react to the touch.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Should Anarchism defend the Pro-life cause? 

Today's anonymous guest submission argues that, assuming fetuses are people, anarchists should be pro-life. All opinions belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Antipersonhood/secularprolifeconspectus.

Going from the hypothesis that life begins at conception, and therefore that human life begins before sentience, we will try to demonstrate that anarchism should be, at least philosophically, against abortion. 95% of biologists agree that life begins at conception. This should convince any person with empathy that abortion is wrong, but if you need to be convinced that pure, radical anarchism should fight abortion, here we go! 

Total Liberation, or Vegan Anarchism

As soon as I learnt, at the age of 8, that eating chicken, and god knows how delicious it is, was eating the corpse of a chicken, I said “no, I won’t do that”. Compare how people react when they see their rights to have penis in vagina sex without consequences is questioned and the reaction of meat eaters when we tell them they should not turn their intestines into a graveyard. They fear for their comfort, for their pleasure, refuse any alternative, dismiss the idea that apart from grown ass humans, another form of life could deserve respect. 

If I think that animal liberation is a more important fight as animals are sentient and their suffering is therefore greater, and that they suffer for a much more superficial reason (being denied meat is much less impactful than being denied abortion), those fights are extremely similar. But as Hitler and Stalin were racist mass murderers, people judged it was a good idea to put similar ideologies into both sides of the political spectrum (spoiler: Stalin is far right in my book). And curiously, nobody wants to question it. 

Another proof that those are interlinked: societies that practice abortions a lot also tends to disrespect animal rights. I am from France, and if it had the reputation of a progressive nation, it is extremely unjustified. Extremely I exaggerate, it is a democracy and we have gay marriage and a very good tradition of protesting, but French are extremely conservative when it comes to food. Mocking vegans and eating meat is a national tradition. And guess what, mocking pro-lifers is as well, and abortion is such a national pride we put it into the constitution, instead of putting gay marriage. However, vegan pro-lifers are absent. Both are so rare, too ahead of their time for this society. People who mock both are probably more numerous than French pro-lifers and vegans united. They do not even try to understand when they see a woke pro-lifers, because it is too new for them. 

“What??? She has all the view of a regular radical leftist but she is anti abortion?” 

Another exercize: in which country do people abort to not have a girl? Oh, China, a country where laws for protecting animals are virtually non-existent and where a Westernized girl (that I met in Ireland) can tell me she never met a vegetarian at 20 years old! 

However, vegans are never shunned by anarchists as imposing their view point on something that is still very intimate - what they eat and what goes inside their bodies. That is the opposite - total liberation is by definition an anarchist ideology. Vegans are against exploitation, for every person and for every animal. So, how is it justified to see a fetus as the property of their mothers? How can they remain insensitive to see tiny human bodies being destroyed and thrown away with medical waste and not see images from slaughterhouses?  People who feel threatened by images of destroyed fetuses instead of reconsidering their way of life remind me of people who feel oppressed by 1214. 

However, vegans will be mocked as far left, pro-lifers as far right. Including in the very right-wing, meat-eating and pro-abortion France. So, why such a double standard between ideologies with so many parallels, including one that has so much connection with anarchism? My guess is simply that it is too much sacrifice for one person to be vegan and have a baby every time she has unprotected sex. And the other way around. 

The problem is when a whole movement is trying to apply their own inconsistency to an overall philosophy. Because if an anarchist worldview should not be so fanatic to shun someone who had an abortion, especially when you live in a society that thrives on murder of fetuses, animals, and on constant exploitation of others, then anarchism is not liberalism. Anarchism encourages toppling down the hierarchy. Liberalism implies a fight to top the hierarchy, and hierarchy is what abortion encourages. For the whole idea of a fundamental right to abortion comes from the idea that a form of life, for it is less developed, is our property. 

Hierarchy in access to body resources: Abortion and neo-liberalism 

Anarchism and hierarchy? 

This will be quick to explain. We have seen that the idea of anti-hierarchy for anarchists is not limited to non-human. Like, yeah, I can see why a fetus is. I see it justified to choose the mother instead of the fetus in the blink of an eye if we have to choose who’ll live and she is not ready to sacrifice herself. It does not justify destroying it and seeing it as property. This is violence. And this is not a violence that can be justified by anarchism, used as a necessary evil to topple a social order that is itself much more violent. It includes a hierarchy regarding the rights to body resource between the fetus and their mother. 

I would tend to agree that before sentience and viability, this may not be as bad as killing a sentient person. Present is as it may be, necessary evil. Talk about countries that are so patriarchal when you have to choose between healing a woman ready to kill a fetus to avoid social death. You know what? A lot of antispecist anarchist understand why people would kill animals to avoid death. For there is a difference between those death and the hierarchy caused by capitalism. 

