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

[buttercup]

lol. It's impossible for you to put forth anything other than logical fallacies, isn't it? The sad thing is, you appear to be completely oblivious to your many logical fallacies.

Public schools in the US have failed us, evidently.

It is impossible for you to hide your true motives.

You want women to behave themselves. To live their lives to your satisfaction. To think the way you think.

This has nothing to do with protecting life and that is apparent for all to see.

I do understand why you are so agonized. It has got to be profoundly aggravating to realize the control you wish for is out of your reach.

You wish, because that's precisely how you justify your evil, vile position. But you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

 

[NotYourBody]

You wish, because that's precisely how you justify your evil, vile position. But you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Oh gosh are we back to that again? Did you forget?

I don't justify anything to you. Not one thing. I don't pretend any justification.

I just say

 

[Vandalshandle]

Fortunately, unlike decades ago, a woman can travel much easier than they could before. Therefor, a woman can always travel to Vermont, which recently expanded legal abortion statutes. So they ones who are poor, poverty stricken people from Southern ghettos would be the ones forced to give birth to babies. They, of course, will rely on Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and other state and federal welfare programs to raise the kids for 18 years. I am sure that the pro-life crowd enthusiastically approve of new expanded welfare spending to pay for all this.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.

Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says

 

[gipper]

lol. It's impossible for you to put forth anything other than logical fallacies, isn't it? The sad thing is, you appear to be completely oblivious to your many logical fallacies.

Public schools in the US have failed us, evidently.

It is impossible for you to hide your true motives.

You want women to behave themselves. To live their lives to your satisfaction. To think the way you think.

This has nothing to do with protecting life and that is apparent for all to see.

I do understand why you are so agonized. It has got to be profoundly aggravating to realize the control you wish for is out of your reach.

Apparently you don’t agonize over the mass murder of 60 million Americans in the womb. Some of us do.

 

[Leo123]

Fortunately, unlike decades ago, a woman can travel much easier than they could before. Therefor, a woman can always travel to Vermont, which recently expanded legal abortion statutes. So they ones who are poor, poverty stricken people from Southern ghettos would be the ones forced to give birth to babies. They, of course, will rely on Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and other state and federal welfare programs to raise the kids for 18 years. I am sure that the pro-life crowd enthusiastically approve of new expanded welfare spending to pay for all this.

I love the way you denigrate women!! Apparently, according to you, they know no better. Especially the ones way below your fake elevated status. Take your pompous ass somewhere else.

 

[gipper]

Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.

Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says

How ridiculous.

Looking on the bright side, these boycotts of states for actions taken against left wing orthodoxy, could lead to a breakup of the nation. That would be great.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Fortunately, unlike decades ago, a woman can travel much easier than they could before. Therefor, a woman can always travel to Vermont, which recently expanded legal abortion statutes. So they ones who are poor, poverty stricken people from Southern ghettos would be the ones forced to give birth to babies. They, of course, will rely on Medicaid, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and other state and federal welfare programs to raise the kids for 18 years. I am sure that the pro-life crowd enthusiastically approve of new expanded welfare spending to pay for all this.

I love the way you denigrate women!! Apparently, according to you, they know no better. Especially the ones way below your fake elevated status. Take your pompous ass somewhere else.

No, I don't think so, Leo. I feel that it is my duty to expose hypocrisy of the GOP wherever I find it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.

Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says

How ridiculous.

Looking on the bright side, these boycotts of states for actions taken against left wing orthodoxy, could lead to a breakup of the nation. That would be great.

Yeah. It went so well last time...

 

[gipper]

Disney to stop filming in GA if abortion restriction is implemented.

Disney could leave Georgia over abortion ban, CEO Bob Iger says

How ridiculous.

Looking on the bright side, these boycotts of states for actions taken against left wing orthodoxy, could lead to a breakup of the nation. That would be great.

Yeah. It went so well last time...

Yeah we know you think 60 million murdered Americans is a much better option.

CRAZY!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I invite you to read this, and try another answer:

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

What will you do about abortion?

Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.

Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.

They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.

"Regulating our bodily processes." You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?

I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.

Nice attempt at dodging. You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes". Abortion is not a "bodily process".

And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue. Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Question for the proaborts.

When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacy Peterson, did he kill one or two people?

What is a "pro-abort"? - oh, is this the thing where you do like the liberals do and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your big government solution as having twisted motives???

Yeah, it is. You guys!... I tell ya.

. . . Says the guy standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those same leftists right now.

I can't help it if you guys keep changing sides.

