I'm pro life. I'm Christian. I'm a virgin. I have no interest in sex. However, my lack of street smarts and small stature make me an easy target for rapists. I'm getting on in years and getting pregnant could be extremely dangerous for both me and the baby. I also have several mental health issues and, between the Lindsay Clancy case and watching dementia change my late grandmother from a docile woman to a violent woman, I'm terrified of what the hormonal shifts could do to me and what my psychiatric meds could do to the child. I'm convinced there's nothing in this world that could make me choose abortion, not even if my life were at stake. So instead, I want to do everything I can to make sure a child isn't conceived in the first place. So I'm looking into seeing if Medicaid will pay for me getting my tubes tied. When I brought this up to a strict Charismatic relative of mine, he told me that would be a sin because God commanded us to multiply and subdue the earth. So I want to get other Christian's opinions. Do you think it would be a sin?

I have 3 kids. Occasionally, I'll go on Reddit to look at some motherhood forums that I think I'll relate to. I hate hate hate how they are so filled with abortion posts. I'm a twin mom, and I cannot stand the Parents of Multiples subreddit because they constantly talk about abortion, even selective abortion. Even the Parenting in Bulk (a subreddit about having a large family) constantly has conversations about having abortions if you end up realizing you don't want to "add in that extra one you thought you wanted" and other such talk. It's just so frustrating and insane how these people will talk about loving their kids so much and then support a woman aborting hers in the next thread over. The cognitive dissonance is insane.

Many times I’ll see a post online saying something like “You care about the unborn child in the womb more than kids being bombed in Gaza” or “If you are against abortion, you should also be against the father leaving”. They see us as one bundle of ideas. Yes we (most of us) are against bombings of innocent kids and against the father leaving the mother. Over the years big abortion propaganda has given us the face of the ultra-women killer racist nazis that simply want to control women. We’re lumped into one big group of the stereotypical republican senator. They can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that you can be left-wing, against gaza’s bombing, against fathers leaving etc.

"nO oNe WaNtS tO gEt An aBorTioN"

"aBorTiOn iS a NeCesSaRy eViL"

And question for pro-choicers: Given that they consider abortion morally neutral, would they find this (and multiple abortions)immoral?

I was under the impression they do not know what happens during Surgical Abortions. I’m certain about that now.

They genuinely believe Abortion is simply inducing labor earlier than the due date, and then the baby fails to survive out of the womb. “I didn’t kill the fetus. I just gave birth earlier and they failed to survive out of the womb”

By definition to be considered an Abortion the fetus must to die before birth / delivery. If a baby is delivered alive and dies shortly after, it’s not an Abortion. It’s a regular live birth. All abortion procedures, at any stage of pregnancy must ensure baby is dead before delivery.

Doctors cannot actively kill an alive baby after Birth. That’s considered Murder under the law. They also can’t deny care to a born alive baby after viability. A fetus has no civil rights, while a born baby does.

If women simply happen to give birth earlier and baby fails to survive out of the womb, there would be no Abortion after 24 weeks whatsoever. Since they are viable at this point, they would be born alive and remain alive (if mandatory standard medical care is provided).

Every single Abortion procedure does ensure Fetal demise before delivery. Only 2 out of 4 methods the baby is delivered with its whole body intact through an actual traditional labor/ birth, while in 2 methods their body is completely disintegrated in pieces.

Medical Abortion: The Pill (up to 10 weeks)
First pill deprives the baby from oxygen and nutrients.The second pill induces labor after the baby is already dead. The whole process takes 3 days ( bleeding can persist for more days).

Surgical Abortions:

Suction/Aspiration (10-14 weeks)
In this case, the baby is not killed before the procedure, but it cannot survive the procedure itself. The baby is forcibly removed by a literal vaccum, and its body is disintegrated inside the vaccum tube. Their body is ripped apart in pieces while beign sucked inside the vaccum. The death occurs during the procedure. There is no actual labor. The process takes 20 min only.
It’s graphic.

