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

[SassyIrishLass]

Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.

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.

Abortion is here to stay. you can buy pills over the counter in Europe and do it at home. You can even order them by mail. They are available in the US by RX. Worst case scenario is that the SC reverses Roe. leaving it to states, and at least 15 of them are not going to ban it. Get over, it Cec. Take a Valium.

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.

She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

 

[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.

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.

She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again

ha! oh i am positive that her pablum made perfect sense to you........................

 

[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.

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.

No a fetus inside the womb is NOT 'non viable' that is pro-abort speak and not part of American English. A woman IS a human incubator you dufus. That's the whole point of human existence to REPRODUCE. You blithely add the word 'forced' in order to emotionalize your POV. You have already been TOLD that rape is a heinous crime and we are not talking about that. Yet you continue to beat the same damn drum. You didn't even address my last post you just went off on your own tangent once again. Frankly I'm sick of your blather.

 

[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.

No, you own yourself and you alone. No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.

What really creeps me out is the notion that acknowledging that the new human being you yourself created has a claim on you and your responsibility is somehow "slavery" or "making you into the state's property".

 

[playtime]

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?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.

 

[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.

No a fetus inside the womb is NOT 'non viable' that is pro-abort speak and not part of American English. A woman IS a human incubator you dufus. That's the whole point of human existence to REPRODUCE. You blithely add the word 'forced' in order to emotionalize your POV. You have already been TOLD that rape is a heinous crime and we are not talking about that. Yet you continue to beat the same damn drum. You didn't even address my last post you just went off on your own tangent once again. Frankly I'm sick of your blather.

it's not my 'POV'. if you condone forcing her to carry & give birth then you are reducing her to nothing BUT an incubator. that's all she is in your eyes. no woman should be forced to be that & nothing more.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Yes. Personal responsibility was and is in play here.

I'll wait for the "what about rape!!!" diversion.

 

[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.

Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.

nope. i am pro choice. & it's not what i think or believe that matters when it comes to another female. but nice try.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

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.

She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again

ha! oh i am positive that her pablum made perfect sense to you........................

It did and judging from ratings on my post it seems it only escaped you

Think hard, clownshoes

 

[playtime]

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?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Yes. Personal responsibility was and is in play here.

I'll wait for the "what about rape!!!" diversion.

yes it is about personal responsibility. it's their personal choice to do the responsible thing based on their life circumstances & is not any of my business nor yours. if a female wants to bring to term her rapists child or perhaps her own sibling... or not.... guess what?

HER choice.

 

[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.

If your body contains a human with a heartbeat and feelings, You're a murderer if you kill tat child..

...and, yet, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, on several different levels. but, keep swinging, kid!

The sign of a person with tapioca between his ears: "The Supreme Court ruled THIS, so that makes it true and right!"

 

[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.

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.

She made perfect sense...it's not her fault you're baffled...again

ha! oh i am positive that her pablum made perfect sense to you........................

It did and judging from ratings on my post it seems it only escaped you

Think hard, clownshoes

lol... your ilk would agree with you no matter what.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

The fact is that force is not required for a child to be carried to term, it will naturally happen in the absence of force.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.

nope. i am pro choice. & it's not what i think or believe that matters when it comes to another female. but nice try.

Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?

 

[playtime]

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?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

 

[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.

No, you own yourself and you alone. No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.

Slave owners. Yes, that is your mentality. Claiming control of my body is what slavery is all about.
I'm glad you recognize that.

Do you have an original thought in your head? Just like BWK earlier, your responses are akin to “I know you are but what am I?” In fact everything you have said on this thread is on the level of a five-year-old child.

I could list numerous ways why you are exactly like a slaveowner. You dehumanize your victim, just as the slaveowners did, to justify killing the victim. You think that you can own another human being, just like the slaveowners did, in this case your own child. You have zero respect for people who are not like you, just like the slaveowners did. You have zero respect for human life, just like the slaveowners did. You discriminate based on age, size and location, instead of skin color.

And just like slavery, the barbaric practice of abortion will one day be illegal, because as a society thankfully we have enough decent and responsible people who grow and evolve past those barbaric, selfish cruel mindsets. Hopefully one day you will, but whether you do or not, you’ll eventually learn, as I have been telling you.

You forgot that the Supreme Court also upheld slavery AND Jim Crow . . . another point in common with abortion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefore regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefore putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

BINGO.

Can we all go home now?

 

[playtime]

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.

Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.

nope. i am pro choice. & it's not what i think or believe that matters when it comes to another female. but nice try.

Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?

because my believes are not being forced onto anyone thru legislation unlike what the OP & the pro birthers want.