No, but you can help being willfully obtuse and thinking the entire world must be changing, rather than just you.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

It means that when you suddenly find that your usual allies are now your opponents and your usual opponents are now your allies, you're an idiot if you assume that you stood still and the whole rest of the world changed position. It's far more likely that YOU moved.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Once again, thank you for that definitive assertion of cutting-edge 1910 "science", not to mention the "English For Morons" word definition. I'm quite sure that THIS time, when you tell us that your uneducated perceptions are reality, we'll just blindly let you dictate the debate parameters, despite having mocked your lack of basic biology the last 300 or so times you laughably tried to declare that every medical advance of the 20th century in that field was non-existent simply because it didn't fit what you wanted.

Is there an emoji for the "jerk-off" gesture? We need one of those. Born is born. Unborn is not. Sorry.

Oh, wow, what a profound epiphany you've had. This word is itself, and THAT word is itself. You must be so proud.

I can only assume this is your lame attempt to sidestep the fact that you said something utterly asinine, know it, and don't want to admit it.

"It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means." Either show me where the word born contains ANY assertion that a baby is "part of the mother's body", or admit that you were projecting your badly-outdated and incorrect personal opinion onto the language.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes? Because that's what you're asking: for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that. I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.

You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously. Really let that sink in for a minute.

And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?

"It's different when we do it."

What the fuck are you babbling about?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I hope someday you all can figure out how to be happy with your wonderful husbands instead of fretting and bawling over what's happening inside some other woman's uterus.

But, sadly for you, I doubt you are capable.

I'm sure slaveowners said the same thing when people objected to what they were doing. "Mind your own business, this is MY property." I guess I have to post this meme on a regular basis around here, since some of you repeat the same inane logical fallacies over and over.

I can't take you seriously at all.

I already asked if you would be willing to pay $1,000,000 per fetus when the technology is available to transfer a fetus from a woman's uterus to an artificial incubator. At a yearly cost of approximately $638 billion per year (likely more) plus the newborn medical costs.

You declined to answer (correct me if I'm wrong please, I did not go back and read the entire thread). If this were only about 'SAVING THE BABIES', you would have jumped on that like a tick on a hound dog. Anything to SAVE THE BABIES. No cost is too much to save a life, correct? Instead you passed.

Your true motives are clear. Go shine your special golden whore bell.

Also, your slave owner argument might work better for you if you weren't insisting on forcing lifetime physical and emotional changes to another woman's body against her will. A woman you have never met. A woman you know nothing about. A woman you will never meet. And you don't think that looks like slavery. And you think it's sane.

Logic isn't your forte, is it? 99% of your responses are logical fallacies.

As for the last thing you said, NO women ever regrets having her baby, whether she keeps her child or gives someone else the gift of life. Many, MANY women deeply regret having an abortion. It's something irreversible that they will carry for the rest of their life.

You live in upside-down land. Seriously.

I really hate to have to disagree on this point, but our society has become so debased and self-centered that there actually ARE women now who say they regret allowing their children to live because they aren't happy with how it affected THEM.

 

[Cecilie1200]

left tard males only care about poking women. The result, they hope, will be 'contracepted' or killed by the sucker women they swoon.

That's why many proabort men want abortion-on-demand. It completely absolves them of responsibility for the life they helped to create. It allows the player type guys to treat women like objects and not be accountable.

You are absolutely right that those women are suckers (to say it bluntly... many are lost and naive) which just goes to show that abortion is actually a symptom of a misguided and sick society.

All true. It's not at all uncommon, sadly, for a man confronted by a woman he impregnated to say, "Well, you could have had an abortion. You chose to keep the kid, so it's YOUR problem." Mind you, if she takes it to the courts, THEY tend not to agree (yet), but the attitude is out there.

And studies have shown that the legalization of abortion and the resultant attitudes toward sex and the possibility of pregnancy have had the effect of making ALL women, even those who would never consider aborting, feel more pressured to agree to sex and less able to say no.

Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann, “The Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Journal of Legal Studies 32 (2003): 407-433
Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, Jonathan Gruber, Phillip B. Levine, and Douglas Staiger, “Abortion and Selection,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 91, no. 1 (2009): 124-136, p. 127 (first two full paragraphs, and succeeding analysis)
Philip Levine, Sex and Consequences: Abortion, Public Policy, and the Economics of Fertility (Princeton University Press, 2007)

 

[dblack]

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.

Do you have any conception that assuming a law is "ill-conceived" based solely on the fact that it doesn't agree with what you want is useless for all practical purposes? Because that's what you're asking: for us to simply accept that your worldview is reality, and proceed from that. I wouldn't go along with that even if you WEREN'T shockingly uninformed on biology.

