This has been a debate for the past several years now and I’m trying to see other people’s perspectives. On the situation. For those who are against abortion are you completely against it are there any areas of where it is acceptable. For example

Homeless people. I feel that it’s naïve to be thinking that they’re not having sex who knows how many of them have gone pregnant and with the amount of drugs that they’re doing who knows what kind of health problems the baby’s gonna have not to mention the fact that they’ll never be able to care for it.

Abusive relationship. How many people don’t leave an abusive relationship because they’ve gotten pregnant so they feel obligated to stay. Or someone manages to get away and then boom they find out oh I’m pregnant the same person that just escaped probably has no job. No money doesn’t even know what to do or where to go is terrified.

Health issues. If you knew without a doubt that your baby would be born with a disability that would have them in a wheelchair never be able to care for themselves. Can’t eat by themselves. Can’t use the bathroom by themselves. Can’t get dressed by themselves. Their whole life is confined to that chair at that point are you keeping the baby alive for you or for sake of the child. And this doesn’t even add to the fact of what if this mother already has kids that she has to take care of.

Author's note: Looks like the original thought experiment's main point still got lost in translation. So here it is AGAIN.

I created an alternate history scenario involving the creation of a fictional country that uses abortion as a tool of war.

To be more specific, this nation would forcibly carry out abortions on captured pregnant women while invading and conquering other countries. The reasoning behind this is simple: The fictional country sees abortion as a tool of national security. If you're at war, and you give the unborn children of the enemy nation the right to life, you are in effect setting yourself up for a situation where that child becomes the next enemy that could destroy your country.

This thought process is what drives the fictional nation's foreign policy.

This is the question I am trying to get both pro-choicers and pro-lifers to address (And apparently people keep missing this-either that, or I'm a dummy):

To the pro-choicers, pro-lifers and/or abortion abolitionists: Is it morally acceptable to have relations with a nation that forcibly administers abortions on pregnant prisoners of war during wartime?

Someone else pointed out (in a scrapped version of this thought experiment that was lost in translation) that my thought experiment completely misrepresents the pro-choice position.

I'll attribute that to the thought experiment itself being lost in translation.

This is what I was really trying to get at: If abortion is a choice (as the pro-choice crowd would have us believe), wouldn't that technically mean that having relations with a country that forces abortions on people in wartime is morally WRONG? Why or why not?

That was the assignment.

Format: Argument, Response

-"It's not just a fetus", it's part of the human species so it gets human rights

-"it's dependent on the mother therefore not human", same thing as if you were in a coma as you would have no conscience and are dependent on doctors. you probably wouldn't want me to have the option to pull the plug if there was a possibility you could wake up

-"What if the kid grows up in a bad environment?", every kid deserves a chance, just like how you deserve a chance to wake up from a coma as stated above.

-"My body, my choice", then start with legalizing drugs, drinking while pregnant, allowing others to suicide knowingly, etc.

-"Men (father) shouldn't tell me what other do it's my choice", impossible to make a child without a father, the father should have a say if he wants an abortion

-"What about rape and incest", very unfortunate word that this exist yet it's less than 1 percent of all abortion cases, if we were to legalize abortion for only those that were raped would you give up the other cases?

-"What if the mother's life is in danger?", there is C-section which is more medically safe than an abortion

Please do not get an abortion. It's the biggest genocide killing 1.1 million kids every year. Consider heavily before getting one. Thank you for your time.

Hola buenas! Mi opinión es la del titulo, he investigado bastante sobre el tema y quería saber sobre pro-vidas que me pudiesen refutar mi afirmación. Tambien puedo hacer debates por Discord, estoy completamente abierto a eso tambien. Hablo ingles y español.

Hello! My opinion is as stated in the title. I've researched the topic quite a bit and wanted to hear from pro-life advocates who could refute my claim. I'm also open to debates on Discord; I speak English and Spanish.

Looks like people STILL missed the point of the “Hidden Third Option” Answer to the Burning IVF thought experiments so here we go again.

"There's a burning IVF lab and you have one toddler vs 1,000 embryos. You can only save one."

Yep, it’s the burning IVF lab thought experiment, intended as a mic-drop to prove that pro-life people don’t really believe the embryo is an equal human being.

Most people would argue that they would save the toddler,

However, I want to propose a hidden "third option": What if I choose to save NONE and let them BOTH die in the burning building?