However, this compassionate depiction, that was used by the Holocaust survivor (important detail) that legalized abortion in France, is disappearing. And even worse, I see a lot of anarchist defending abortion up or even “after” viability because it is “radical” progressive or cool, with zero interest in medicine, or in how the uterus is working. Not sexist at all. What is also extremely worrying is that anarchists seem to not even defend the right to abortion as something used to alleviate the consequences of capitalism, or asking for compassion to women who abort, for aborted fetuses are victims of capitalism. It is abortion they defend. Jane’s revenge pretends to be anarchist while burning crisis pregnancy centers. They are not. They fetishize abortion. 

They precisely want this hierarchy to perdure. While anarchists should do the opposite. We should hope to abort this hierarchy. For life begins at conception and two persons are needing this body to survive. For the right to life is the first right before all of others, their rights to resources provided by the mother should be equal. They are two in this body, and in most cases, she put it in there. Nobody should have the right to kill an animal because they are from a better species, then why would a woman have any right over her fetus? 

“It is in my body, therefore it is my property” is a view defended by proaborts, which is however totally antithetical to anarchism. In anarchism, private property doesn’t even exist. Some will defend far right atrocities, such as selective abortion of down syndrome fetuses because the fetus is in the body of the woman so she can do anything with it. You are not an anarchist if you think about nazi rights before the rights of a down syndrome fetus. You are not left-wing at all. The fact that those people can claim being anarcho-communist shows how little is made for people with disabilities on the far left. While we may need the abolition of hierarchy more than others. 

I saw people using the argument “their organs don’t work it is not my fault.” Well, this is not only lowkey ableist, but this is the argument used in Belarus and Russia to deny prisoners medical care. Two problems that are very triggering for me. This is the argument used to execute people in Belarus without touching them. This is probably how Alexei Navalny died…and everyone with a heart and a brain agreed that we can consider that Ales Pushkin was killed in prison. So if you tell it to my face, I will kindly tell you to fuck off. 

In the pro choice view, being born is a privilege, mothers are in a position of power over their fetus. You are not freaking out for your rights, you are freaking out for your privilege. The abortion fanclub talks about tumor, parasites, clump of cells, as if this is not how disabled and people on welfare are called. The idea that one has to have such a power and control over what is biologically a human life to have rights is antithetical to anarchism. And wanting such a power over someone is also extremely bizarre for someone pretending to want to abolish hierarchies. 

This is symptomatic of an extremely concerning hijacking of anarchism by liberals, for abortion is a good solution: as long as we propose to precarious people a solution - killing their fetus - they will fight for it instead of fighting capitalism. But interestingly, some of them have such a conformist mindset that they think one has to oppress others to thrive, and think that if women have powers over their kids, they can alleviate the consequences of capitalism. Because of course, among right-wingers, the reversed view exists - we won’t abolish capitalism, but we will abolish abortion so people reproduce. And most of the time, they do not care about fetuses and are even worse for women. 

“Abortion is a flesh tax on the poor.” Progressive anti-abortion uprising. 

A bizarre accomplishment of liberal feminism 

I do not know exactly what convinced me that I should become pro-life. I would confess that I became more open to the idea when I converted to Christianity in 2021, partly thanks to a blessed priest and martyr that happened to be pro-life. However, he did not really convince me. I knew that even if he was a male, if demons were coming out of his balls. But is that a sacrifice you could impose on others? This man destroyed his own health for others and was not the norm. Gianna Beretta Molla was canonized for a reason - her sacrifice was not your average mom's reaction. Pro-choicers are right to ask this: can you ask such a sacrifice to others? 

Well, yeah, you can. But I needed to see how right-wing the arguments for abortion are. It began with the moment Strajk Kobiet’s leader, that I used to support thinking I would want an abortion one day, was more right-wing than the pope. No, for real. And the movement did not condemn her. For fuck sake, she insulted a Ukrainian woman for making a march for peace with a Russian friend! Apparently, the pope thinking that there should be no hate between Ukrainian and Russian ordinary citizens was too progressive for her. Ironic. 

I guessed that if all leftist were for abortion it meant fetuses were not people and right-wingers just wanted to pretend they care about human rights? Apparently, it was not the case… 

Then, Annie Ernaux, whose book The Years is an absolute masterpiece, gained the Nobel Prize. I read her testimonies on her abortion, and it disgusted me of her forever. The work of Annie Ernaux, considered left-wing by the stupid and very right-wing French political system, illustrates perfectly for me the violence of liberal feminism. In “Happening”, a 23-years old Annie Ernaux is amazed that someone who studies can be pregnant by having sex like the class of poor people, of her parents, that she absolutely wanted to leave. As a scholar and daughter of scholars, Annie, I swear to god we also poop. 

