We live in times when the right has become extremist, in most respects, if not all. Disavowing it altogether is understandable. It’s dubious that such people would support the pro life cause out of genuine compassion, or that they value life, while being warmongers and devaluing the lives of immigrants and refugees.

There may be far fewer pitfalls to the left, but they do exist. This is one of them.

When you consume leftist content on YouTube, especially originating from the US, you will unavoidably hear the same mantra: abortion at any stage needs to be decriminalised for legal purposes, as it would never take place aside from extreme cases, to save the mother’s life. No woman would ever do this with a viable pregnancy at a late stage. It doesn’t happen. It never would.

As honourable mentions I will include the following spouters of this propaganda: The Young Turks, The Majority Report and The Serf Times. All three channels have a humanitarian perspective on many, if not most issues – which makes this one issue so insidious.

The protest to eliminate time limits for elective abortions in England

In March of 2023, in London, a protest was held, in defiance of a prison sentence for a woman who had carried out an illegal abortion at home, during the pandemic, using medication made for earlier stages of gestation. Her daughter was a few weeks away from full term and was viable. The abortion limit in the UK is 24 weeks, “generous” enough already, since the ability to save premature babies increases as time goes by. This lady’s daughter was over 30 weeks and would have survived outside the womb at that point. Apart from public deterrence, the prison sentence did not seem to serve any purpose indeed, as the woman was not a menace and no one needed protection from her.

While it was just one person having committed the act, protestors were in the thousands, supported by the media. This wasn’t an issue of abortions at 8+ months (and not for medical reasons) being legal on paper, for exceptional circumstances, but of them being permitted in practice, for any reason whatsoever.

This woman was, in fact, used by the abortion lobby. They didn’t argue for a pardon, reduction or suspended sentence for her personally. What they aimed for was changing the law altogether, eliminating time limits for an abortion (thankfully, they did not succeed). Meanwhile, they put her name out there, to be found in perpetuity in newspapers, which likely caused harassment to her family and will affect her once she leaves prison. All they did, with respect to her and her family, was cause harm.

For a couple of months, I personally verified on a daily basis, on various platforms, that the protest, covered by national and international outlets, was not even mentioned by mainstream leftist channels on YouTube, otherwise jumping on any story about abortion rights. The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News and even CNN covered it. The story went around the globe.

As far as TYT, The Majority Report, The Serf Times, The Humanist Report etc are concerned, it didn’t happen. Why? Because in their narrative, this doesn’t happen for non-medical reasons, ever, and they’re not proposing legislation to facilitate it, as UK protestors clearly did. Had they supported the protest publicly, they would’ve had to dispense with this propaganda point for good, naturally spooking part of their audiences.

Gosnell

It’s been 13 years since Kermit Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison, acquiring the label of serial killer, after finishing the job he had started: killing viable babies, having charged their mothers over 1000 dollars. The problem? Some had survived and showed signs of life outside the womb, after his initial attempt to kill them. They were now legally “persons”, as opposed to medical waste, to be disposed of. Only then was it illegal and immoral to kill them. Gosnell was convicted of 3 counts of first degree murder and 21 of performing illegal abortions, among other crimes. Technically, he got 3 life sentences.

There was shock and dismay, as there would be, at face value. It’s perplexing that society at large, while appalled by his actions, had no problem with what he was doing moments prior, namely trying to kill the same babies later declared his victims. This is, of course, paradoxical.

So why don’t people talk about Gosnell, even as an exception, as they would put it? Because he had clients to begin with. For unnecessary late term abortions. Many clients, in fact.

The concept of mens rea, in Gosnell’s case and similar ones, is very interesting.

When exactly did Gosnell’s intent to kill turn into mens rea? It had been present the entire time. Killing was his job. It was the desired outcome and the plan on those specific occasions. Should his empathy have magically switched on, like a light, suddenly seeing those babies he had failed to kill as persons? Would someone who had killed thousands of times before be expected to even flinch? To see their further actions as immoral? To feel compassion? Why? If those specific occasions gave him the label of serial killer, what the hell was he beforehand?

What about actus reus, in society’s view? The killing of the same babies inside the mother, method and suffering completely ignored, was completely acceptable. Abortion supporters wouldn’t waste two seconds considering what this procedure involves. However, a similar act with an identical finality, namely death, inflicted on the same victim shortly after, is morally seen as murder and lands said doctor in prison.

One might say “fair enough, but Gosnell was an aberration and now he’s in prison”. In reality, unscurpulous abortionists are not an aberration; they have always existed. We don’t know how many Gosnells there are, as unless they harm or kill their adult female patients, no one reports them. Who would? The women going to them for illegal abortions? The staff participating and earning a living at their clinics?

In his career spanning decades, he was sued an ungodly number of times sand reported for various other illegal activities. The FBI raid in 2010, which led to his downfall, was prompted by drug illegalities, not the serial killing of infants, only discovered accidentally. His wife, his staff, all took part in these acts for years, as if it were normal.

A brave intellectual from the Guardian partially laid the blame of the pro-life movement, for apparently pushing women towards crooks such as himself, alluding that he had been operating in improper conditions, as a main issue, and the same acts, carried out in sterile hospital rooms, would be completely fine. In other words, it’s not that he was murdering babies; he should’ve mopped more.

Magical thinking

Abortion supporters seem to argue (though it’s apparent they don’t give it much thought) that the baby, or foetus (their sterilised, dehumanising term), magically becomes a person with one breath, while having been mere tissue beforehand. They seem to think some supernatural, otherworldly transformation occurs, in that one second.

Eyes glazed, they blurt out that once the baby is out of the mother and alive, they are automatically a person, and harming them is illegal. Killing them, from that point on, is murder, which carries a heavy penalty, both legal and moral. Seconds prior though, the abortionist should give it their best shot to do just that.

Do I have to say it? Should I put it in rainbow colours? IT’S THE SAME BABY, who had been alive and sentient the entire time. Nothing about that baby is altered by exiting the mother’s body, apart from being located in a slightly different part of the room. Apparently, it’s not insane and nightmarish to legally and morally transform the same situation, involving the same people and actions, in real time, into something radically different. With one word.

The concept of personhood has always been arbitrary, from one society to another. If human remains are found 100 years later, no differentiation will be made, as to who had been a person and who hadn’t. Bones look the same. Humans look the same, because they are. The point of labels is to establish hierarchy and dominance. Who is allowed to use their body to subjugate, injure or kill another. It’s always been that way.

The right to life is today described as a privilege. The other day I had a brief exchange with someone who told me a person had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In their paradigm, however, the only right enshrined should be the one to kill. Life is supposedly a privilege. A hereditary title.

Infanticide cases

Many argue there should be no limits on abortion, imposed by viability. While in other parts of a hospital premature babies (as young as 21 and 22 weeks old) are placed in incubators and cared for, other viable babies should be killed and discarded as medical waste, for the sole reason of being unwanted.

The past few years alone have seen the prosecution of infanticide or attempted infanticide cases in the US, as well as the UK. One notable case is still going through the judicial process at the moment. People would argue, of course, that the mothers were young and not aware of all options open to them, such as early abortion or adoption. In this day and age, with so much access to information, that is by no means an excuse.

Furthermore, it is absolute proof that some women would voluntarily and for no medical reasons wait to terminate a pregnancy at the very last stage, when the baby is viable, if they are willing to commit infanticide.

Again I mention the issue of mens rea, and when it coagulates in someone’s mind. If someone doesn’t care about ending the life of a viable baby immediately after his/ her birth, by themselves, they would not mind it a week or a month beforehand either. That life is insignificant to them to begin with, and the stage of development is inconsequential to them. If presented with the choice of a late term abortion, accessible to them at any time, they would have no qualms.

Abortion survivors

If no attempts to terminate a viable life were made through abortion procedures, there would be no abortion survivors. And yet, there are many, as you can read here, on the Abortion Survivors Network website. Some, like Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden, have been very outspoken over the years. On one occasion, Gianna, who survived an abortion attempt at seven and a half months, asked where her rights had been, if abortion was a women’s right. Good question.

The topic of abortion survivors is like Kryptonite to leftist channels. The notion is never mentioned. They pretend no such thing occurs, and they certainly don’t want their viewers or listeners to think that far. It’s a bit like “don’t look over there; just don’t look”.

No moral duty to research basic facts

Last year, the compassionate facade of a few leftist commentators crumbled to dust; so did their honesty. The alarm bell rang during a debate between Tim Pool, a centrist online talks how host, and airhead Lance from The Serf Times, a popular Canadian leftist. Whereas Lance usually comes across as empathetic and deeply concerned with human rights, when debating late term abortion, he could only regurgitate slogans and abstractions. He spouted such enormities that it became notable, such as: “Is it even viable at 8 months?”

Tim Pool raised the following issue: why, if a baby is viable and can live outside the mother, and she wants the pregnancy terminated, does he/she have to be killed in the process, instead of extracted alive via C-section and put up for adoption? How is an abortion less invasive and more beneficial to her?

It’s an excellent question. The woman still undergoes a medical procedure either way, the pregnancy is terminated either way and the baby still has to come out. Why does he/she have to come out dead?


While spouting slogans like a malfunctioning robot, Lance (who by his own admission knows nothing about viability) argued the woman “would be forced to let it live”. Not carry to term, not raise or even see the baby. The mere knowledge of “letting it live”, as a stand-alone issue, would be detrimental. No longer being pregnant, supposedly the goal, isn’t enough. That is a grotesque take.

Screenshot

Lance also argued elective abortion at any stage should be permitted. Gosnell was of the same opinion; perhaps in 10 years’ time, Lance and crew will rehabilitate his image, hailing him as a visionary. After all, according to them, there should be no such thing as “illegal abortion”.

Another abysmal take was a joke Lance made regarding what he dubbed “baby guillotines”, arguing Tim Pool was making up stories about gruesome late-term abortion practices involving snipping the spinal cord with scissors. A witness at Gosnell’s trial, a former employee of his, described having done this at least 100 times, quoted by The Atlantic. Hell, you can even see images on Gosnell’s Wikipedia.

It becomes clear as day that this person has not looked into any of it and is not planning to. And yet he takes part in debates about it, without shame or hubris awareness, staunchly arguing his ignorant points.

Ideologies can certainly make someone espouse ignorant positions, if enough of their peers have the same stance. However, with this much information available and given the gravity of the matter, to not even be curious must be a fault of character. It invalidates anything else this individual has to say.

The Majority Report

Talking head Emma Vigeland, cohost of the much appreciated Sam Seder, is famous for repeating the mantra “it never happens”, when referring to elective late term abortion. “It’s only ever done to save the mother’s life; no woman would ever do this”. As shown above, that is not the case.

She is also famous for asking, paraphrasing, if a woman would go through the trouble of paying for prenatal vitamins and going to doctors’ appointments just to abort at a late stage. As if women with this intention (or infanticidal intention) did any of that. Quite the opposite: women and girls go to great lengths to hide their pregnancies until they can dispose of the baby. This is possibly the most idiotic argument to ever exit her mouth.

Sam Seder himself, despite the humanist takes on so many issues, stooped to the level of ridiculing a pro life activist for having had a miscarriage, needing a D&C procedure afterwards, as most women would. In his opinion, she had an abortion and she’s a hypocrite. Moreover, he finds this play on terminology, as well as her situation, laughable. Yes, the same method is used to abort babies who are very much alive; these issues are not comparable. Not only is he insulting the intelligence of his viewers (perhaps deservedly); mocking someone’s miscarriage, using it for cheap political points, makes him a ghoul, at least in that one instance. Sorry to say.

From People Magazine:

Does the word “miscarriage” pass by those listening to The Majority Report, and if so, why? Because they are desperate to equate a necessary procedure with the millions of unnecessary ones. They are also desperate to claim that viability doesn’t matter at all.

In conclusion…

Biology is undeniable. What these people propose is replacing their otherwise treasured respect for science with arbitrary concepts like legal personhood, known to have been withheld over the millennia from many, whose existence was less valued or undesirable. They are no different than religious zealots.

While they ask you, and rightly so, to open your eyes to the cruelty of war, poverty and injustice, when it comes to this form of human suffering, they want your eyelids glued together. It is akin to seeing images of war victims, bombed out of existence, and feeling no empathy whatsoever. What is the difference, in terms of dying brutally and unjustly, because some people didn’t consider you worthy of life? None.

Morality, in their case, parts ways with reality, and never the twain shall meet again.