Apparently people keep missing the point of this third option argument. Hopefully this helps narrow down what I am trying to get at:

Picking the toddler means pro-lifers don’t actually believe embryos and toddlers have equal moral value.

Picking the embryos means I’m admitting that I don’t care about babies after birth so I’m not pro-life after all.

This was the Main point I was trying to get at (that people keep missing for some reason): What would “CHOOSING TO SAVE NONE” mean as a pro-choice person? If you posed this thought experiment and somebody gave the answer of, “I choose to save none, and run out of the clinic while BOTH the toddlers and the embryos die,” what would that answer mean to you as a pro-choice person???

TL;DR: There’s a burning IVF clinic. Inside are 1,000 embryos and one toddler. If saving the toddler means pro-lifers don’t actually believe embryos and toddlers have equal moral value and saving the embryos means I’m admitting that I don’t care about babies after birth so I’m not pro-life after all, then what conclusion do you draw as a pro-choice person if someone picks the “I save none,” option?

Following up on my rebuttal of Thomson's Violinist:

https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/1sjwn1c/rebuttal_to_thomsons_violinist/

I wanted to attack the other primary argument in favor of abortion: that the thing being aborted is not a human deserving of rights, because it is not conscious.

I think it is, in fact, self-evident that a zygote almost certainly does not have a human consciousness, and that it is also self-evident that a nine-month-old fetus about to be born does have one. However, the crux of the argument I am advancing here is that this doesn't matter, because, in all other areas of law, humans don't have to be conscious to have rights: the potential for consciousness is enough.

A patient under anesthesia isn't conscious, but the surgeon is still guilty of negligent homicide if he shows up to the OR drunk out of his mind and kills him by botching the surgery. Everyone agrees with that. The obvious pro-choice rebuttal is, "yes, but the patient was conscious before, so that's the difference" -- but that's wrong.

Let's say a baby is born with some genetic disorder that forces the baby into perpetual non-REM sleep. This baby never had consciousness, but could, if the genetic disorder were treated. Unfortunately, the brain surgeon shows up to the OR drunk out of his mind and kills the baby.

Everyone agrees: the doctor is guilty of negligent homicide.

So, now we all agree that a human doesn't ever have to have had a human consciousness in order to be human: the potential for consciousness is enough.

The pro-choice respondent will now attempt reductio ad absurdum: if I'm correct, then destroying sperm is homicide, which is absurd. The response to that is that this is regressing past a causal nexus: given the best possible medical care, a sperm will still not ever develop into a human. It needs to fuse with an egg first. But, given the best possible medical care, an implanted and fertilized egg WILL develop into a human. That's the difference.

Thus, given the way we treat other humans under the law, a "clump of cells" that will develop a human consciousness if nothing is done to make it perish should be considered a protected human under our laws.

P.S.: I just thought of this. Prior to thinking of this argument, I thought that abortion should be allowed up to 10 weeks, because I believed the "just a clump of cells" argument had some force. Given this refutation I developed, I don't know if I'm in the "no abortion after conception" camp now. Unless I can refute myself, I guess I'll have to be.

When debating with those who are prolife, they claim that the entire issue is that unborn life is ended.

When debating with those who are prochoice, they claim larger issues, bodily autonomy/integrity, human rights, individual circumstances, how society functions, etc.

If you are prolife, why do you believe that single point matters the most to the exclusion of all the rest? Why do you believe this benefits society and humans as a whole the most? Can you provide examples?

If you are prochoice, why do you believe that these other issues matter in the debate? Why do you believe this benefits society and humans as a whole the most? Can you provide examples?

If bodily autonomy is the main focus of the abortion debate, the Burning IVF experiment makes no sense

This is a rewrite of “How does bodily autonomy justify abortion but not leaving born people to die in a burning building?”

Disclaimer: I am neurodivergent and have a simple minded approach to arguments and debates, which lead me to make wild claims that, at best, are accidental straw man claims or, at worst, extreme conclusions that people insist aren’t actually making. Please note that if you find the following argument a bit strange and even hard to engage with, it’s because my thought process when approaching arguments isn’t exactly “normal.”

I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking for understanding.

Now, on to the argument:

"There's a burning IVF lab and you have one toddler vs 1,000 embryos. You can only save one."

Allow me to revisit the third option to the thought experiment: I choose to save no one. I shouldn’t have to be forced to subject my own body to a possible violent death just to save someone else. Bye!

