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

[dblack]

After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."

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

Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so. Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.

It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.

 

[Leo123]

It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.

How is it part of the mother's body when the expressed purpose is to eject it when fully developed? BTW most abortions are done on blacks. Margaret Sanger would be proud.

 

[buttercup]

After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system."

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

Well, thank you for that declaration of "scientific fact" from the cutting edge of 1910 or so. Also, these new-fangled automobile things are just a fad, and will never catch on.

It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.

lolololol. So a full-term baby, no different than a newborn, who is minutes away from delivery is nothing but a body part and a non-person? A preborn who is OLDER than premature babies born at 24 weeks? I mean, if that's your position, you can't get any more ignorant, idiotic and morally bankrupt than that. That means that you support infanticide, since full-term babies are no different than newborns.

 

[dblack]

Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.

No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.

No, it's a copout. "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."

Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".

Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.

I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means. A fetus is not a person should have no legal rights. It's none. of. your. business.

How is it part of the mother's body when the expressed purpose is to eject it when fully developed? BTW most abortions are done on blacks. Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Oh! Bringing up Margarete Sanger again! Understandable, I guess. She has only been dead for 53 years!

 

[Leo123]

Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.

I think human society has a vested interest in not only a woman's womb but a man's semen. After all, that is how we continue the species into the future. Government is an extension of human society but should never force it's way into anyone's body. In the past, more draconian sexual morality was imposed by society via Judeo Christian morals and values in the U.S. Marriage was uplifted and motherhood was respected and celebrated.

I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.

The desperation of an unwanted pregnancy is earned and warranted by the woman, UNLESS she is 'raped' (guy ejaculates in vagina then basically abandons the woman) which is a heinous crime and the same as rape IMO. Believe it or not, I think that our kids are being taught ignorance of human sexuality. That is, they are being taught to use contraceptives as if that is going to somehow stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies. With the number of abortions and medicinal abortions occurring one would think that just maybe contraceptives aren't working all that well. Maybe, just maybe, the BEST contraceptive is abstinence? No penis in vagina, no conception, no pregnancy, no fetus, no abortion needed.

 

[BWK]

Here's my review of this thread - NotYourBody Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
So far....no takers. So much Winning!

You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.

So far … no takers … and we all know why.

because a zygote isn't a baby.... an embryo isn't a baby... a 9+ gestational fetus is not a baby................. only a viable late term fetus & a post born human being is .............

that's why.

You were schooled on this earlier. You need to learn to pay attention.

First trimester development of embryo/fetus. A developing baby is called an embryo from the moment conception takes place until the eighth week of pregnancy. ... During the third month of pregnancy, bones and muscles begin to grow, buds for future teeth appear, and fingers and toes grow.Aug 29, 2017

LOl! You haven't schooled anyone about anything from this whole thread.

 

[BWK]

Some might say "I'm personally against abortion but for others to have the choice" but that's a copout.

No, it's not. It's a recognition that we can use law to force everything we'd like on society.

No, it's a copout. "I'm personally against it" means you think it's wrong, and "but others should be able to choose this thing I think is wrong" is another way of saying, "I'm too big a chickenshit to take a stand that might make people mad at me."

Don't even get me started on "Passing laws against killing people is trying to force everything we'd like on society".

Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.

I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.

That's just it. Their religion doesn't want you owning your own bodies, and the radicals use that religion as the excuse to try and control women. Once you do that, you've got them where you want them. They're to be rounded up at the pleasure of the male to be used as they like then. This scenario would play out in real time if you let religion take control.

We see it as fiction right now, but it's actually a work in progress by the radical religious Right; ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAXy_NyUN6k

 

[BWK]

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!

If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.

James 4:17

So what?

Guess what?

Not everyone is a christian and not all christians are the same christian faith as you.

You have a constitutional right to live your life that way. You don't have any constitutional or legal right to force your religion on anyone in this nation.

It's extremely unconstitutional to create laws based on a religion. It's violating the separation of religion and state, it's the government putting one religion above others and it's establishing a government religion.

All of which are extremely unconstitutional.

Live your life as you want. No one is stopping you.

Stop taking that same right from everyone else.

No it's not, actually. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states lawmakers cannot vote on laws based on their religious convictions so long as they do not break the tenets of the Constitution. There IS no "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution and so, as you well know, lawmakers are ABSOLUTELY allowed to oppose ANYTHING or endorse ANYTHING based on religious belief. The people ELECT them. If the people don't like it, kick them out of office and they won't make laws. That's how it works.