Panicked, she absolutely wants to abort. Which is not the issue. The problem is that Annie does not regret that she committed murder to socially evolve, considering the fetus was already formed with a penis and blue eyes, she is proud of it. She proudly threw this fetus in the toilets, as a way to say, we are all shit to her. She found it beautiful and felt superior to women in her hospital ward who just gave birth instead of killing like her. Well,she is a psycho, a villain from an American movie, ready to hurt and kill people to enter the bourgeoisie, make her whole career on her hate against the working class, and she still DARES to infiltrate leftist spaces, because for some reason, being a woman is inherently left-wing. 

Curiously, no leftists denounced the imposture. Book was acclaimed, used as an argument for abortion, and adapted into theater and movie. Anarchists stayed silent. However, communist anarchism does not glorify selfishness, violent liberalism, or competition between humans. Anybody who has read this book should, like me, become anti-abortion. Nobody should be hurt because their mom wanted to join the bourgeoisie. But most people are not anarchist and accommodate this world where you either oppress or are oppressed. This is the reason why the far right is so popular in France. 

For some bizarre reasons, women being assholes, villains, have become a progress. But a minority being an ultraliberal is still an ultraliberal. Taylor Swift is no less a billionaire because she is a woman. Therefore, in a leftist, and not a liberal mindset, there is no reason to glorify her, nor a tradwife, nor a girlboss. Girlboss feminism is what damaged feminism so much. It allowed liberal views to be acceptable in leftist circles. 

Anarchists are not liberals 

I thought we were clear on that? Pro-abortion anarchists will not accept that they are not fully progressive, and that there are some privileges, like born privileges, they are not ready to give up. The whole discourse of “do not like abortion? Do not have one” is a liberal view, not an anarchist one.

Anarchists are radical, not relativists. And above all, they should not defend the status quo. 

Abortion as a conservative view? 

The future is pro life? 

Even if we analyze conservatism as only opposed to progress, one of the arguments used by pro-choicers is that women always have practiced abortion. So, by definition, not wanting to question abortion is conservative. And defending the rights of the preborn because progress of science showed that they are alive would be progress. Arent anarchist supposed to be for progress? But people will insult the idea of a pro-life progressive, or pro-life because they are progressive, because it is too revolutionary for them and would make them question their privileges as born people. 

The impossibility to reconsider the world 

Shunning, dismissing pro-life views as something coming from the past and being absolutely far right ideology is a good way to not question the world they live in. Fetal personhood is not despised because it is reactionary, but because it is progressive, as it extends citizenship to more people, and that born people will lose too many privileges if it is accepted. The way people will dismiss and call pro-life radical leftists "mentally ill" despite how consistent this ideology is betrays a close-mindeness that is not only ridiculous but bears all the traits of conservatism. I saw people calling it a far right concept and I do not understand how someone can argue this in good faith. 

Something that the pro-life movement often denounces is that they will deny scientific facts with the energy of despair. As if more protection for fetuses meant less rights to them. They need to stick to representations that are outdated but comfortable. That, we anarchists have to challenge. Anti-prolife, which is what they are, appear very similar to anti-vegan – hence, a fundamentally conservative ideology. 

Pro-abortion: a right wing ideology 

In Poland, which is overall a very nationalist and conservative society, even the pro-choice movement is gangrene by nationalism. Marta Lempart is a russophobe nationalist, and for some reason, the fact that she is lesbian finished convincing me that she simply does not want those people to be born. It is not as if she risks being pregnant anyway. She was more right-wing and conservative than the fucking pope. So, who are the bad guys now? After this realization, I realized how inherently and shockingly right-wing a lot of arguments for abortion were. Not all of them, of course. But a lot. I already explained a lot of them, but I will develop more. 

I evoked earlier the right to control, and in France this is what abortionists recalled when they were working illegally. They had power over life. The desire to control that characterizes any good corporation CEO. If a lot of governments legalize abortion because women would abort illegally anyway and because we are in a dramatic situation where we need a social pact detrimental to fetus and embryos, ok. But abortion is often encouraged for purely classist and eugenistic reasons.

A lot of people will not defend explicitly, especially in front of a disability rights activist like me, that it's perfectly fine if a mom wants to kill their disabled fetus. That if you think aborting because you don’t want a down syndrome baby should be prohibited, you are far right. But if you are a hitlerite that does not want to give birth to a down syndrome baby, that is your right. Wait, did you just girlbossed nazism? 

