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

[Cecilie1200]

" The Defiled "

* Religious Reich Espouses Abortion Exception For Adultery *

The Pro-choice side makes the debate about women's rights because they do not want to engage with the Pro-lifers actual argument....that the unborn child is a human life. Instead they scream about an attack on women's rights in order to distract from what abortion really is. Murder. This video provides a further discussion:

Obviously it is NOT murder to abort a fetus that results from adultery according to gawd - Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5 - King James Version .

27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;

It's in the book!

No, it's not. And it's very interesting to me that pro-aborts spend vastly more time trying to justify their position via the Bible that pro-lifers ever do.

Inconsistency is a sign of a guilty conscience.

 

[Cecilie1200]

" Fake Posers Demanding Their Way Be Done "

* Slapped Down For Arrogance *

A scholar must answer this for us (if he or she can), because your interpretation could very well be wrong completely. Hmmm.
Now give us your interpretation of this in which you have copied for us to read. Thanks.

The interpretations have been documented numerous times before as an Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia .

Do you not get it - anti-nomian heretic ? !

Wikipedia? Could you be any more pathetic? Why not just tattoo "Village Idiot" on your forehead and be done with it?

And even your treasured "source of all knowledge" doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't get any more pitiful than that.

Clearly, thinking is not for you, and you should never attempt it again. Stick to something you're good at . . . whatever that might be.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated

You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently disapprove. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Hurling Ad Hominem Hoping To Win With Any Insult "

* Village Idiots Clueless About Intents Basic Overview *

Wikipedia? Could you be any more pathetic? Why not just tattoo "Village Idiot" on your forehead and be done with it? and even your treasured "source of all knowledge" doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't get any more pitiful than that. Clearly, thinking is not for you, and you should never attempt it again. Stick to something you're good at . . . whatever that might be.

Let us guess , you bought an encyclopedia collection for your wall , and somehow believe that it is more credible than wikipedia on elements of fact .

For elements of fact , wikipedia is known to be as reliable and more reliable than purchased encyclopedias ; in fact , if you have every tried to publish to wikipedia , you would understand it is not a task for simpletons , as the first criteria is that valid publication references are required ; and , notice is provided when materials are contentious .

So , stick your ad hominem condemnation of open source in your pathetic pie hole , as the wikipedia resource was used to let fools know that i was not the first to find or to suggest .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Exegesis Eisegesis And Pursuit To Disqualify Vagaries Of Possible Scenarios "

* Popped Cherries And Speaking In Without Clarity *

It's actually pretty easy to understand if you've read and studied the book of Numbers for context, rather than cherrypicking for a verse to use out-of-context, the way Monkey Boy did. Short answer, that's not an abortion/miscarriage being described. He saw "Belly shall swell", and ASSumed the woman in question was pregnant.

Long answer: The book of Numbers, along with Leviticus and Deuteronomy, spends a lot of time spelling out the laws God gave to the Israelites during their wilderness years, to enable them to function as a coherent and insular society while wandering the land. Chapter 5, verses 27-29 spell out the test for an adulterous wife if there was no evidence of the adultery, but only suspicion on the part of the husband. If she was guilty, then she would be cursed with very visible signs of her guilt and become sterile. If she was innocent, then she would be fine and still able to get pregnant.

If you think that a wife cannot be pregnant by another man when a man believes his wife has been cheating , you are as stupid as the day is long .

The her " belly shall swell " did not enter into my consideration as an indication of pregnancy and i understood it to be whatever was happening in her bowels and causing her to bloat what would cause the prolapse and if pregnant to miscarriage .

During that age , women whose uterus or bladder prolapsed during pregnancy would likely have died of sepsis .

Simple facts are that you IGNORANTLY purport that " she shall conceive seed " means the woman would not have been made sterile , to save the stupidity of nomian political agenda .

No doubt you believe in such crap in the first place so go get 72 virgins and let them drink the potion by procedure , see how you scientific method works out for you .

We get the same crap out of the fictional ishmaelism whack jobs that exclaim an imam is needed to explain the qurayn , especially the obvious directives to violate non violence principles , else alleged interpretations with which they disagree and seek to safeguard their facilitation of the same are false , which is simpleton effort .

 

[Cecilie1200]

" Hurling Ad Hominem Hoping To Win With Any Insult "

* Village Idiots Clueless About Intents Basic Overview *

Wikipedia? Could you be any more pathetic? Why not just tattoo "Village Idiot" on your forehead and be done with it? and even your treasured "source of all knowledge" doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't get any more pitiful than that. Clearly, thinking is not for you, and you should never attempt it again. Stick to something you're good at . . . whatever that might be.

Let us guess , you bought an encyclopedia collection for your wall , and somehow believe that it is more credible than wikipedia on elements of fact .

