This abortion propaganda has been shared over 100,000 times, and needs answering properly. Wherever you see it, put the link to this post in the comments, then watch the death cult rage.

You can enjoy more Good Sauce articles and shows by subscribing to the Good Sauce podcast on Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon and more. Please take a minute to help us reach more people by giving us a 5 star rating and review in Apple Podcasts.

There’s a pro-abortion social media post that’s been shared tens of thousands of times that says, “I’m not pro-murdering babies. I’m pro-Becky. I’m pro-Susan. I’m pro-Theresa, Cathy, Melissa, Brittany, Emily,” and other hypothetical women it lists.

And after each name it gives a hypothetical scenario in which the anonymous propagandist writing describes a circumstance in which he or she believes murdering that woman’s baby IS something they are pro.

The propagandist concludes that she is pro life, but then hastens to clarify they are only pro some lives, clearly not the lives of babies, but just Jessica, Vanessa, Lindsay, Courtney, Jamie and the other hypothetical women facing perhaps the worst day of their lives.

The propagandist concludes with claims she cannot consistently apply. She says we “don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted,” that it’s not about the few situations we disagree with, but the choice being available to women whose stories we do agree justify intentionally murdering babies.

The propagandist claims women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation. Except that means that the woman’s alleged right to make an arbitrary choice to kill her preborn baby girl immediately violates another woman’s right to not be murdered, which most normal people agree is an important one.

Perhaps the propagandist means women’s rights are for all women regardless of their situation unless their situation is a womb, in which case not that that situation. That woman has no right to women’s rights because her situation is one pro-abortionists apparently DO get to pick and choose does not deserve women’s rights.

The clearly pro-murdering babies propagandist is not pro Phoebe, Zoe, Angela or the at least 30 million other female babies I could name which have been murdered in the situation she has picked where women’s rights do not protect ALL women.

The propagandist has proven she really does believe society encounters competing rights which have to be resolved through a philosophical belief system and an ethical framework to inform which rights have precedent and priority in certain situations.

Her ethical system is the radical pro abortion philosophy, which doesn’t debate the biological fact that every human life began at fertilisation, but doesn’t care that their choice will deliberately kill an innocent living human.

This social media post doing the rounds is actually a desperate and willfully ignorant attempt to rationalise murdering babies, a fact the propagandist denied in her opening line.

So having demolished the propagandist’s claim to sincerity, compassion, or logical coherence, let’s have a look at each situation proposed where she says she’s pro murdering babies.

𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘳 20 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘴.

First, let’s get one thing straight. The one thing anti-abortion activists like me have a problem with is elective abortion procedures where the preferred outcome is a dead baby. Abortion as contraception is a horrifically barbaric prioritisation of adult desires for sex without consequences. You explicitly gave your consent to the possibility of pregnancy when you had intercourse knowing it could result in pregnancy, however small you felt the chance was. Killing your baby because you would prefer to not be pregnant is the moral bankruptcy people like me are opposed to.

What’s happening to Becky is horrible, and deserves compassion. She should be informed of the high rate at which doctors misdiagnose congenital conditions and a perfectly healthy baby is born. One of my kids is one such person, now finishing high school in perfect health. If we had’ve followed medical advice with an early diagnosis we would have killed him before he was born, devastating his whole family and robbing the world of his contribution.

Of course, genuine congenital conditions happen, perhaps far more often than doctors get it wrong, and live mere hours after delivery. The opportunity for Becky to have precious hours of life with her daughter, to hold her, name her, maybe put the tiny baby clothes on her bought long ago, then comfort her as she passes is a heart-wrenchingly beautiful moment Becky and her baby deserve.

It is a perverse morality that devalues a life of suffering from a life of privilege. Millions of people have been inspired, motivated and genuinely helped by people born with no arms or legs which pro-abortionists would have excused the prenatal murder of.

𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳.

Executing a child for the crime of her father is not justice. Blaming the victim is something the pro-abortionists would rightfully decry as shameful if Susan was asked any questions about what she was wearing or the risks she was taking, but they happily rationalise another violent crime being committed against the new living human existing in the safety of her womb.

Susan’s trauma will not be diminished by the death of her baby. Most women who conceive in rape want to keep their baby. Having had their sense of personal power violated and destroyed by the criminal, they often find a new sense of ability to protect their baby they can’t recover any other way. That is the undeniable mothering instinct which, if shattered by abortion, is just another trauma and violation she will bear for the rest of her life.

And even if, in her mental anguish and suffering, Susan might make the choice to have an abortion, it can hardly be claimed her decision-making ability was not impaired beyong the possibility of informed consent, with full appreciation of the potential for exacerbation of her existing trauma the choice was intended to avoid.

