A guide to pro-life voting
After some vicious disagreements in the last few days that are shedding more heat than light, I put together a short thread on what is at stake in November 2024 🧵 Credentials: researcher at a leading university on abortion policy, published an academic paper specifically on the ethics of single-issue pro-life voting (), am a single-issue voter on abortion myselfcalumsblog.com/wp-content/upl…

🚨🇧🇷 Brazilian judge authorises 'torture' method of killing unborn babies against medical advice!

Doctors in Brazil can now inject unborn babies' hearts with an excruciatingly painful drug to kill them in an abortion, after 22 weeks! 🧵 1/8 Feticide is typically done in abortions after 20-22 weeks to make sure that the baby is dead after being delivered. Since they can begin to survive outside the womb around this time, and since the aim of an abortion is typically to kill the baby (not merely to remove the pregnancy), feticide is done first. 2/8

That abortion kills a child shouldn't really be controversial. Abortion obviously kills a child. 🧵 1/6 It is obviously killing (does anyone seriously deny this?) - this is why late-term abortion involves a procedure whose technical name is feticide. It is very obviously the ending of a biological life - i.e. killing. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong - killing bacteria can be morally permissible, for example. 2/6

One of the most common questions I get is:

Is abortion ever medically necessary?

I get why this is confusing with totally opposing answers coming from different quarters. So hopefully this will make things a bit clearer. 🧵 1/8 It might seem like there is an empirical disagreement about whether a certain procedure is ever necessary. That is not really the case.

The empirical facts are clear and uncontroversial:

Sometimes, it is medically necessary (i.e. to prevent the mother from dying) to remove a baby from the womb before viability (now around 21-22 weeks), in which case it will obviously pass away. 2/8

Some of you may have seen this headline in the UK's premier fake news rag The Guardian:

"Italy passes measures to allow anti-abortion activists to enter abortion clinics"

So what's the real story behind this? 🧵 1/13

theguardian.com/world/2024/apr… The headline makes it sound like Italy has legalised the invasion of abortion clinics, with protestors waving signs in the waiting rooms or marching into the operating room shouting.

Obviously, this being The Guardian, it has only the vaguest resemblance to the truth. 2/13

Breaking: New Irish Medical Journal paper discusses a woman nearly killed by abortion pills

She had an ectopic pregnancy and wasn't given an ultrasound first, because abortion-obsessed doctors, activists and politicians said... 1/ (for political reasons, thinly veiled by economic and pseudoscientific medical reasons) that it wasn't necessary.

This woman's blood pressure was down to 60/30, her haemoglobin was down to 7, and she had 2 and a half litres of blood haemorrhaged into her abdomen. 2/

Very painful reality check for Ireland's leaders, and an enormous win for common sense, for mothers, and for the family! 🇨🇮

The government has been absolutely crushed in TWO referenda, despite virtually all the money and political institutions being on their side. 🧵 1/12 This comes after years of painful defeats for common sense, life and the family in Ireland, with an ultra-woke, far-left, authoritarian (see hate speech bill) government running rampant over the country for a decade. 2/12

Reuters are incapable of telling the truth on abortion globally. Here they say that Prudente’s doctors admitted her life was in danger but refused to perform an abortion. But her doctors explicitly said otherwise - which is why they didn’t perform one.

reuters.com/world/europe/m… They also say that “At present, a doctor is liable to up to four years in jail if he terminates a pregnancy to save the mother's life.” But everyone knows that abortion is permissible in Malta to save the life of the mother. These abortions happen all the time legally in hospital

Ever hear people say abortion pill reversal is unsafe, because they abandoned the only randomised controlled trial done on it over safety concerns?

Thread below to illustrate just how dishonest this is. TL;DR: they abandoned it because CURRENT TREATMENT was (maybe) harming women Here's the study:

10 patients. 5 had current treatment (expectant management, not taking misoprostol); 5 had abortion pill reversal (taking progesterone instead of misoprostol). They cancelled it after 10 patients because 3 patients had haemorrhages.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31809439/

This viral video about fetuses being parasites is honestly the perfect example of what happens when you give a first year undergrad a small bit of technical knowledge and a camera tiktok.com/t/ZTR6UvAF9/?k… (I'm not saying she is a first year undergrad - just that she comes across like one)