For elements of fact , wikipedia is known to be as reliable and more reliable than purchased encyclopedias ; in fact , if you have every tried to publish to wikipedia , you would understand it is not a task for simpletons , as the first criteria is that valid publication references are required ; and , notice is provided when materials are contentious .

So , stick your ad hominem condemnation of open source in your pathetic pie hole , as the wikipedia resource was used to let fools know that i was not the first to find or to suggest .

I don't even have to guess that you found out how to type "Wikipedia" and decided learning was a waste of your time. All I have to do is listen to your ignorant ass extolling the "scholarship" of it and denigrating book learning as "bought an encyclopedia collection".

Do us all a favor and hold your breath waiting for me to justify myself and my education to the likes of a "Wikipedia genius" like yourself. I'm guessing your IQ actually goes up a point or two when you're unconscious.

You cited Wikipedia as your ultimate source, AND YOU CITED IT WRONG. You not only lost this argument, shitforbrains, you basically threw yourself on your own metaphorical sword. Run the fuck along to the pop music fanboards where you belong.

FLUSH!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Blow Hard Believing Flamboyant Gestures Are Relevant "

* Potty Mouth Comodians *

I don't even have to guess that you found out how to type "Wikipedia" and decided learning was a waste of your time. All I have to do is listen to your ignorant ass extolling the "scholarship" of it and denigrating book learning as "bought an encyclopedia collection".

Do us all a favor and hold your breath waiting for me to justify myself and my education to the likes of a "Wikipedia genius" like yourself. I'm guessing your IQ actually goes up a point or two when you're unconscious.

You cited Wikipedia as your ultimate source, AND YOU CITED IT WRONG. You not only lost this argument, shitforbrains, you basically threw yourself on your own metaphorical sword. Run the fuck along to the pop music fanboards where you belong.

FLUSH!

My forwarded positions on the legality of abortion for well over 15 years have been based upon the constitution and upon ethical valuations of suffering as a prerequisite for intervening on behalf of another by proxy and upon a necessity of sophisticated physical states for sentience , for sapience , for introspection that is perpetuated through procreation .

The numbers rabbit recently became evident to myself and find it sufficient to challenge the idiocy of puritanism who would deserve more respect if they were followers of Jainism - Wikipedia rather than examples for Church of the SubGenius - Wikipedia .

Your idea of winning is to have the discourse degrade into babbling idiocy of which you are an encouraging participant .

Let me know when you acquire the capacity to debate the real issues .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Stipulations Of State Limits "

* Natural Freedoms And Social Civil Contracts *

You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently disapprove. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.

That is correct , a state is comprised of and concerned with protecting individual liberties of its citizens who must meet a requirement of birth .

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

From the fact that a fetus is not entitled to equal protection , it is the private property of the mother , from which a wright to privacy follows .

The principles of self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) are major facets of individualism that asserts one cannot exchange or surrender self ownership for enslavement or debt ; thus , the concept " my body , my choice " is intrinsically tied to self ownership .

An individual and not a state is responsible for if or when they choose to perpetuate their genetic identity , it is not a responsibility of a state to dictate it .

It has always remained my position that males are aggressive because unlike a woman who knows that she is passing on her genetic identity to the offsping she conceives , a man remains uncertain and anxious about those assurances .

 

[beagle9]

Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated

You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently disapprove. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.

You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.

Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.

 

[dblack]

You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove.

I've been clear. I disapprove.

But I don't think it should illegal. Those are two different questions. Let me break it down more specifically: Just because something is bad, doesn't mean it should be illegal. Just because something is good, doesn't mean it should be mandatory. Likewise, making something illegal, doesn't necessarily make it bad. And making it legal doesn't mean it's good. Surely you comprehend this, eh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated

You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently disapprove. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.

You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.

Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.

You’re confusing two issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

Issue one: subjective opinions concerning abortion.

Issue two: the right to privacy, limiting government authority.

Those opposed to abortion are at liberty to seek an end to the practice provided those efforts comport with the Constitution, its case law, and a woman’s right to privacy – where the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

The problem is that you and others on the right advocate for more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of Americans at the expense of individual liberty when you support measures ‘banning’ abortion, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on a woman’s protected liberties.

The conflict isn’t about whether abortion is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ the conflict concerns the wrongheaded ‘solution’ of ‘banning’ abortion – a ‘solution’ repugnant to the Constitution that serves only to further empower the state.

You and others on the right need to take a firm stand in defense of the Constitution, regardless your subjective opinions concerning abortion.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated

You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently disapprove. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.

You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.

Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.

You’re confusing two issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

Issue one: subjective opinions concerning abortion.