A lot of arguments are in fact of a huge social violence: those fetuses would be born poor, we would have to adopt social policies, fetus are dumb, precarious women should not reproduce, black people need to abort more to be equal with the white, and so it is racist to not let them reduce their population by social darwinism themselves… the list is super long. So, how can one justify, considering that even leftists do not think rights or choice is absolute? 

Say that pro lifers are necessarily religious nuts. And the Catholic Church is not really the most leftist anarcho-compatible institution in the world. Catholicism works on a very strict hierarchy - therefore, technically an anarchist can't be a Catholic (but can own his fetus as his property apparently). However, Christianity is not totally incompatible with anarchism. And most important, pro-life is not inherently religious - murder is wrong in almost any culture. 

Anarchism as opposed to Christianity? 

“Le christianisme est un anarchisme” (Jérôme Alexandre) 

You know what, anarchists and christians can even agree on some stuff, incredible I know. Would anarchists defend rich people because Jesus said that it is virtually impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god? Would anarchists defend the death penalty because Christianity opposes it? Would anarchists be against the welcoming of migrants because the pope defends it? God gave us free will - that includes free will to oppress, as free will to be equal. We are all equal; and I do not even see him as our master. I even see this equality as God-given. Christianity condemns racism, and slavery. He said that you shall not kill and this is an elementary part of our social contract that most atheists would agree with; and most Christians say they oppose abortion because you shall not kill and science says life begins at conception. 

Jerome Alexandre therefore bravely stated that in their defenses of fetus’s right, Christians were more anarchists than anarchists themselves. Alexandre is what some call a heresy: an anarchist theologian. Someone genuinely answered “death to all non-desired fetuses”. I told him he was Adolf Hitler. Exaggerated? I was called Hitler for being pro-life. In fact, it is mostly pro-choicers who will repeat that the bible says that life begins at first breath to non-religious pro-life girls. 

The curious invisibility of pro life atheists 

I think that if it was not scientifically sure when life began, most Christians would not fight against abortion that hard. I have never seen any Hindu or Buddhist force their vegetarianism on other people, while they literally believe you would eat reincarnated people if you do so - so eat humans. Conscious humans, at that. But do they force this vision on others? No. Because it is only their vision. Remember what Apu told Lisa Simpson when she became a vegetarian…but after that, he did not force her anyway. 

And despite all of that, in order to not address the issue of fetal rights, they will call people openly atheist “bigots”. They contribute to making the debates on abortion extremely poor intellectually, full of stupid stereotypes on pro-lifers like “pro-lifers do not care about children after they are born” (why would it be the case for every one of them?), or “they are religious”. An inversion is seen: people proposing new visions of debates are seen as dumb, while people thinking only with stereotypes and jokes are seen as superior.

But of course, I cannot talk about prolife debates without addressing the greatest stereotype of all: “ they are misogynistic” (which makes actual misogynistic male super happy to call a feminist woman sexist) while in the real world, the most active pro-life activists of all are women. 

Women’s rights? 

I do not want trans men or non-binary to abort either. Next. 

How heteropatriarchy enables abortion 

Sex is not inherently progressive - and can be a terrible weapon of misogynia 

I personally like sex and I am in a straight relationship. However, the problem with this debate is that any encouragement to abstain of penis in vagina sex if you know you would abort if pregnant is seen as “reactionary”. However, abuses following sexual liberations showed that sex-positivity, while it definitely brought good things and social progress, is not always progressive. Because saying heterosexual sex is a right is actually extremely dangerous and I am worried to see it used to argue for a “feminist cause”. This is the argument of incels, used to abuse women. Incels say they have the right to the body of other women because they want to have sex. This is why I assume those types of comments are coming from men. Also, arguing for abortion is not threatening men in any way, this is why it is such a convenient cause for them. 

For some reason, there are “feminists” who hate fetuses more than they hate men; I am against the death penalty which is inherently authoritarian, but killing the child of the rapist and not the rapist is what conservatives find the most curious, and it is hard to not agree with them. Not telling abortion protects the abuser. Which is something pro-aborties are very self aware of, as you see with this meme: 

For your information, nuns can get pregnant and sometimes they are forced abortion. Catholics are more often than not far away from Church teaching. 

Looks like feminists deflected the target. The mortal enemy became not men, but the unborn. So many are telling that you can’t be a feminist if you care for unborn girls; just, why? Also, if we are talking about memes that are a goal against their own camp, telling to pro-life men to get a vasectomy is counter productive: since they don’t want their partner to abort, I think they are much more cautious. Why only prolife men? Wouldn’t it be better if childfree men get snitched instead of pushing their partners into a procedure that would greatly harm them? 

Even the fact they can lose their child to an abortion, which is really terrible, is perpetuating the idea that parenthood is only the responsibility of the mother. But however, when she is raped, this is no longer their kid: it is just rapist spawn. While you put all the contraceptive charge on her, she is a mother only if sex is consensual. Weird. 