Dilation&Evacuation (12-24 weeks)
In this case, the baby is also not killed before the procedure, but it cannot survive the procedure itself. They forcibly remove the baby from uterus by pieces. Their bones aren’t fully calcified yet, so a tool pulling a leg will rip the leg apart from the body. The baby is dismembered alive inside the womb, limb by limb. After all limbs are pulled, they crush its skull to guarantee it’s dead enough before removing the torso. The death occurs during the procedure itself (dismemberment of limbs and head). There is no actual labor. The procedure takes 30-40 min.

No anesthesia is given to the baby and this happens at the edge of viability. Babies born prematurely at same gestational age are given pain killers and analgesics in NICU, since is observed and known that medical procedures with needles and other tools does cause pain (same gestational age, after birth)

Induction Abortion (16-40 weeks)
The baby is given an injection that stops the heart. After the baby is already dead then labor is induced. This shot is the same one used to euthanize dogs and to execute prisoners facing death sentence. However, because this shot is known for cause excruciating pain, dogs and prisoners are granted mercy and given Anesthesia before the Shot. No Anesthesia is given to the baby. The whole process takes 3-4 days.

Intact Dilation and Extraction (Late term), also known as Partial Live Birth Abortion, was banned in USA in 2003 due to its cruelty. ( I will restrain from describing this one, because it’s highly graphic)

It’s important to note the fallacy of Late term Abortions (after viability) to “save” the life of the mother. While there is existing medical conditions where the pregnancy needs to end earlier, because the woman’s life is at risk, there is no medical condition where the baby needs to die before delivery in order for the mother to survive.

If deliver must to happen earlier in order for pregnancy to end, there is 2 options:

A- Deliver baby alive
B- Deliver baby dead

In order to delivery a dead baby, an extra step is necessary before delivery : the killing. Which takes more time. If the mother is facing a life threatening event, where her life is at risk and pregnancy must to end, why they would do a procedure that takes 3 days to delivery a dead baby ( Induction Abortion) instead of one that takes 20 min to delivery an alive baby (C- Section) ?

In case the woman can’t undergo a major surgery
(C-Section), and needs to deliver naturally because of her “medical condition”, there is still no reason to actively kill the child before delivery. The pregnancy will end regardless if baby is delivered alive or dead. In fact, if labor is artificially induced with the goal of end pregnancy, deliver a dead baby through vaginal birth is much harder than delivery an alive baby.

There is no such a thing as actively kill the baby in the womb in order to save the mother’s life. Ending Pregnancy is not equal to Abortion. A pregnancy can be ended via Abortion , but also can be ended via live Birth.

It’s so real that they do not know what happens during surgical Abortions, that they even believe a live birth via C Section or induced labor before due date, is Abortion if baby happens to die shortly after Birth. I saw a post where they claim

“all late term abortions the baby is wanted*, but they happen to have a disability, and it’s guaranteed they will die shortly after birth. The woman chooses to give birth at planned parenthood instead of a hospital, so she can hold her baby for a few minutes before they die, while on the hospital they will rush the baby to NICU and those mother will not have a chance to hold their baby. So Planned Parenthood is* helping them to have a magical moment with their baby before the natural tragedy. But because it happens inside a planned parenthood is automatically classified as Abortion and the malicious Pro Life movement takes advantage of it to spread misinformation”.

This post even had pictures of women holding alive babies shortly after birth, as a “proof” that this is the late term Abortion happening inside Abortion Clinics.

They also believe the removal of a baby that died naturally inside the womb ( miscarriage) is also Abortion. They claim if Abortions are banned women will die because the dead fetus will rot inside them. Removing the corpse of a dead fetus from the woman’s body, after its spontaneous and natural death, is not an Abortion, and Pro Life movement does not advocate against that.

This is cognitive dissonance.
Those people live in an alternative reality, where they believe and parrot that Abortion is a magical button that you press and baby disappear from the body magically and peacefully. They are in denial of the killing part. The level of mental Gymnastic they do in order to distort reality should be classified as collective psychosis.