Objectively speaking, pro-abortionists “other” preborn people, and devalue their worth, dignity and human rights. They claim Susan’s potential suffering when reminded of her baby’s conception is greater than her baby’s suffering when executed by an abortionist.

It’s a preposterous claim pro-abortionists frequently assert, that it’s better to be killed than to experience suffering. Such a claim reeks of power and privilege. The post-modern, cultish obsession with abortion and euthanasia “rights” are an affluent Western indulgence; one which most of world history and modern developing nations would reject when told their existence is insufferable and death would be preferable to relative poverty, abuse or anguish. Billions of people throughout history have fought and struggled and continue to eek out an existence facing insurmountable odds, persevering while the tiny flame of hope continues to flicker. Killing them isn’t helping them. Death isn’t therapy.

𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘩𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘳𝘶𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥.

This is just a nonsense. For a start, the family would never be given this option. Basic triage would dictate the medical professionals save the mother if at all possible, and the baby would then be given whatever medical assistance a premmie baby with full dignity and human rights deserves, and no anti-abortion activist would argue if the necessary actions couldn’t save the baby. Intentions matter. Pro-life is not anti-triage.

L𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘳 11 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘭.

Again, triage. A tragedy has happened, and it is not solved by radical pro-abortion intentions. Doctors will not risk Cathy’s life, and pro-lifers will not argue.

But as a percentage, how many abortions are conducted each year in your affluent, Western nation, where this is the story? This is disgusting appropriation of incredible suffering for radical abortion-on-demand agendas. If they were only opposed to banning abortions in situations like this they might be taken seriously, because situations really do matter.

If someone comes into my house, cannot be reasoned with, and intends to kill my family or me, I will use reasonable force to stop him. If he accidentally dies in the struggle, that was not my intent, and I am not guilty of murder, and that is coherently pro-life.

What radical pro-abortion activists want is the right to abortion on demand, knowing full well an innocent living human is being murdered on purpose as the intended outcome. They don’t care about Cathy at all, and are just shamelessly exploiting her to rationalise the fact they really are pro-murdering babies.

𝘔𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘫𝘰𝘣𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳.

I mean, this one’s not even hard. Melissa: you’re pregnant. You can’t say you’re not ready to have kids. You can’t say you didn’t know sex sometimes makes babies. You live in a world with many, many, many people who are willing to help you and if you really don’t want that baby, raise and care for her for you. I don’t think you want the right to murder your baby. I think you want support to make sure they are safe, sheltered, clothed, fed and educated. Let’s take murder off the table as a no-brainer, and not attempt to rationalise it with potential suffering if society fails you in all other solutions. You have no idea what tomorrow holds, and certainly cannot know your new baby has no hope for all the basics you hope she will have.

Of course communities and congregations all need to take a long hard look at how we are promoting and supporting mothers and giving hope to abortion-vulnerable women amongst us, but that is never a valid argument for murdering babies.

𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥.

This is nearly the same as above. Brittany, high school sex education by woke leftists failed you. They should have taught you and your baby’s father that sex can make babies, and if you’re not financially, emotionally or physically ready to raise a child, then you’re not ready to have sex.

And again, the failure of families, congregations and communities to pre-emptively promise people who are abortion-vulnerable that they will not be alone or unsupported is not a valid argument for killing their babies.

Brittany, you’re not the first scared mother-to-be, and you won’t be the last. Your baby is real, alive, has a beating heart, unique DNA, and is a new living human. You will forever regret killing him if you make that choice. You can still graduate high school, college and have a fulfilling career at the same time as being a wonderful mother to him. You can do this. You really can. You’re not alone, you don’t have to do this alone, and there are many people who want to help you and support you to be the best mother you can be, and that is all he really needs from you – just your best.

𝘌𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘐𝘝𝘍, 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘚𝘐𝘟 𝘷𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘨𝘨𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘚𝘈𝘍𝘌 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴.

96% of biologists agree every human life starts at fertilisation. The other 4% are lying because of their radical pro abortion politics. The only SAFE way to have IVF is to not create any more human lives than you can safely carry to term. Every deliberately destroyed embryo is a unique living human already with unique DNA very clearly not the mother’s body. None of them think selective reduction is safe.

𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘍𝘐𝘕𝘈𝘓𝘓𝘠 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳’𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥.

Here we go again, radical pro-aboriton activists othering a powerless, innocent victim, calling them a “monster’s child”, and blaming the victim. Jessica needs help, not harm. Don’t fail Jessica. Support her and her baby to be safe, sheltered, clothed and fed. The monster who physically abused her is half the sociopathic evil of the monsters rationalising the murder of her baby based on someone else’s crimes.

𝘝𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘠𝘌𝘈𝘙𝘚 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘵.

If the baby is already dead there is no direct abortion. Yes, it’s technically the same procedure, but no, it’s a vastly different intent. There is no intent to murder a baby. No anti-abortion activist like me would deny Vanessa the medical care necessary to avoid scepsis or other complications once the baby is confirmed already dead.

𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘵𝘦𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳.

Lindsay, I’m sorry high school sex education by woke leftists failed you. They should have taught you and your baby’s father that even sex with condoms and the pill can make babies, and if you’re not financially, emotionally or physically ready to raise a child, then you’re not ready to have sex.

You’re not the first scared mother-to-be, and you won’t be the last – just ask Brittany. You can still graduate high school, college and have a fulfilling career at the same time as being a wonderful mother to him.

Your teenage years won’t be the same as your friends, but they won’t be worse: just different. You are no longer the centre of your world, your baby is. Most of your friends will adore him, and many will change their plans to include and consider you and him.

And when they don’t, understand they weren’t forever friends anyway, unlike this bundle of joy you will spend the rest of your life loving. Anyone who truly loves you will warn you that you will spend the rest of your life regretting killing your first baby, and those are your real choices.

𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 13 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘨𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘰 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘥𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨.

Yet again, a vastly different intent. There is no intent to murder a baby. No anti-abortion activist like me would deny Courtney the medical care necessary to solve an indisputable and immediate probability of fatality.

𝘑𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘍𝘈𝘉 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘥𝘺𝘴𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘺𝘴𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢.

Jaime wasn’t assigned female at birth. That is propaganda. Jaime was observed female at birth. That’s science. The big clue is she can get pregnant. She’s at a significantly higher risk of suicide because she’s suffering a mental health condition that needs both authentic compassion and honesty, neither of which she will ever get from a woke leftist pro-abortion activist. Virtue signalling in buckets, but no honesty. Without an accurate diagnosis Jaime cannot be helped effectively. The emotional trauma of killing her baby will exacerbate her mental health symptoms, not mitigate them.

Post-abortion syndrome was widely recognised and treated until DSM4, when it was censored from science. Despite activist claims to the contrary, there are now at least 24 published studies linking abortion trauma to substance abuse, and more research linking abortion to psychiatric illness, depression, PTSD, relationship problems, domestic violence and premature death through suicide, accidents, homicide and natural causes. It’s a trauma pro-abortion activists have perpetuated a stigma of making it harder to find recognition, therapy and support for.

Jaime needs real help, not platitudes and patronising.

The propagandist who wrote this verbal diarrhea has mastered the art of manipulative rhetoric devoid of all facts and logic to a level the most genocidal of historical regimes would find a position for.

In this modern era with such advances in both science and human rights advocacy, there are only two main reasons someone is still pro-abortion.

The first is that they have been sheltered by progressive curriculum in government indoctrination centres previously called schools from what 96% of biologists can honestly observe, and that is that your life, and that of everyone you know, began at the precise moment your daddy’s sperm won the race to your mamma’s ovum. Human life begins at fertilisation. That’s not philosophy or faith or politics. That’s observable, empirical, repeatable science. Abortion-on-demand is always the deliberate killing of a living human being.

The second reason someone might still be as backward as a pro-slavery activist is that they know full well they are talking about a second, unique living human being’s life and death, and they just don’t care.

They have relegated an entire class of people to mere property; possessions belonging to someone more powerful and privileged, and able to be killed for whatever arbitrary reason the owner decides is good enough. These are the radicals, the apologists for a barbaric industry that, in America alone over the last 50 years, has killed 10 times more people than Hitler. And they don’t even feel any shame.

If you are pro-abortion, you are as certainly on the wrong side of history as the Supreme Court was when they ruled in favour of slavery as a constitutional right. If you are silent about the evil human rights violations of the abortion industry, you are as complicit as the people watching the smoke rise and the ash fall from the extermination chambers in 1940s Germany, who said nothing.

Neither science nor legal precedents nor history can be called as witnesses to support the claim to a right to murder babies.

My generation will end abortion.

Deconstructing ScoMo

Be part of the solution

This content is produced and published without censorship or paywall by the team at The Good Sauce, thanks to the Good Sauce Supporters. If you’d like to be part of the solution by helping us produce more truthful content like this, become a Good Sauce supporter today.

Dave Pellowe is a Christian conservative writer & commentator, editor of The Good Sauce, and convener of the annual Church And State Summit. He believes in natural law & freedoms, objective Truth & justice, personal responsibility & voluntary charity, strong nations & families, free markets & small government. Dave's show, "Pellowe Talk", offers honest insights on important public issues & ideas, as well as informative long-form interviews with experts and insiders. Many of Dave's articles are syndicated across Australia and New Zealand. [more]


Big Tech are literally censoring the facts they don't want you to know, like expert criticism of Covid policies and US election irregularities:

Beat the censors & get unapproved facts, opinions & expert interviews direct to your inbox: SUBSCRIBE NOW!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This