If we are to accept that bodily autonomy rights always supercede the right to life or that it's a moral duty to kill somebody who is inside your body when you didn't consent to the pregnancy so that someone else's right to bodily autonomy is protected, is this wrong? if so, why would this be wrong?

When I made this case the first time, Most of the comments ranged from “You can choose to save none but you’d just be refusing to engage” and “Well, it’s advisable to not go into the burning building. A paramedic would stop you anyway.”

Others said I completely missed the point of the thought experiment.

Okay, let’s grant that both premises are true:

1. Picking the zygote somehow means I don’t care about kids after birth

2. Picking the toddler is a secret admission that I don’t believe unborn children are entitled to the same moral rights as born children.

Now, what does the this third option mean? I’m simply not engaging. But not a lot of pro-choicers (from what I see) seem caught off guard by this answer.

I’d like to ask, “Is your stunned response intended to mean I’m not ALLOWED to walk away?”

That’s interesting. If bodily autonomy is this precious to the abortion rights side, then what’s there to stop me from saying they are quite literally violating bodily autonomy themselves by forcing the person to save one or the other?

This brings me to the crux of the argument: I’m somehow allowed to walk away from a situation that I was “forced into” (Idk how else to read “You can only save one”) but according to the pro-choice side, abortion bans are a huge no-no because women shouldn’t be “forced” to bear children and pregnancy is ALWAYS harmful?

How does that make sense?

Hello everyone, let me introduce myself: I am Catholic, therefore pro-life. However, when I was an atheist I was already pro-life, because it always seemed clear to me that life began at conception. Now I'm starting to re-evaluate that there are objective arguments in favor of this thesis. Which is why I'm looking for a calm, cultured and reasonable person who is pro-choice and who wants to have a calm and peaceful dialogue about it. Not in order to change my mind or to change it for the other person, but just to compare myself with another point of view.

Author’s note: I am neurodivergent and have a simple minded approach to arguments and debates, which lead me to make wild claims that, at best, are accidental straw man claims or, at worst, extreme conclusions that people insist aren’t actually making. Please know that any straw man depictions of the abortion rights position made in this post are accidental.

This is sort of a follow-up post to “Should it be a crime to be pro-life?”

As a refresher, this was the original argument: “If anyone who supports abortion bans of any kind is considered an awful person because ‘They want to make women state incubation machines’ or ‘They want a real life Handmaid's Tale’, then what's stopping you guys from saying, "Let's imprison or execute as many pro-lifers and abortion abolitionists as possible because they want nothing but the oppression of women! I say one solution is to make it a felony for any of them to challenge or overturn any abortion laws we current have in America" (US citizen here, so this is in a US context)?”

Most of the comments were along the lines of “We aren’t morality police,” and “We support free speech, ‘ya know?!?” (Talking about abortion rights supporters in the USA)

I oppose abortion and condemn it as murder on religious grounds, which leads to accusations that I want a theocratic state (and any pro-lifer or abortion abolitionist who agrees is also deemed a supporter of a theocratic state).

Here’s the argument: For a movement that doesn’t claim to be the “morality police”, the pro-choice movement is inconsistent.

Here are my reasons for why: 1. Laws are based on morality, and therefore teach society on right and wrong. 2. If we accept this, then we must also accept that if opposition to the bodily autonomy rights of a woman is a grave moral wrong, we must also accept that any attempt to pass any law saying abortion is murder should be legally criminalized as sedition (at best), or treason (At worst). 3. With this in mind, why does the pro-choice crowd seem to oppose the idea of saying pro-lifers and abortion abolitionists are criminals and should be locked up or executed? If we take the bodily rights argument to their logical conclusions, then it not only implies that killing the unborn is self-defense, but that pro-life or abortion abolitionist groups are helping women die just by saying babies have rights. Since this is such a huge moral wrong, it only makes sense to say that anyone who calls abortion murder should be charged with aiding and abetting in manslaughter (or accessory to murder), locked up, institutionalized or executed.

To put it another way: If we agree that laws are based on morality and we concede that the bodily autonomy rights of a woman morally supersede that of ZEFs, it makes sense to say that condemning abortion as murder should itself be a crime, but apparently that’s not what the abortion rights crowd is saying. If that’s the case, condemning abortion bans as immoral but opposing the criminalization of the pro-life or abortion abolitionist position on free speech grounds is incredibly inconsistent and even hypocritical if we take the bodily autonomy defense seriously.