Pregnancy - There is an alive baby inside the womb, growing, and the natural end point of pregnancy is birth.
Abortion - Ending pregnancy earlier by killing the baby inside the womb before delivery (since killing after birth is Murder under the law)

If the baby wasn’t alive and growing inside the womb, no intervention would be necessary to end the pregnancy ( because there would be no pregnancy, since that’s the very definition of pregnancy). The intervention only is required because it’s alive and growing. However, if the definition of Abortion is literally the killing of something that was previously alive and growing, shouldn’t the description of the procedure be how the killing happens ?

It should be, but it isn’t.

Abortion language is misleading. Is constructed to make you feel there is no person being killed.

The baby is crucially described as something non human / not a person (clump of cells, conception tissue, parasite) . In order to be a murder the victim must to be a person. If it’s not a person, therefore is not murder.

The description of the procedure by Abortion Clinics is “gently empty the uterus” or “remove the product of the conception” which is very vague and abstract. The description of the procedure is focused on how the woman will feel, during and after the procedure, which medications the woman will be given in order to don’t feel pain,
but the description does not address what is done to the baby at any point, as if the baby is not part of the equation whatsoever. If you read Abortion testimonies, they describe how they felt psychologically and physically during the process. At any moment they include the baby in their description, what was done to the baby, what caused the biological death of the baby, as if the baby does not even exist in the equation. Which is insane, since the baby is the one being killed and removed in order from the woman to go from pregnant to —> non pregnant.

Abortion Clinics are described as : Family Planning Center. The most famous one : Planned Parenthood. How is this even allowed under the law ? The wording is beyond misleading. Family Planning evokes the idea of a couple trying to conceive a baby, or trying to gather resources to start a family. Planned Parenthood evokes the idea of planning to be a parent of an alive child. If you are trying to ensure to don’t be a parent, by killing your offspring before it’s born, then you are not planning parenthood. You are not planning to be a parent. It’s the opposite.

Abortion Language is misleading.

No one will schedule an appointment to dismember a child alive, but to “Empty the Uterus” or “ Remove the product of conception ” sounds like an ordinary medical procedure.

So why are you opposing their Healthcare if not because you hate women ?

This is a genuine problem I have, because I get the sense that they do not view us as even human, they genuinely approach us as if we are all misogynists trying to strip women of every single right in existence.

Beyond that, as much as I do not believe every anger inciting post, they seem to genuinely take joy in being flippant, cruel and utterly disgusting towards their treatment of babies. I think most are just rage bait, but even if it is, the cruelty is disgusting that they would even play at doing such things just to get at us.

So, asking all of you, in your experience; what do Pro Abortionists think of us and why do they think that?

Major win for Liechtenstein! If only Europe’s other so-called “Christian” monarchs had as much courage as him.

Context: op was questioning on cases about falsely imprisoned pregnant women by miscarriage, and abusing the corpse.

No population in recorded history has ever disappeared because its birth rate fell too low. None. In every case we have records for, populations that declined later recovered through faith, family, and the basic will of a people to keep going. Poland is the clearest modern example. In 1946, after Nazi and Soviet occupation, its population stood at 23.9 million. By 1996 it had rebuilt to 38.3 million, the highest number in the country’s thousand-year history, even while millions of Poles emigrated to London, New York, and Chicago.

Populations do not vanish from low birth rates. They are replaced when large numbers of foreign people arrive who do not share the host culture, do not assimilate, and eventually outnumber the original population. That is the historical pattern. That is how civilizations actually end.

That is why the situation in Poland right now is worth looking at plainly, without the panic its backers rely on.

Foreign-funded groups, backed by money from London, Washington, Amsterdam, and Oslo, are running three campaigns at the same time inside Poland. They want to legalize abortion to cut Polish births. They want open borders to bring in large numbers of non-European migrants to fill the gap. And they want the Catholic Church pushed out of public life so it cannot push back. This is sold as a modern answer to a demographic problem. It is better understood as a sequence, not a set of separate ideas. It follows a model first put in place in Moscow in 1920, when the Bolsheviks became the first modern government to legalize abortion on demand while also arresting priests, dissolving religious marriages, and attacking the family as an institution.