And you know what else prevents abortion? Gay sex. Because there is also the “hetero” in “heteropatriarchy”. This also implies that this is a precise form of sex, penis in vagina, associated with heterosexuality, that is necessary for us to be happy, neglecting every other practice. This implies this is something that you could not abstain from, even if you knew that you risked to create a human that you risk to kill. And while this is pursuing a heteronormative agenda, pro-life homophobes and pro-choicers alike tend to mix those two unrelated issues to further their agenda, with very creepy implications. 

Anarchism is queer and Gay sex prevents abortion. Therefore… 

Last year, some girl with whom I haven’t talked for years wrote me a message to tell me she did not want to be associated with me anymore. Why so? Because I mocked the fact pro-life people were demonstrating against the gay pride by telling them gay sex reduced abortion! Yeah, apparently abortion is such a good moment that it should not be avoided! She had an abortion and knows it is wrong. I do not think she is queerphobic or that her heterosexuality is so fragile, rather that she did not want to be reminded that abortion is inherently wrong. 

Making abortion a queer issue is straightwashing, and as a bisexual woman, in a committed relationship with a man, I confirm that. I saw bisexuals calling me fake for acknowledging my privileges inside the queer community as a bi woman with a straight man, or even denying the fact heterosexuality is a privilege, which is sincerely surprising coming from LGBTQ+ people. In other words, they were shedding straight tears without being straights, and came back to defend the status quo.

You need to have penis in vagina sex to have an abortion, something that homosexuals do not have. If a trans man, clearly identifying as a man, has an abortion, he still had cisnormative sex to be in this situation… and it is hard to believe pregnancy would cause dysphoria but not that type of sex. I was called transphobic for that. For what, thinking trans women don’t fuck like men? Like just saying “reconsider your boring sexual life with missionaries after tv so you wouldn’t hurt an innocent fetus” would be so much more progressive. However, I recognize here that trans men are not women. Which is what people calling us misogynists, apparently, do not. Not only I saw TERFs attacking the Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance, but I saw that, naturally, the pro-abortion movement, defending the interests of straight people, had homophobic undertones. While anarchism is against heterosexual norms. 

The hidden queerphobia of the pro-abortion movement 

I did not want to develop how misogynistic males can be the instant a woman does not fit in their stereotypes - imagine how they can act with a Queer woman. Pro-choicers already refused to believe me when I testified about the misogynia from the pro-choice movement, showing how they care about sexism. But when I stated I was a bi woman, someone wished me conversion therapy. I also saw how people could be violent against LGBTQ+ pro-life people. This is one of the reasons I think gay males are defending abortion so hard; they know that if straight women are women, they are straight and can transform themselves into a dangerous straight oppressor. 

But the worst part is that between the rights of a homophobic parent that would abort their gay fetuses - if that gene was discovered - and the gay fetus, they would defend the parent. This is what questions asked to a pro-choice subreddit showed. Because anyway they would grow up in a homophobic household, they are better dead. Why can’t we punish the parent for this homophobic crime? In fact, I do not even have to make up fictional scenarios. Intersex people are part of the LGBT+ community and then again, pro-choice people will argue that if a woman does not want to share her body with a queer it is her right. Ask Gemma Collins: 

I know that the theoretical abortion of autistic fetus is not exactly a convincing pro-life argument, autistic women have abortions too (unfortunately). This is why I think that the LGBT+ community should stick to this former motto of PLAGAL (now Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance) : abortion is heterosexual atrocity; not gay rights. I would however wager that the motto “gay sex prevents abortion” that I talked about in the beginning, was used against homophobic pro-lifers accusing the poznan pride march of encouraging abortion. I shouted it to them while covered in my bisexual pride flag. And apparently, it was enough for pro-aborties to be triggered. 

Conclusions: Reject mother-fetus hierarchy. 

You can be feminist and pro-choice, anarchist and pro-choice, but the defense of abortion, and not of the right in the name of a greater good at the expense of non-sentient fetuses waiting for a total liberated society, is inherently a neo-liberal view, conservative and capitalistic. You can even be an anarchist and have an abortion you know! But for me, you are not radical enough and above all, you are a hypocrite. And refusing yourself to open to new ideologies that are driven by progress makes you, by definition, acting like a conservative.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

do you think state-level programs to help mothers in need are a good solution to abortion or do you think it is a waste of time? I'm in a pro-life group on facebook, and said I supported those kinds of initiatives and was told those are "failed." note the woman who told me this benefited from such a social program. she just considered it a failure because many of the other women who participated in it didn't finish it (it was a program to help young mothers enter the work force)

to be fair, her solution to the abortion issue is to change people's attitudes - which I agree with. but I don't think cutting off welfare programs meant to help women and children is a good solution either. idk I feel kind of hopeless trying to interact with other pro-lifers sometimes because I'm not very conservative and I do believe safety nets are needed for vulnerable people. not every woman has a supportive family, a husband, or access to crisis pregnancy centers, pro-life groups, or church charities, so what are they supposed to do? that's why a lot of women choose to abort

