"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus isn't a "child". And as long as is physically attached, is very much a part of a women's body.

Definition of CHILD

And no, the preborn is not "part" of the mother's body, unless you think a person can have 2 unique sets of DNA, 2 different blood types, 2 beating hearts, 4 arms and 4 legs, etc. Come on now, you're once against proving the OP correct.

Nope. A fetus isn't a child, and it should never be afforded legal rights apart from those of its owner. To do so is insane and creates a bizarre legal environment where pregnant women are treated as state property.

A fetus isn't a child because . . . why? Because your feelz and your D in high school biology 30 years ago tell you so?

And no, pregnant women are not "treated as state property". Could you be a little more melodramatic? Maybe tell us how Snidely Whiplash is putting you and the orphans out into the snow?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.

THANK YOU. I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:

For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) no one wants to control your reproduction.

You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies. ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.

So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights." You're fighting for killing rights. At least be honest.

Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.

I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane. If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion! You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.

If you want to discuss abortion, you're pretty much going to spend 95% of your time arguing inanities, because it's very rare for a pro-abort to have anything else.

So that explains why I haven't been able to find many posts in this thread to respond to...

*GASP*

 

[Carl in Michigan]

take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?

Interesting "thinking" from the death cult.

 

[playtime]

This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.

Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
View attachment 262858

except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate... it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.

Means nothing killer. If that looks like a “group of cells” to you, you are much dumber than you look.

killer? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have a son. i CHOSE to have my son. nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him. see? that was easy.

it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female. but you want to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.

There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.

Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.

That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.

Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".

Hahahaha, sure. If you haven't noticed NotYourBody is not even responding to me anymore, so soundly did I trounce her arguments--if you can call them that.

There are no valid arguments for being pro-choice other than convenience and, at heart, selfish desires. When I saw that, long about 25 years ago, I changed from pro-choice to pro-life. The ONLY reason I was formerly pro-choice is that I was too young, busy and foolish to have ever really looked at the arguments, and past the talking points, with any amount of critical thinking. Once I did, the whole thing went up in smoke.

Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.

Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.

If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.

It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.

What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?

None is needed. Why do you think it's your business?

Possibly the same reason we think it's our business to say that it's wrong for someone to break into your house and beat you to death for your TV and pocket change.

Or do you consider opposing that to be "totalitarian" as well?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.

Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.

A nation that dismisses a living human organism as "body contents" on the basis of your seriously flawed and outdated understanding of biology has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights AND basic intelligence.

 

[playtime]

thankfully many states that don't drag their knuckles on the ground have abortion as a legal choice codified into their state constitutions.

The moral high ground in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.

let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?

Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?

wtf are you babbling about? make some sense & i'll answer you.

Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well.

By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property.

To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered.

TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow.

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.

do you not care? nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.

y'all aren't really 'pro life' you are only pro birth.

 

[gipper]

This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.

Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
View attachment 262858

except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate... it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.

Means nothing killer. If that looks like a “group of cells” to you, you are much dumber than you look.

killer? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have a son. i CHOSE to have my son. nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him. see? that was easy.

it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female. but you want to.

Silly. If a woman wants to murder her husband...well you would say, “it’s your decision. Do as you wish.”

Do you fail to see how foolish that is?

 

[gipper]

Anyone trying to compare children being separated from a parent because the parent broke the law to abortion is really grasping....and losing the debate

Fact

but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby. the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their american 'daddy' is a rapist....

stunning.

Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE.

Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?

nope. not a lie. if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.

BS. Are you a government attorney? You are obviously a believer in the illogical.

when will y'all start advocating locking women up? after all, if you wanna go after the doctors - then you must imprison women who had or try to have an abortion. they are just as much- if not more- a part of the murrrrrrrrrderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................

Abortion is murder. We lock up murderers.

 

[playtime]

This is a group of cells...at ten weeks.

Oh Hell kill it for convenience sake...it’s just a group of cells after all. Who gives a fuck?
View attachment 262858

except, your pic is dramatically enlarged & is not accurate... it's about the size of a strawberry & completely not viable on its own.

Means nothing killer. If that looks like a “group of cells” to you, you are much dumber than you look.

killer? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have a son. i CHOSE to have my son. nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him. see? that was easy.

it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female. but you want to.

Silly. If a women wants to murder her husband...well you would say, “it’s your decision. Do as you wish.”

Do you fail to see how foolish that is?

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

 

[Leo123]

killer? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have a son. i CHOSE to have my son. nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him. see? that was easy.

it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female. but you want to.