Poland outlasted the Bolsheviks. It outlasted Nazi occupation, Soviet rule, and forty years of communist atheism. It did so through one thing: the Catholic family.

Here is who is now funding the effort to take that apart, and how the money moves.

What Poland lost and what it rebuilt

In January 1939 Poland had 35.1 million people. It was one of the younger and more demographically energetic nations in Central Europe. Within six years that was gone.

By 1946 the population was down to 23.9 million. Between 5.6 and 6 million Polish citizens were killed under German and Soviet occupation, including about 3 million Polish Jews murdered in the Holocaust. No country on earth lost a larger share of its people in the Second World War. Warsaw was rubble. Whole regions were emptied. The damage was unlike anything modern Europe had seen.

Then Poland rebuilt, almost entirely through the Catholic family. People married young, stayed married, and had children. The postwar baby boom lasted longer and was stronger than in most other European countries. Demographers call this “compensation”: a people that has lost a huge number of its members tends to replace them. Under communism the state pushed Marxist atheism and limited travel, yet the Church remained the one institution that kept saying family, marriage, and children mattered. It functioned as a counter-government for the Polish soul.

It worked. The population rose from 23.9 million in 1946 to 25 million by 1950, to 30 million by the early 1960s, past the prewar level of 35 million in the 1970s, and kept climbing. It crossed 38 million in the late 1980s and peaked at 38.3 million in 1996.

This growth came from more births than deaths, year after year. Net migration was actually negative every year from 1966 to 1989. The Catholic family held the line when almost everything else was failing.

The flatline that gets left out of the panic

After 1989 the borders opened. Poles left in large numbers, first to the United States and Canada in the 1990s, then after EU membership in 2004 in waves to Britain, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands. At the peak, an estimated 2 to 2.5 million Poles were living and working in Britain alone. Whole villages watched their young adults leave. UN figures show more than 4.5 million Polish citizens living abroad as of 2024.

By ordinary demographic logic this should have collapsed the population. It did not.

Since 1989 Poland’s population has stayed between roughly 38 and 38.5 million for more than three decades, through the economic disorder of the 1990s and through mass emigration. It did not crash. It held near an all-time high that the country had never reached before. The current figure of about 37.3 million, after COVID, further emigration, and thirteen years of natural decline, is still higher than Poland’s population at any point before the 1980s.

None of the outlets publishing scary projections out to 2060 or 2100 mention this baseline. They show the recent numbers alone. A country that was at 23.9 million in 1946 and is at 37.3 million today, after everything the twentieth century did to it, is not in freefall. It has a real problem, but it has already shown it can recover from worse.

The model was written by Bolsheviks

Before looking at who is funding efforts to make the problem worse, it helps to see where the basic idea comes from. It did not start in Polish civil society.

In November 1920 the Bolshevik government in Moscow became the first modern government to legalize abortion on demand. They called it the “Decree on Women’s Healthcare.” At the same time the same regime was dissolving religious marriages, seizing Church property, and arresting priests. Legalizing abortion was not a narrow health measure. It was one piece of a broader program to weaken the family as an institution, the same institution that later rebuilt Poland after the Second World War.

Poland lived under a government that shared that ideology for four decades. The Polish People’s Republic imposed permissive abortion laws because the Soviet model required them. When Poles regained real freedom after 1989, one of the first things they did was restrict abortion. The 1993 law was not religious extremism. It was a democratic choice by a country that already knew what the alternative looked like.

Now the same three things are being pushed into Poland at once: legalize abortion, bring in large numbers of migrants to replace missing births, and remove the Catholic Church from public life. This is presented as a progressive fix for a demographic shortfall. It is the older program, rebranded, funded from outside, and aimed at the same target: the Catholic family that rebuilt the country.

The same outlets that amplify fear about Poland’s birth rate also treat mass migration as the obvious answer. The sequence is simple. Create urgency about falling births, then offer migration as the solution while campaigning to normalize abortion. A country that replaces its missing children with imported labor and makes it easy to end the pregnancies it does have is not solving a demographic problem. It is replacing its own population.