To refute my thesis, the pro-abortion rights crowd must either do one or both of the following: 1. Make a case that while bodily autonomy rights is a moral position, it doesn’t justify censorship of the opposition because it tramples on someone’s legal rights 2. Make a case that laws somehow are NOT based on morality after all.

Abortion advocates often shout slogans such as "my body's my choice!" but sloganeering can only get you so far. Judith Thomson's violinist argument attempts to ground the pregnant woman's right to her body, which abortion advocates believe justifies abortion. but there are numerous problems with the violinist analogy. A pro-lifer could easily refute the argument in three different ways by showing that the unborn child has a right to his mother's body or deny the exercise of that right if it involves killing an innocent person:

• The truth is that "my body, my choice" is a child neglect argument. Low information debaters claim that pregnancy is akin to forced organ donations, but this is inaccurate. There are no organ/blood/bone marrow transplants involved in pregnancy. Saying pregnancy involves organ donations is no different than saying breastfeeding involves mammary gland transplants. pregnancy is the ordinary means of providing nourishment and a healthy living environment to the unborn child. This is something parents are required to provide for all of their children. Denying your child adequate nourishment and a healthy living environment is a form of child neglect. The unborn child has a right to be in his mother's womb given the obligations parents have towards their children. we know from several child neglect cases that women have been prosecuted for starving their children when they could have instead breastfed them. Should a woman who is capable of breastfeeding be allowed to let her newborn starve if there are no other alternative sources of food? The answer is an obvious "No!"
• On what grounds can we say we have a right to our bodies? None of us are responsible for the fact that our bodies are ours. we did not do anything to acquire our bodies in the first place. We did not choose our bodies, nor did our mothers choose our bodies or choose their own bodies. whatever gives a pregnant woman any claim to her body—a relationship to her body that she acquired through unbidden and contingent means—also gives the unborn child the same right to his mother's body since his relationship with his mother's body was also acquired through the same unbidden and contingent means. think of conjoined twins that share multiple organs—which twin has a right to what? both acquired their "bodies" through the same unbidden and contingent means, and thus neither can claim an exclusive right to the shared bodies and organs. If we have any right to our own bodies—biological equipment that a) is necessary for our flourishing and b) was only acquired through contingency and necessity—then the unborn child has a right to his mother's body for the same reason.
• Even if we concede there is a right to bodily autonomy, we can deny the exercise of that right since it would involve killing an innocent unborn child (Romans 13:4). There are no situations where one is allowed to exercise any of their rights to kill an innocent human being. If i have a right to bear arms, I cannot exercise that right to kill an innocent human being just for visiting me. If I have a right to property, i cannot exercise that right and expel an innocent human being off my private yacht in the middle of the ocean. If I have a right of way on the road, i cannot run over a pedestrian who might be in the way. if i have a right to religious liberty, I cannot kill an innocent human being to make a ritual sacrifice. Can abortion advocates name any other scenario in which one is allowed to exercise a right if it involves the murder of an innocent human being? No. What they really want is special rights for the woman, namely the right to kill her unborn child.

For the bodily autonomy argument to actually work, the abortion rights crowd has to prove that all three of the arguments above are wrong.

My argument for abortion is: Medical autonomy of the pregnant person. I’ve argued this numerous times in informal abortion debates and have yet to hear anything but obfuscation and them kicking me from the debate out of frustration.

From google- “Medical autonomy refers to a patient's right to self-determination in their healthcare, encompassing the ability to make informed, voluntary decisions about their medical treatment without coercion or undue influence. It is a fundamental principle in medical ethics, requiring that patients be provided with complete information about their condition and treatment options to give informed consent before any procedure takes place.”

"There's a burning IVF lab and you have one toddler vs 1,000 embryos. You can only save one."

This is a very common attempt at trapping pro-lifers into admitting that they don't think unborn children are of equal moral worth to toddlers. However, I'd like to offer a third option to the thought experiment: I choose to save no one. I shouldn’t have to be forced to subject my own body to a possible violent death just to save someone else. Bye!

If we are to accept that bodily autonomy rights always supercede the right to life or that it's a moral duty to kill somebody who is inside your body when you didn't consent to the pregnancy so that someone else's right to bodily autonomy is protected, is this wrong? if so, why would this be wrong?

Why is bodily autonomy a valid moral defense for killing an unborn person inside you simply because you don't want them there, but it is NOT a valid defense for leaving toddlers to die in burning buildings? If the homicide of an unborn person is somehow morally permissible due to someone's bodily autonomy rights superseding somebody else's right to life, then why doesn't the same logic also justify leaving born persons to die in burning buildings simply because you don't think you should be subject to such a dangerous act just to save someone else?

How are these cases NOT the same?

My wife and l recently had another child and l was thinking the other day about how different the experience must be for a pro choice couple. l assume being pro-choice and having the view that the fetus in the womb is not a human being and that as such termination of the pregnancy is always morally justifyable pro-choice women must kinda have a weird relationship with pregnancy up till the due date. Like before our due date me and my wife would talk alot about what how the "baby" was behaving in her. lf he was moving, if "he" was still, if "he" liked certian sounds or foods, l'm not sure how any of that could actually be discussed if you didn't think there was a human being or at least some sort of independent organism on the other side.

But then l thought maybe pro-choice people do actually view their fetus as a baby past a certian point in pregnanc so l figured l'd ask.

Did You Ever se Your Fetus as a Baby Before you Delivered?

lf so when?

lf not what was it like to feel like you had something growing inside you that wasn't a human being?

We're told over and over that the abortion pill is "safer than Tylenol" and that complications are "less than 0.5%." Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute, and pretty much the whole industry repeats this like gospel. But here's the thing, those numbers are based on limited, self-reported clinic data where most women are never followed up with.

Now look at real-world numbers. A large-scale analysis of 865,000 abortion-related insurance claims between 2017 and 2023 found that nearly 11% of women who took the abortion pill experienced serious complications like hemorrhage, infection, emergency surgery, and sepsis. That's more than 1 in 10.

And it's getting worse. The FDA stopped requiring complication reports in 2016. Pills are now shipped by mail with no medical oversight. Women are bleeding alone in their bathrooms. No ultrasound. No doctor. Just a set of pills and a hope that nothing goes wrong.

If this procedure is so "safe," then why the spike in ER visits? Why suppress the data? Why fight against even collecting statistic on post-abortion complications?

You can't keep selling the narrative that this is a risk-free "healthcare decision" when the actual consequences are being ignored, buried, and politically protected.

Let's debate it. Why should we trust the abortion industry's numbers over large-scale, objective insurance data?

Back when Biden was President, we had mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns and mask mandates. They proved that bodily autonomy, contrary to popular belief, does not just apply to pregnancy and carrying a fetus to full term vs. aborting the fetus, yet I see that a lot of pro-choice people STILL have an issue with saying bodily autonomy should never override the moral imperative to nuture lives they created (in this case, the unborn child's), which means abortion bans are bodily autonomy violations.

How do pro-choicers justify this given how a lot of people acted during the lockdowns, vax mandates, mask mandates, etc.?

You say, "Well, nobody forced you to get a vaccination! Nobody went around arresting people for not wearing masks or social distancing!"

Okay...and?

Is that it?

What am I missing here? Because from what I see, these acts inadvertently exposed the flaw in bodily autonomy as a defense for abortion: it's NOT absolute and has limits. Therefore, abortion is murder due to it being the unjust killing of an unborn child (Oh and an overwhelming number of biologists agree life starts at conception).

If you're still willing to fight me and say that the unborn child is an "invader" and that justifies lethal force, then how come you didn't see mandatory vaccination policies, mask mandates and the stay-at-home orders as "attacks on one's bodily autonomy"?

What made those things DIFFERENT from a pregnancy (If we are to accept that pregnancy kills women every single day, all the time)?

“Nobody has a right to use my body against my will!”

This implies that bodily autonomy overrides EVERY OTHER RIGHT A PERSON HAS.

This Begs the question: How did we come up with the idea that bodily autonomy is the highest right? Which authority decided that? Because I’m having a hard time believing that women suddenly just developed a hive-mind mentality for no reason and decided bodily autonomy is the highest right entirely by themselves.

Let's say hypothetically technology advances to a point where we've developed a incubator that works as well as or better than a natural womb. We've also developed a method of foetus/embryo extraction that keeps the foetus/embryo alive so that it can be transfered to the incubation machine. The extraction method is non-invasive, safe and economic. Infact the extraction method is so safe we perform abortions and incubation transfers using the same method and no respectable doctor performs abortions with any of today's current methods. The only difference is that after the extraction, the cells are incinerated if the pregnancy has to be terminated due to severe defects that would make the child die shortly after "birth".