I think left-leaning and right-leaning folks need to work together to end abortion but apparently that isn't a very popular stance :-s

I don't think there's such thing as a singular all-encompasing "solution" to elective abortion, but I do think state-level welfare programs to help mothers are good and needed to address the demand side of the equation. Sure many state programs aren't up to par, but that's such a perfectionistic mindset to think that because they don't benefit everyone they ought to be discarded; they could definitely use improvement and reform. It would be best if these assistance programs weren't burdened by bureaucracy, but rather community-lead and tailored to meet the needs of people where they are at (they could still be financed by the state).

The "educate to legislate" or "change hearts and minds/attitude" model is a completely different facet of the solution, and is not incompatible with pregnancy aid. All of these are needed to resolve the problem in entirety: pregnancy aid as demand intervention, direct action as supply disruption, education as violence prevention, and legislation as victim protection. Together they ultimately can abolish elective feticide, but separate they can each appear quite ineffective.

To be quite honest, it pisses me off when people think their tactic alone should make up the whole strategy to end abortion. Pregnancy aid alone is too indirect as it still permits baby killing, which is unacceptable. Education on its own won't dismantle the industry propelling the slaughter. Legislation by itself lacks foundation, and direct action in isolation is an empty threat. We need a diversity of tactics if we are to build any kind of power that is transformative.

And yeah, if we are to end abortion, we need popular consensus on the issue, which doesn't mean converting the majority to a conservative worldview; it means making prenatal justice a nonpartisan value. Unfortunately, many people on the right don't see how the values of the left naturally translate into preborn protection, and so they reason that the left must be in moral defecit and can't be worked with in this regard. You and I know that simply isn't true, and the best way we can prove them wrong is to keep showing up as ourselves in their spaces. Keep your head up anon, we're playing the long game.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

If someone’s dependency upon your body is an ordinary outcome of your exercise of autonomy that put them in that position unwillingly, then their dependency is not a violation of your body.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Hi, I hope you’re well!!

I don’t know if this is the right type of question to ask you, but I always find your blog posts and answers really informative so I thought I’d try anyway! No problem if this isn’t something you’d like to answer!

So I’ve been pro life for a while, but I was raised pro choice and haven’t spoken to my family about my change of beliefs. One of my close relatives, specifically, has worked for awhile with programs that seek to “advance women’s reproductive health” (of course mainly this helps underprivileged women kill their babies without cost).

A part of me wants to talk to her about why this is so problematic. It’s been heavy on my heart that someone I love dearly is “helping” women who are suffering kill there children. Selfishly, I’m also terrified about losing this person, and creating a rift in my family. This has been a good part of her career for awhile, and the rest of my family is definitely on her side of this debate.

How would you recommend I approach this? Would you recommend I approach it at all?

Thank you so much! Sorry if this is a bit out of your field, but I’m grateful for any advice you may have!

I hope you have a nice day, your blog is wonderful. Many blessings to you!

Dang, that's a hard situation. I'm trying to imagine myself in it. In my experience, simply explaining my pro-life perspective in a public post was enough to cause a rift in my family — many of my cousins blocked me. Funny enough though, the cousin I know has had an abortion still loves me and hangs out with me. I think that says a lot about people who support abortion vs. people who actually experience it.

My gut says that it is so, so important that you at least make your views known and state your dissent on the record, in order to disrupt the illusion of consensus in your circles and to prove to others that anyone can be against abortion. I think at the same time, if you have any traditionally liberal or nonpartisan views, make it known that you hold those simultaneously. This will challenge the stereotypes those in your circle hold, and reassure them that you're not going off the deep end. I also think you MUST be prepared to back up your position with secular arguments, especially about moral personhood, but I wouldn't suggest offering those arguments off the bat. Save them for when someone comes to you to ask about them specifically.

But I hear that it's on your heart to talk to your family member that is faciliating elective feticide directly. First, I would ask her to take you to her work one day. Really get to know and understand what she does, and why she does it. Do this, because it will build your relationship with her and show her that you see her as a full person. It will also make her more curious when you do "come out".