Issue two: the right to privacy, limiting government authority.

Those opposed to abortion are at liberty to seek an end to the practice provided those efforts comport with the Constitution, its case law, and a woman’s right to privacy – where the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

The problem is that you and others on the right advocate for more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of Americans at the expense of individual liberty when you support measures ‘banning’ abortion, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on a woman’s protected liberties.

The conflict isn’t about whether abortion is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ the conflict concerns the wrongheaded ‘solution’ of ‘banning’ abortion – a ‘solution’ repugnant to the Constitution that serves only to further empower the state.

You and others on the right need to take a firm stand in defense of the Constitution, regardless your subjective opinions concerning abortion.

A fifth columnist fuck like you couldn't care less about limiting gubmint authority, when expansion of that authority benefits your commie agenda......So...

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Yeah, that IS what you're basing it on, just like you're basing "If no one's rights are being violated" on solely YOUR opinion that no one's rights are being violated

You said I was basing my evaluation on whether I approved or disapproved [of abortion]. And that's not so. I'm basing it on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. My argument is based on my understanding of individual rights and the role of government. You might disagree with my argument, but my opinion is not based on whether I approve or disapprove. In particular, with abortion, I vehemently disapprove. I think it's almost always the wrong choice. But I see the issue of legality as an entirely different question.

You can't have it both ways..... Either you approve or disapprove. To have any issue with abortion in a moral sense, is to not give any support to something as tragic as abortion, and to take a stand against something that is appalling to your inner being, your soul, and your humanity. Walking the fence is unexceptable, and it signals a confusion on the issues on your part.

Take a firm stand on the issues, and stand by your agreement or disagreement on divisive issues regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It's better that way.

You’re confusing two issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

Issue one: subjective opinions concerning abortion.

Issue two: the right to privacy, limiting government authority.

Those opposed to abortion are at liberty to seek an end to the practice provided those efforts comport with the Constitution, its case law, and a woman’s right to privacy – where the state has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

The problem is that you and others on the right advocate for more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of Americans at the expense of individual liberty when you support measures ‘banning’ abortion, placing an undue – and un-Constitutional – burden on a woman’s protected liberties.

The conflict isn’t about whether abortion is ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ the conflict concerns the wrongheaded ‘solution’ of ‘banning’ abortion – a ‘solution’ repugnant to the Constitution that serves only to further empower the state.

You and others on the right need to take a firm stand in defense of the Constitution, regardless your subjective opinions concerning abortion.

would you mind quoting the part of the constitution the framers used to back up your claim?

 

[SweetSue92]

DANG this thread is still going!!

I bet the eggheads are still offering up the same tropes amirite?

 

[Beyond]

Perhaps contraception should be taught....and the responsibilities of having kids should be taught. Then young women can understand it and decide whether or not to have kids. And it's ok to choose not getting pregnant. The nation supports that.

What about the young man in question? Does he have any reponsibility in this or is he just an empty sperm vessel being preyed on by some wicked woman?

 

[Cecilie1200]

DANG this thread is still going!!

I bet the eggheads are still offering up the same tropes amirite?

When in doubt, they just pretend that the previous conversation never happened at all, and start spouting their talking points all over again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Perhaps contraception should be taught....and the responsibilities of having kids should be taught. Then young women can understand it and decide whether or not to have kids. And it's ok to choose not getting pregnant. The nation supports that.

What about the young man in question? Does he have any reponsibility in this or is he just an empty sperm vessel being preyed on by some wicked woman?

What about him, other than he apparently makes an excellent diversion from the topic?

 

[dblack]

DANG this thread is still going!!

Yep. Trumpsters are trying to undermine the foundation of individual rights. Some of us are reluctant to give up on the concept of self-ownership. Some of us aren't on board with nationalism and have no interest in giving up our rights to the cult of the state.

 

[Leo123]

DANG this thread is still going!!

Yep. Trumpsters are trying to undermine the foundation of individual rights. Some of us are reluctant to give up on the concept of self-ownership. Some of us aren't on board with nationalism and have no interest in giving up our rights to the cult of the state.

Multi-use statement....Just fill in the blanks...add a word or two and VIOLA!!!!

Yep. Democrats are trying to undermine the foundation of individual rights. Some of us are reluctant to give up on the concept of self-ownership. Some of us are on board with nationalism and have no interest in giving up our rights to the cult of the socialist state.

 

[denmark]

The Declaration states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
A life is created at conception.

“all Men are created equal” ...
What about Women? Apparently, they were not, in the eyes of your country’s founders. Women could not vote until the 20th century, and are still being controlled by the 80% of US Congress members who are Men. Shame.

A Women’s body (including everything in it) is HER domain, and only SHE decides.
A person is created at birth.