You're quoting Vandal to me as a source you're taking seriously. Really let that sink in for a minute.
And who is this "we" you keep citing that's "realizing" all this stuff and doing all these things in your revisionist history?

"It's different when we do it."

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I'm calling you out on hypocrisy. You pretend to want limited government and protection for individual rights. Except when you don't. Except when you imagine something is going on inside another person that offends you.

 

[dblack]

Apparently you don’t know how the nation’s court system works.

Ok, Gipper, that puts you in column c. There is absolutely nothing you can do about abortion, but bitch and moan, but it makes you feel better. You have no other answer or solution.

They can make it illegal. They can turn doctors and pregnant women into criminals. They can get government involved in regulating our bodily processes. Then can spend billions trying to force women to bear children, and, when the public has had enough of their clusterfuck, they'll roll back the big brother horseshit and we'll try to recover.

"Regulating our bodily processes." You think poisoning or dismembering an unborn child and removing it to a biohazard bag with surgical instruments is a natural bodily process, do you?

I didn't say anything about "natural". I just said it's none of your business.

Nice attempt at dodging. You tried to defend abortion by calling pro-life positions "getting the government involved in regulating our bodily processes". Abortion is not a "bodily process".

And you can assert "It's none of your business!" until your face turns blue. Won't make it anything more than your opinion, and only a dumbass answers disagreements with their opinion by restating their opinion as though THIS time, people are going to go, "Oh, okay, since you said it ONE MORE TIME, I have to accept it's true."

And only an authoritarian statist would claim the government has sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. That's as intrusive as government can get.

 

[dblack]

"It's a part of the mother's body until it's actually born. That's what "born" means." Either show me where the word born contains ANY assertion that a baby is "part of the mother's body", or admit that you were projecting your badly-outdated and incorrect personal opinion onto the language.

birth

noun

1. 1.
   the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.

 

[depotoo]

Let’s look at some other countries abortion laws, shall we?

In Germany, women seeking first-trimester abortions are subject to a mandatory three-day waiting period and a counseling session. Abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy are forbidden except in cases of grave threat to the mother's physical or mental health.
The Netherlands mandates a five-day waiting period between initial consultation and abortion; clinics must provide women with information about abortion alternatives. Abortion is then legal until viability (legally defined as 24 weeks, usually interpreted as 22 weeks).
In Belgium, where abortion was illegal until 1990, there's a six-day waiting period and the woman must claim to be in "a state of distress" before receiving a first-trimester abortion.

In Finland (home of the now-famous Finnish baby boxes and other enviable government benefits), abortion is available up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, unless the woman is under 17 years old, in which case she may have an abortion until she's 20 weeks pregnant. But even for early abortions, women must provide a "social reason" for seeking to terminate her pregnancy, such as poverty, extreme distress, or already having at least four children. While in practice most abortion requests are granted, it still forces women to prove to an authority the validity of their desire not to have a baby. In Denmark, abortion is available on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Afterward, exceptions are made for cases of rape, threats to the woman's physical or mental health, risk of fetal defects, and -- revealingly -- in cases where the woman can demonstrate lack of financial resources to care for a child.

Israel (though not part of Europe, obviously) has similarly idiosyncratic requirements and restrictions. Though 93 percent of American Jews support abortion rights in all or most cases, and the Torah has little to say about abortion, the Jewish state of Israel has fairly heavy-handed abortion laws. Abortion is illegal for married women between ages 17 and 40, except in cases of rape, incest, fetal malformation, or risk to the mother's physical or mental health. Women eligible for abortions (the unmarried ones, that is) must submit to ultrasounds, wade through rivers of paperwork, and plead their case to an expert.

Eastern Europe, a stronghold of liberal abortion laws under Communism, has become increasingly strict of late. Russia recently passed a law restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and Russian clinics are also now forced to give (medically dubious) warnings about the health risks of abortion, which supposedly include cancer and infertility. After the fall of the USSR, Poland enacted some of Europe's strictest abortion laws , banning the procedure except in cases of rape, fetal malformation, or serious threats to the woman's health. The Ukraine is currently threatening to follow suit.


So what are the countries with the most liberal abortion laws? Canada is a decent candidate, with abortion available on-demand, paid for by Canadian Medicare in most provinces. Though there is no federal criminal law governing abortion at any phase of pregnancy, in practice it is extremely difficult to find a doctor or facility willing to provide abortions past 20 weeks. Certain U.S. states -- notably New York and Washington -- are especially supportive to woman seeking abortions, and are moving towards having even fewer restraints, even as most other states move in the opposite direction.
In Liberal Europe, Abortion Laws Come With Their Own Restrictions