Second, make a public post to your socials where you list out all of your political positions, putting emphasis on those that are liberal-leaning or nonpartisan, and then in the list include that you are "against elective abortion". I recommend specifically using that language, so it's clear that you don't oppose medically necessary abortions (please please please even if you believe medically necessary procedures "aren't really abortions", just say it this way because using an definition of abortion alternative to "intervention to end a pregnancy so that it does not result in a live birth" will only confuse pro-aborts more.) Turn off comments and messages, and buckle down until everyone's initial shock blows over. You don't need to begin defending or debating your position just yet.

Third, see how she handles your proclamation of your pro-life stance. If she blocks you, then I would let her approach you about it in her own time. If she confronts you about it, it's the perfect time to tell her that while you object to what she does, you love her dearly and don't see her as a bad person. It is the WRONG time to start arguing with her about the moral permissibility of abortion. If she even starts to try to do so, I would gently shut down the conversation, because she'll probably be too emotional to come at it rationally at that time. Instead, offer to discuss it with her at a later date over coffee.

Fourth, ask if she'd tour a local pregnancy resource center with you. If she accepts, hopefully the visit will show her all pro-lifers are willing to do to help the vulnerable populations that she serves, and this may bring her to a new perspective. Debrief afterwards with her about what surprised her, and what disappointed her, and be honest about your observations too.

Fifth, stay active in your community, seeking to help the vulnerable populations, and make sure she knows that you are living by your values. This will let her know you are sincere, and not a hypocrite. Slowly, this may also open her to hearing out your moral argument.

Sixth, give her a copy of my zine! This will gradually introduce her to how her values align with a pro-life stance. She may even come to you with questions about it, and it could prompt constructive dialogue. If you're feeling brave, keep sharing educational pro-life content with her, asking her what she thinks about it.

Seventh, let her come to you for further discussion on her own time. That way you'll know that she's ready to absorb your critique of her work, and perhaps even your moral argument. Make sure she knows you love her, and that you respect how she has tried her very best to help others. You need to make her feel seen, while being honest about your truth.

I hope that's instructive — your situation may vary from this, it's just how I imagine things might best play out. Thank you for your kind words and for the ask, feel free to ask more as needed! Good luck with everything, and keep speaking out for the vulnerable!!

[secularprolifeconspectus]

first off thank you for your blog and for the work you do.

so I spend a lot of my time online in feminist spaces and it is very common to see abortion advocates claim that no pro-life woman has ever been pregnant or "needed" an abortion. but just judging by the way many of them talk about abortion and even female anatomy I get the feeling many of them have never "needed" an abortion either. I am talking strictly about online communities on social media like tumblr or twitter/x

I am also encountering more and more pro-choicers who have a very fiscally conservative outlook i.e. they want poor people to have abortions because they assume children of poor families will put a strain on the economy or suffer horrifically in some way because all working class people are just such bad parents... I know this specific view evolved out of 19th-20th eugenics but it's kind of crazy to see "Trump haters" parrot a bunch of boomer republican talking points

It's probably true that there's lots of pro-choicers who don't actually personally know someone who has had an abortion, but there's plenty who do, and their loyalty to their people is often the hardest obstacle to overcome in opening them up to the pro-life perspective. I think this is another reason we need to be clear that we see post-abortive people as secondary victims, because of course pro-aborts get defensive about the people they love (or themselves) being seen as murderers. But yeah, pro-aborts who parrot that false stereotype about pro-lifers lack curiosity for what's outside of their bubble and aren't worth your time tbh.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: pro-choice is a conservative movement. To quote Jon Shields: "the pro-choice movement is a conservative movement defending the status quo. Pro-choicers have little to gain from engaging their opponents and from the deliberative norms that facilitate persuasion." That's why their modus operandi is to shut down conversation, to dodge challenging information and arguments, and to censor pro-lifers. Good thing we refuse to shut up.

And yeah, it's this conservatism that makes them sound like boomer republicans, as you said. To be fair, if the preborn were merely "potential" people, it might make more sense to prevent their existence to minimize suffering; this would still be eugenicist, but not genocidal. Pro-aborts think they're coming from a place of empathy for people who suffer, but eliminating sufferers isn't compassion: co-passion means suffering WITH others, not living without them. And frankly, the "better off" mindset is extremely patronizing (paternalistic and infantilizing of the vulnerable.) It's just an all-around problematic worldview.

So yeah, we know that the preborn are actual people, and abortion is abusive violence against them. I don't know if I offered any further insight to your comment, but I appreciate your appreciation. Thanks for the engagement.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Jfc, help us. Thank you for the information!

Just spent 3 days in-person with Clementine's Mom, getting to know her. We are so similar, and that scares me, because it forces me to accept that any and all of us are vulnerable to Big Abortion. If you tell me that she deserves to be prosecuted, I will block you. She was preyed upon by the capitalist abortion industry while experiencing an acute mental crisis episode, she was uninformed and under the influence. Cherry Hill tortured her physically, they violated her patient rights, and they kidnapped and murdered her precious daughter. She is now completely pro-life and is fighting her demons to get for justice for her daughter. She is a hero.