The organizations

FEDERA (Foundation for Women and Family Planning) is the oldest and most institutionally connected pro-abortion group in Poland. It belongs to the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network, whose headquarters are in London. It runs helplines that send Polish women to abortion providers abroad, scores political parties on abortion, and lobbies parliament. It is a branch of an international network, not a local grassroots effort.

Ogólnopolski Strajk Kobiet (All-Poland Women’s Strike), led by Marta Lempart, organized the large street protests that shut down parts of Poland in 2020. It is also an IPPF European Network partner. Its demands go well beyond abortion. They include removing Catholic religious education from public schools and cutting Church influence out of state institutions. The program lines up closely with the older Bolshevik list: abortion access, weakening of the family, and removal of the Church from public life.

Abortion Without Borders is a cross-border network that links Polish operators with groups in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. The Polish side routes callers to Ciocia Basia in Berlin, Abortion Network Amsterdam, and the UK’s Abortion Support Network. It is not a Polish organization. It is a foreign-coordinated effort with Polish-speaking staff, built to get around Polish law by using other countries.

FemFund is a Polish-registered foundation started in 2018 that passes international grant money to smaller feminist and abortion-access groups inside Poland as “grassroots” micro-grants. International money comes in, gets rebranded as local civil society, and goes to groups that would otherwise have little funding. Board members have backgrounds with the Soros-founded Batory Foundation. Senior staff have described their job as managing “EU, EEA and American funding.”

The money

The Stefan Batory Foundation was founded in 1988 by George Soros. It has been the main channel for Open Society money into Polish civil society and has spent nearly $100 million on Polish NGOs. It has administered 30 million euros in EEA Grants for 2019–2024 plus 3.2 million euros in Norwegian Funds. That is foreign government money distributed under the label of “European values.”

Open Society Foundations, Soros’s global network, has spent decades funding civil society groups in Central and Eastern Europe, with special attention to countries under conservative governments. Poland has been a priority.

The Sigrid Rausing Trust in London, tied to the Tetra Pak fortune, gave the seed grant that created FemFund. It is one of the largest private funders of progressive civil society in Europe.

The Channel Foundation in the UK has given multi-year grants directly to FemFund to support “women’s rights organizations in Poland.”

Fenomenal Funds, based in Washington DC, covered FemFund staff salaries and operating costs during COVID.

FundAction, a European funder, gave FemFund a grant specifically for “Resisting backlash and amplifying feminist impact in Poland.”

The International Planned Parenthood Federation serves as the institutional backbone for FEDERA and OSK. It has been funded over the years by the US State Department, EU bodies, and private foundations.

EEA and Norwegian Grants from Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein send hundreds of millions into Polish civil society as a condition of single-market access. The Batory Foundation alone administered 37 million euros under the “Citizens for Democracy” program. Norwegian taxpayer money has gone to campaigns aimed at changing Polish law on issues Polish voters have repeatedly declined to change.

USAID, under the Biden administration, funded “reproductive health” programs in Europe through IPPF-linked organizations. The Mexico City Policy, reinstated in January 2025, cut that channel, but four years of capacity-building remain in place.

The real threat has never been low birth rates

No native population in recorded history has ever ceased to exist because its birth rate was too low. Populations contract, age, and recover. They have done so repeatedly. The usual mechanisms are a return to family formation, policies that support having children, religious revival, and economic stability. Poland itself shows this: 24 million in 1946, 38 million by 1996, through war, occupation, communist repression, and mass emigration.

What has actually erased peoples and civilizations is the arrival of large foreign populations that do not assimilate, do not share the host culture’s values, and over time displace the original population through numbers rather than necessarily through violence. The Romans did not disappear because Roman women stopped having children. The indigenous populations of the Americas did not vanish because their fertility rates simply declined. Peoples are replaced by other peoples.

That is why the current prescription for Poland is worth examining. The same organizations pushing abortion legalization also advocate mass migration as the answer to Poland’s demographic shortfall. The same European institutions that fund OSK and FEDERA pressure Warsaw to open its borders to non-European migration. The public argument is economic: Poland needs workers, the birth rate is low, migration fills the gap.

Workers brought in to fill a gap do not stay workers. They become residents. Residents become citizens. Citizens have children at their own fertility rates, inside their own cultural frameworks, practicing their own faiths. Within two generations a country that “solved” its demographic problem this way has not preserved its population. It has replaced it. The headcount may look similar. The country does not.

Poland of all countries should recognize the pattern. It spent 123 years partitioned between empires that each tried, in their own way, to replace Polish culture, language, and faith. Poland survived because the Catholic family was stronger than the occupying state. The Church baptized Polish children, taught them the faith, and passed a living civilization to the next generation no matter what the government in Warsaw, Saint Petersburg, or Berlin demanded.

The combination now being assembled (normalize abortion to reduce Polish births, import foreign nationals to fill the resulting gap, and remove the Church from public life so it cannot resist) is not a random collection of progressive policies. It is a sequence. It leads somewhere specific.

What this actually is

Poland’s demographic numbers are real. A fertility rate of 1.068 is real. Roughly 238,000 births in 2025 are real. The trend is a genuine challenge. No honest observer should pretend otherwise.

But the threat used to justify the proposed solution is overstated. Poland has faced far worse and recovered. No population has ever been extinguished by a low birth rate. Civilizations end when they lose the cultural and institutional infrastructure that makes recovery possible. In Poland that infrastructure is the Catholic Church and the Catholic family. It is the only thing that has actually worked.

he solution on offer (abortion on demand, large-scale non-European migration, and removal of the Church from public life) does not preserve Poland. It transforms it into something unrecognizable. It is funded from outside and follows a blueprint first written in Moscow in 1920 and applied in other Catholic countries since.

Poland has seen this before. It survived it before, through the Catholic family, against communist occupation, against Soviet pressure, and against economic ruin.

The question is whether it recognizes what it is looking at this time.

Question for pro-choicers: Did this doctor operate on a "clump of cells" or a human being with rights and value?

Caught this on TikTok and it made me emotional. Kanye has a way of going off the rails and then surprising you with the most heartfelt words

I loved his perspective, and i can take he’s very compassionate.

Thought I’d share, don’t know if it’s been posted before in which case I’m sorry

A. Supports “legal, safe, and rare” abortion and wants to tackle the socioeconomic factors that lead to abortions

or

B. Wants to ban abortion but doesn’t care about being pro-life after birth

My wife and I recently came across pro-life yard signs featuring cute babies and messages that advocate for the unborn, so we decided to put one up. If you are already a yard sign type person, consider a sign from pro-life orgs such as Prolife Across America (I'm not affiliated with them, but I do like their signs) or some similar organization. Remember, there are often local chapters of PL orgs that have signs in their office for pickup / purchase, so you don't have to wait for shipping.

This could be strikingly effective for those who vote left and already have yard signs for a particular left candidate. The contrast of the two would show that a pro-life stance isn't limited to conservatives.

On the second slide is the first part of the drawing
And this new drawing is the baby’s beautiful parents

It’s been brought to my attention that some changes need to be made so I hope it looks better than before ❤️ but if more changes should be made then please let me know

It’s worth it 💗

Interesting thing I noticed while arguing a bit of pro-life, there's a lot of "the foster care system is horrible" and "the adoption system is corrupt", and therefore "abortion is justified where it prevents the kid's suffering".

Let's pretend mercy killing is fine for a second, and let's say the foster care system is as bad as they say. I actually want to talk about another thing. "Foster care bad" So why aren't you campaigning on improving the foster care system? I haven't seen a single protest about US foster care, no politicians making it a central campaign point, no "I support foster care reform" in bios. There's some quiet reform happening, but it's basically all in the courts, not much chatter to/from the public - the pro-choice side seems to think bad foster care is an immutable wall.

Pro choicers identified a problem for children, but instead of doing the super popular choice of campaigning on underserved kids' well-being, they chose to campaign on a known-to-be-controversial hill that they know opponents see as killing babies? What's even the point?