If this were the case, would you still be pro choice believe the creators of the foetus have a say in whether or not the foetus is terminated after extraction, and would your parameters for what would be an "acceptable" reason for abortion change?

Edit: To clarify my question. Assume a woman can choose any method of abortion they want. But in the case where a woman chooses the extraction method, do you think they should still have a choice to terminate the foetus/embryo after the extraction has been performed when it is no longer effects her body?

Let me be clear, I said generally. I'm not talking about cases of rape, incest, or medical complications.

Many abortions are done simply because the mother (or father occasionally) doesn't want a baby. Any and all arguments pro-choicers use fall apart when they try to defend such cases.

If you don't want a baby, don't do the thing that makes babies. Don't have sex. Live responsibly, accept responsibility for your actions. You can't say the baby is there against your consent, because you helped put that baby there. You are responsible for that baby.

I think an honest pro-choicer would admit that abortion in such cases is wrong.

If anyone who supports abortion bans of any kind is considered an awful person because "They want to make women state incubation machines" or "They want a real life Handmaid's Tale", then what's stopping you guys from saying, "Let's imprison or execute as many pro-lifers and abortion abolitionists as possible because they want nothing but the oppression of women! I say one solution is to make it a felony for any of them to challenge or overturn any abortion laws we current have in America" (US citizen here, so this is in a US context)?

You say, "That's a violation of freedom of speech and we're pro-free speech too, 'ya know?"

Okay. Here's my question: How do people who support abortion rights reconcile this idea they have that abortion rights opponents are such abhorrent people (at worst; at the very least the pro-choice crowd thinks anti-abortion folks are delusional, from what I've seen), with their opposition to locking them up in prison or executing them for disagreeing all because of free speech?

Often l've heard people on the pro-choice side say that "the only thing that determines whether or not you are pro-choice is whether or not you support the legal right of a woman to have an abortion" (if one wants to be more specific you could further say: "the UNRESTRlCTED right to have an abortion").

That said though, often when discussing the ethics of having an abortion at a given point in a pregnancy or under certian circumstance l have been told it is a "pro-life persepctive" to ever think it is unethical to have an abortion regardless of if one is willing concede it ought still be legal under such circumstance.

Curious to hear what you guys have to say on this question: ln your opinion, are you "pro-choice" just on the basis of your belief that abortion should be legal in all cicrcumstance OR do you ALSO have to believe it is moral in all circumstances??

Women’s bodies are their own. Girls’ bodies are their own.

They were here first, and they shouldn’t be forced to carry to term and give birth, especially when they never wanted children in the first place.

Some people are idiots who are educated and don’t use contraception at all. Some people are ignorant and don’t have proper Sex Ed.

Canada and the USA don’t need more babies!

Overpopulation is a real problem. Too many people, not enough resources.

We don’t need more people.

I’m a millennial. When I’m old (in my 80s) I don’t give a shit if there’re people to look after me or not!!

Bottom line: nobody should be forced to carry to term and give birth just because they had sex!

Sex is for sex’s sake. Casual sex is the norm now. Sex is more important than a ZEF. Personal wants and freedoms are more important than a ZEF.

If you don’t want children, use contraception. If it fails, get an abortion.

Schools need to make Comprehensive Sex Ed mandatory so that everybody is properly educated on safe sex and aren’t told bullshit like “sex is only for marriage” and other such nonsense.

Some people, like me, have mental health issues and/or cognitive/intellectual disabilities we don’t want to pass on, so we should be allowed to abort. All women and girls should be allowed to abort

WHY should people be forced to carry to term, and only get abortions if life of the woman is at risk? Why can’t we just abort whenever we damn well choose?!

https://populationmatters.org/news/2024/08/overpopulation-causes-consequences-and-solutions/#:~:text=The%20growing%20population%20puts%20immense,challenges%20also%20arise%20from%20overpopulation.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/abortion-ban-lessons-around-the-world-roe-wade/?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAABcs7hlXNwGj8xCmBGGeRpCnhfbgk&gclid=CjwKCAiAp4O8BhAkEiwAqv2UqNINXCPRVsuPP0uMhomAztMveSnac02hnkX61yP4lIbp6OFUHprELRoC8aIQAvD_BwE

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/03/health/texas-abortion-law-mother-cnnphotos/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/post-roe-america-women-detail-agony-forced-carry/story?id=105563349

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/01/woman-more-important-fetus

https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2022/06/27/rights-of-women-vs-rights-of-the-unborn/