If you vote on it, you are attempting to break that wall between church and state;

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[1]

You want to practice anti-abortion? Knock yourself out. But the Constitution clearly states there will be "no law respecting an establishment of religion." And since there are no known scientific conclusions, just theories about when life begins, the radical Right is pushing their religious belief into law by using make believe conclusions not established as fact.

The Constitution never signed us up to exercise your religious beliefs through law. That would be akin to religious bondage.

I’ve been trying to get them to admit it. This whole life is precious thing is their religion. Keep your religion out of my uterus.

Human life is not that precious you can’t abort it at 12 weeks. Republicans want to make it zero weeks so don’t give in to this 8 week cut off. Most women don’t even know they have a seed in them until after 8 weeks.

Yea, everyone knows the game. There is no giving into anything. What they want is insanity. These folks have a serious mental condition.

 

[BWK]

Life isn’t that precious.

That literally sickens me. That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.

Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.

Your way is leading us to atrocities.

Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society

Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.

You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS

When did the life start again? 2073 posts and that question was never answered.

As soon as that sperm penetrates the egg a woman is a murderer if she takes the morning after pill. Murder.

These folks are totally mental.

 

[Leo123]

Oh! Bringing up Margarete Sanger again! Understandable, I guess. She has only been dead for 53 years!

Sanger may be dead but her Eugenics lives on in Planned Parenthood. 'Planned Parenthood' now THAT is a real misnomer!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Do you have any conception of the fact that ill-conceived laws - no matter how pure and pristine their intent - can cause more harm than good? Because that's exactly what you're asking for. Vandalshandle joked earlier that you could have the power to force a woman to give birth if he can force them to have abortions. I don't think that's funny. Because it's something that could actually happen. And if you succeed in giving government a vested interest in a woman's womb, it makes it that much more likely.

I think human society has a vested interest in not only a woman's womb but a man's semen. After all, that is how we continue the species into the future. Government is an extension of human society but should never force it's way into anyone's body. In the past, more draconian sexual morality was imposed by society via Judeo Christian morals and values in the U.S. Marriage was uplifted and motherhood was respected and celebrated.

I've always looked at abortion as approximately the same issue as suicide. Every one is a tragedy and we want to do whatever we can to prevent them. We've even tried to make them illegal. But we realized that it did more harm than good, by piling legal penalties on to those who were already so desperate. Giving government the power to regulate what goes on inside our bodies - no matter the excuse - shatters the basic concept of self ownership.

The desperation of an unwanted pregnancy is earned and warranted by the woman, UNLESS she is 'raped' (guy ejaculates in vagina then basically abandons the woman) which is a heinous crime and the same as rape IMO. Believe it or not, I think that our kids are being taught ignorance of human sexuality. That is, they are being taught to use contraceptives as if that is going to somehow stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies. With the number of abortions and medicinal abortions occurring one would think that just maybe contraceptives aren't working all that well. Maybe, just maybe, the BEST contraceptive is abstinence? No penis in vagina, no conception, no pregnancy, no fetus, no abortion needed.

Abortions peaked at 1.6 million in 1990, down to 926,000 in 2014, attributed to increased availability of contraceptives. teen pregnancies have dropped from 32.5% of abortions to 12% of abortions. The statistics do not back up your contention.

Analysis: Here's why overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't turn back the clock to 1973

 

[buttercup]

That literally sickens me. That mentality is one of reasons this world is so messed up. It leads to senseless violence, atrocities, genocide, etc. History has shown that.

Nonsense. I/we believe living humans lives are precious. Your side doesn’t. You would starve a poor persons baby or deny it healthcare because it can’t afford it.

Your way is leading us to atrocities.

Our way lowers the population and allows women who shouldn’t be parents to not be burdens on our society

Stupid shit if you think if you think life is precious you wouldn't kill them.

You morons are all over the map with your nonsensical BS

When did the life start again? 2073 posts and that question was never answered.

As soon as that sperm penetrates the egg a woman is a murderer if she takes the morning after pill. Murder.

These folks are totally mental.

Projecting again, huh?

Someone on your side just said a full-term preborn baby (no different than a newborn) was a non-person, just a body part of the mother. Babies that are months OLDER than premies outside the womb. And you think WE'RE mental? You're hilarious. Your projecting is off the charts.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Oh! Bringing up Margarete Sanger again! Understandable, I guess. She has only been dead for 53 years!