You don't have to answer but: Did anyone force you into having the child as well? Did you abort previous pregnancies? I never forced a woman to have my child. I was never a party to any woman having to get an abortion.

 

[playtime]

but you wanna compare a group of cells to a post born baby. the former should have personhood status, but the latter doesn't matter cause they are brown after all. you don't mind separating them & punishing the 'child' for the act of their parents... but whine that it's not the innocent child's fault if their american 'daddy' is a rapist....

stunning.

Oh brother. The old “group of cells” LIE.

Do advocates of baby murder ever tire of lying?

nope. not a lie. if it can't survive outside the host, then it's not a person & not equivical to a post born real person with a history.

BS. Are you a government attorney? You are obviously a believer in the illogical.

when will y'all start advocating locking women up? after all, if you wanna go after the doctors - then you must imprison women who had or try to have an abortion. they are just as much- if not more- a part of the murrrrrrrrrderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................

Abortion is murder. We lock up murderers.

oh ya - that'll work out well for you. please PLEASE make that the new motto of the 'GOP'. do it loud & proud.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The moral high ground in your tiny mind is the killing of new life? You are a sick creature.

let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?

Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?

wtf are you babbling about? make some sense & i'll answer you.

Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well.

By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property.

To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered.

TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow.

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.

do you not care? nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.

y'all aren't really 'pro life' you are only pro birth.

I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder.

Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You'll submit to it if it becomes law or you will lose. Fact. The state doesn't want to control human reproduction, only that all things pertaining to human rights and the handling of human life is done with the humanity and dignity that all life deserves.

How you gonna make me submit? Details.

Are you an actual child? As in, not yet even 18? Because you reason like a child.

You're the one who refuses to accept reality. Much like a child.

I posted this about 40 pages ago, but I guess I must do it again, because they just don't get it.

If my wife or child wanted an abortion, I would find a doctor in my state to do it. if I could not find one in my state, I would find a doctor who would do a D&C. If I could not find one, I would take my wife or child to other state. If I still could not find one, I would take my wife or child to another country. And, like you, there is absolutely no way that any of them is ever going to keep me from doing that.

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about with this "If I could not find one, I'd find a doctor who would do a D&C"? What, exactly, is it that you think you're saying here?

And for the life of me, I have no idea what point "I am going to do the evil I want to, no matter what it takes" is supposed to make to us, other than to be thankful that your sociopathic, self-absorbed ass doesn't live in OUR neighborhoods.

 

[Leo123]

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs. In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.

Oh look, a 'funnyface!' Looks like I win again!!

 

[playtime]

killer? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have a son. i CHOSE to have my son. nobody forced me into doing it & nobody tried to force me into not having him. see? that was easy.

it's not my place to force that decision onto any other female. but you want to.

You don't have to answer but: Did anyone force you into having the child as well? Did you abort previous pregnancies? I never forced a woman to have my child. I was never a party to any woman having to get an abortion.

hmmmm - why do you say i don't hafta answer? is it cause it's really none of your business & a privacy issue?

interesting. as i said b4 i had a choice & i chose what was best for me based on the circumstances i was in at that point in my life when i had him. of course you never were a party to any woman... you might have been able to have input & if you were in a real relationship - you should have had input.

BUT - there's only one final decision to be made & it shouldn't be yours or the government.

 

[TemplarKormac]

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

Which begs the question:

Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.

Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming in the womb.

Curiouser and curiouser...

 

[playtime]

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs.

when a fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own or even without extreme medical intervention, then it is non viable. to force a woman into making that fetus grow to the point it can survive outside her uterus - then you are reducing her to a living incubator.

 

[playtime]

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

Which begs the question:

Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.

Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming in the womb.

Curiouser and curiouser...

actually, no.... by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut. do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas? who keeps cutting programs like WIC & CHIP?

 

[playtime]

let me know exactly how much of your yearly earnings you are willing to devote thru higher taxes to take care of them all who are forced to be born m'k?

Did you just freakin' compare owning yourself to being entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor? So, what you're saying is that if we advocate that someone own their life, and choose what to do with that life, then on the basis of advocating that, they become entitled to the fruits of your labor. By that logic, being against the death of anyone, means all of those people now are entitled to your property. So, how many people do you think shouldn't be murdered, and how much do you think that stance should cost you?

wtf are you babbling about? make some sense & i'll answer you.

Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well.

By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property.

To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered.

TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow.

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.

do you not care? nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.

y'all aren't really 'pro life' you are only pro birth.

I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder.

Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion.

<pffffft> such drivel. don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage. will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?