Justice for Clementine's Mom. Abortion is murder.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Sorry if this has been addressed before but do you have any advice on addressing issues with other pro-life people giving off a bad image? Too often I see people who espouse their views in ways ranging from downright nasty to well-meaning but unhelpful, whether it's aggressive and hateful sentiment towards pro-choicers or tying the pro-life view in with specific political or religious views (I am religious and "conservative"-leaning but as someone who used to be a staunch anti-spiritual-anything atheist, I know firsthand how alienating it is when the only argument begins and ends with "God says so").

For example, there is a pregnancy resource clinic near me that's really great with the actual resources, but a lot of their supporters overlap with groups that even I'm not comfortable with. Their online presence has commenters saying they love the place because they're cool with anti-vax parents, and they did a fundraiser where they raffled tickets to attend a young earth creationist thing because it was popular with their supporter base. Also, while this isn't anyone's fault with any clear "solution", I do notice that everyone involved with this clinic (providers and clients) is white, and as someone who is not, I also know that for a lot of people that can feel awkward and alienating. I don't think this is even a race thing, I mean I think everyone can see how it's just kinda weird if literally everyone in a space fits a certain demographic but you don't, right? My point is just that people end up with a stereotype of what being pro-life is ALSO about, and it's reinforced even by pro-lifers.

Overall I feel like there's often this extra challenge of, there's pro-life people taking the base pro-life position and knowingly or unknowingly saddling it with extra baggage, and then I feel like I have to awkwardly strip down all the political/cultural add-ons when speaking with people who aren't pro-life. I do think that being pro-life is a moral view whose truth is independent of what kind of people its supporters are, but you can't deny that it plays a pretty big role in persuasion seeing that people aren't purely rational creatures and do develop emotional impressions. Do you have any advice on tackling this both in a pro-lifer to pro-lifer situation (confronting someone who's giving off bad pr) and in a pro-lifer to pro-choicer situation (dispelling cultural misconceptions unrelated to the actual meat of the argument)? Thanks for reading, this got kinda long

Pro-lifer to pro-choicer: the strongest argument to challenge these stereotypes is yourself. So if you are a nontraditional pro-lifer — secular, queer, left-leaning, POC, feminist — we need you to be open and loud about it. If you're not, then we need you to uplift the visibility and amplify the voices of nontraditional pro-lifers. They are the living proof that the stereotypes are false, and anyone can be against elective abortion. So to dispell the prejudices that pro-choicers hold against pro-lifers, you must familiarize yourself with nontraditional activists and organizations.

Examples include: Pro-Black Pro-Life, Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance, Secular Pro-Life, Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, Democrats for Life, Vegans for Preborn Rights, Rehumanize International, Feminists Choosing Life, New Wave Feminists

Pro-lifer to pro-lifer: unfortunately, there are many people who use pro-life to evangelize for Christianity or for conservatism, and their hearts simply aren't in the right place. I don't think they're worth your time trying to change. But for those that seem to be coming from a genuine place of wanting to protect preborn people, I would befriend them to gain their trust and respect before confronting them. This will give the best chance of them hearing you out.

As for race dynamics in PRCs, I have a lot to say about that. Here's an excerpt from my book:

"Generally, pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) recruit outside of the communities they serve, which results in class and race disparities between the aid workers and the pregnant community members... So because the predominant model for pregnancy aid is based in charity, it suffers from systemic issues of classism and racism. The charity model sets up a hierarchical patron-client relationship of power, which enables infantilization and coercion. It’s plagued by “white saviorism"... I think we need a solidarity model. In mutual aid, the service is directed by members of the community, and the community members being served have the opportunity to give back. This bilateral flow of aid distributes power horizontally and bridges the disconnect of the charity model, which hands out (or refuses) aid unilaterally."

I hear your frustrations anon, and all I can really say is, where you see bad PR, counteract it by being the good PR. Hang in there; slowly but surely, we will see change.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Just spent 3 days in-person with Clementine's Mom, getting to know her. We are so similar, and that scares me, because it forces me to accept that any and all of us are vulnerable to Big Abortion. If you tell me that she deserves to be prosecuted, I will block you. She was preyed upon by the capitalist abortion industry while experiencing an acute mental crisis episode, she was uninformed and under the influence. Cherry Hill tortured her physically, they violated her patient rights, and they kidnapped and murdered her precious daughter. She is now completely pro-life and is fighting her demons to get for justice for her daughter. She is a hero.

Justice for Clementine's Mom. Abortion is murder.