Sanger may be dead but her Eugenics lives on in Planned Parenthood. 'Planned Parenthood' now THAT is a real misnomer!!

Well, if it makes any difference to you at all, I, personally, have no problem with the government defunding Planned Parenthood. They have become too radioactive to the Right. I am sure that they could be sustained through private funding. Besides, it hurts me that it is such an embarrassment to the president, who promised to cut them off without a cent right away. It is like Mexico paying for the wall, and locking Hillary up. One can only take so much humiliation.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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?

How much should her wants matter when she won’t even take the right measures to prevent what she doesn’t want?

 

[SweetSue92]

You're building a straw man, dipshit. Give it a rest

My apologies.

I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.

How dare me.

All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.

Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.

We all know your game, fence sitter

You haven't said that it isn't. You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.

If you don't want to answer it, fine. I'm certainly used to that here.
.

I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.

Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic

Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?

I like your responses.

You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.

I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.

You're not going to answer my clear & direct question. Okay, I get it.
.

"Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".

Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.

 

[SweetSue92]

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.

You got her, Pumpkin. Whenever she is had entirely, she cries and whines about the fact that you are "babbling"....or just whines in general.

She's too old for this behavior but the hardheaded Leftists never really grow up. They get old but inside remain immature and really annoying 13 year olds

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway.

Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it.

Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading.

except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.

next.

False, it's a human, as it cannot be any other species, being a stage of human development at the moment of conception, having a unique DNA sequence, as well as containing all of the information determining what kind of human it develops into. It is a separate and complete human being, undergoing the process of development, as is any other living human. Whether or not it cannot sustain itself is totally irrelevant, there are people on life support who are still humans. There are people missing internal organs, and limbs, all of which are still human. Your argument is, once again, nonsensical, and special pleading.

All humans are self-owning agents, and being part of any specific stage of development does not change that it is still human, nor does lacking any one specific feature.

what should happen to females that try to abort if roe v wade is overturned?

Astounding. She gets soundly defeated and just dodges to the dumbest questions. Not even the good sense to slink away.

Kudos Pumpkin Row. I have much respect for those trained in Logic, Philosophy, Ethics and etc.

 

[Mac1958]

My apologies.

I admit, "is all innocent life sacred" is a real unfair, trick question.

How dare me.

All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.

Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.

We all know your game, fence sitter

You haven't said that it isn't. You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.

If you don't want to answer it, fine. I'm certainly used to that here.
.

I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.

Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic

Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?

I like your responses.

You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.

I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.

You're not going to answer my clear & direct question. Okay, I get it.
.

"Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".

Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.

"Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me. Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest. Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.

Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

All is. Now jackass point out where I've said it isn't. Then get the fuck over yourself.

Now wait for Ole Mac to once again claim a hollow victory and slither off.

We all know your game, fence sitter

You haven't said that it isn't. You haven't said anything, you've just avoided my question, become vulgar, nasty and defensive, and tried to make it about me.

If you don't want to answer it, fine. I'm certainly used to that here.
.

I just did you you dumbed downed, jackass.

Hint dude: I know your game, you're a pot stirrer with no real convictions. Basically a coward...I don't like cowards. Grow a set...you won't look so pathetic

Furthermore if you don't like my responses don't respond to me. Simple huh?

I like your responses.

You folks prove my points about you, every single day here.

I just toss the softballs up in the air, and you whack 'em over the fence for me.

You're not going to answer my clear & direct question. Okay, I get it.
.

"Sacred"? No. Sacred means "Connected with God, deserving of veneration". I think you chose that word on purpose Mac to give the situation as much weight as you possibly could. No, innocent human life is not "sacred".

Innocent human life is invaluably precious however. "Precious" is not "sacred". "Precious" means you don't throw it away; you don't KILL IT for convenience, but that life is subject to something else--it is not a law unto itself.

"Sacred" is a term used often by the Pro Lifers, not me. Yes, it usually has religious connotation, and if a person deems life to be "sacred", their "faith" is on very shaky ground when they start making exceptions for rape and incest. Therefore, they should be just fine with the Alabama law.

Come to think of it, I'd think so should someone who thinks innocent life is "invaluably precious".
.

Yes, "sacred" does apply so far as God's purpose for Man. And you are right about the Alabama law, though I get the impression you dont agree with it.

connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration