Violence is unacceptable, and it is deeply troubling that tensions escalated to physical aggression. No matter the cause, I agree that intimidation and assault have no place in civil discourse. I also agree that everyone—regardless of their stance—should be able to express their beliefs without fear of physical retaliation.
That said, this essay relies on several common but flawed premises that deserve scrutiny.
1. “Protecting the dignity of human life is not just a political stance—it is a moral imperative.”
This assumes that banning abortion is the best way to honor human dignity, ignoring the reality that true dignity requires autonomy and agency. Forcing birth does not inherently value life—it disregards the needs, rights, and struggles of pregnant individuals. A moral society should ensure comprehensive healthcare, contraception access, and support for families rather than reducing “pro-life” advocacy to criminalization and coercion.
2. “There have been over 63 million babies killed in America since Roe, making it one of the largest targeted killings in human history.”
This inflammatory language distorts reality. A fetus is not the same as a born child, and equating abortion with mass murder is a disingenuous attempt to manipulate emotions. It disregards the complexities of pregnancy, including cases of fatal fetal anomalies, maternal health risks, and personal circumstances that make carrying to term impossible.
3. “They’re victims of a society that, for the last half-century, has told them that they are better served by an ideology enabling inconsequential sex.”
This framing reduces women to passive participants in their own reproductive choices, as though they are simply misled rather than fully capable of making informed decisions. Reproductive freedom allows women to shape their futures, pursue education and careers, and determine when (or if) they become parents.
4. “Life begins not in accord with biological science but at some arbitrary point during or even after pregnancy.”
In reality, the definition of when “life” begins is a philosophical and religious question, not a biological one. Even among scientists and ethicists, there is no universal agreement. "Life" as a scientific quality is described as matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. This applies to anything from amoebas, to humans, and has nothing to do with our intellectual conception of a human life. Roe v. Wade recognized viability—when a fetus can survive outside the womb—as a reasonable legal standard, balancing the rights of the pregnant person with potential fetal interests.
Overall, the note paints those who support abortion rights as morally depraved or ignorant, yet the real issue is far more nuanced. Respecting life also includes respecting the lives of the people already here—the ones who carry pregnancies, raise children, and navigate complex realities. Criminalizing abortion does not create a culture of life; it creates a culture of control.
Is there are media coverage of this event? If not, contact The Daily Wire, LifeNews, Daily Caller, etc. It should be everywhere
If the same abysmal behavior had been directed by pro-life demonstrators against pro-abortion demonstrators it would have been big news.
Thank you for doing your part in this essential work! God bless you and those whose lives you touch’
I applaud your courage and conviction. It has never been more essential.
Violence is unacceptable, and it is deeply troubling that tensions escalated to physical aggression. No matter the cause, I agree that intimidation and assault have no place in civil discourse. I also agree that everyone—regardless of their stance—should be able to express their beliefs without fear of physical retaliation.
That said, this essay relies on several common but flawed premises that deserve scrutiny.
1. “Protecting the dignity of human life is not just a political stance—it is a moral imperative.”
This assumes that banning abortion is the best way to honor human dignity, ignoring the reality that true dignity requires autonomy and agency. Forcing birth does not inherently value life—it disregards the needs, rights, and struggles of pregnant individuals. A moral society should ensure comprehensive healthcare, contraception access, and support for families rather than reducing “pro-life” advocacy to criminalization and coercion.
2. “There have been over 63 million babies killed in America since Roe, making it one of the largest targeted killings in human history.”
This inflammatory language distorts reality. A fetus is not the same as a born child, and equating abortion with mass murder is a disingenuous attempt to manipulate emotions. It disregards the complexities of pregnancy, including cases of fatal fetal anomalies, maternal health risks, and personal circumstances that make carrying to term impossible.
3. “They’re victims of a society that, for the last half-century, has told them that they are better served by an ideology enabling inconsequential sex.”
This framing reduces women to passive participants in their own reproductive choices, as though they are simply misled rather than fully capable of making informed decisions. Reproductive freedom allows women to shape their futures, pursue education and careers, and determine when (or if) they become parents.
4. “Life begins not in accord with biological science but at some arbitrary point during or even after pregnancy.”
In reality, the definition of when “life” begins is a philosophical and religious question, not a biological one. Even among scientists and ethicists, there is no universal agreement. "Life" as a scientific quality is described as matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes. This applies to anything from amoebas, to humans, and has nothing to do with our intellectual conception of a human life. Roe v. Wade recognized viability—when a fetus can survive outside the womb—as a reasonable legal standard, balancing the rights of the pregnant person with potential fetal interests.
Overall, the note paints those who support abortion rights as morally depraved or ignorant, yet the real issue is far more nuanced. Respecting life also includes respecting the lives of the people already here—the ones who carry pregnancies, raise children, and navigate complex realities. Criminalizing abortion does not create a culture of life; it creates a culture of control.
In the spirit of restoring Harvard's traditions of free speech, intellectual rigor, and open debate, I hope to inspire reflection, and recommend reading more at https://www.kialo.com/pro-life-vs-pro-choice-should-abortion-be-legal-5637 to form a more nuanced, full perspective.