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

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

 

[beagle9]

Why the Demon-crats are defending this so desperately, is because they figure that if they lose on any issue at this point, then Trump is president again. So take it just the way it is, that they will defend the indefensible at this point.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

While I disagree with abortion I do not understand why some don't like contraception. The pill has been one of the greatest things invented. Is it perfect? No. But it has allowed many women to not get pregnant. What is the argument against contraception?

None.

That argument is who pays for it. The ones who are doing the fucking should pay for it.

 

[sparky]

That argument is who pays for it. The ones who are doing the fucking should pay for it.

bad bad bad Tipsy.....

 

[LilOlLady]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

LOTS of people are disputing that the fetus is alive. What message board are YOU reading?! Do you want a damned list?!

"An entity"? Really? You can admit that the fetus is alive, but you just can't bring yourself to call him "a human" or "a person" or "a baby"? 'Cause that IS what "an entity which [I fixed your grammar] is 'technically living' (sorry, but that's just a pathetic attempt at face-saving for your beliefs) and has human DNA" would be called . . . if one wasn't twisting oneself into a pretzel to acknowledge reality while still holding evil positions.

Personhood - to the extent I even believe that's a real thing - is not conveyed by laws. Recognized, perhaps, but not conveyed. Yes, there is a difference between a person who is protected by the law and whose rights are recognized by the law, and one who is not: the same difference between a slave and a free man. Once again, do you think a slave is less of a person?

There is a difference between a human at the beginning of his existence and an adult, as well; that difference is NOT "person" and "non-person", though. It is merely the difference between young and old.

Common sense and any education about biology and the reproductive cycle know that the "fetus" is alive. It contains blood, bone, a skeleton, respiratory, digestive and nervous system. Trakes in oxygen and nourishment from the mother. And if you want to call it a cell it is still alive. Of course it is human. It is not an alien, plant or animal.
There was a time when a slave was by law legally not considered a person. A newborn is not viable just because it can breathe and eat on its own it still depends on the mother to survive. Is a person on a ventilator and force tube fed not a person. Use an oxygen machine. So a law that says a fetus is not a human until it is born and take its first breath of oxygen on it own is not true just because it is law. Science differs. That fetus is taking in oxygen from its mother and nutrition from its mother.

 

[LilOlLady]

Have any of you Pro-Choice women ever wonder why a group of old men and women way past of the age of impregnating anyone and getting pregnant and have had their kids and enjoying their grand kids do not want you to have any kids? Could it be they do not want to maybe have to help you take care of your kids at some time with financial assistance of social services and tax breaks, etc? Do you think they give a s@$t about your bodies and your kids? They make money when you abort your unborn babies. I am talking about the old men and women and others who make and pass these abortion laws. They don't think that they may contribute to the economy and be future votes.

 

[LilOlLady]

Isaiah. 5;29...Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

 

[dblack]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers', and forget all about the fact that you've been actively supporting a complete scumbag for the last two years.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The RW redefines legal definitions endlessly over this issue, even though the SC has held that abortion is NOT murder. Nevertheless, it is all academic. The Right is simply not going to be given the power to expand government control over women's bodies any more than they already have. Throwing doctors in prison is a ridicules "solution". The Hillbilly states' new laws will be held unconstitutional. If not, the laws will be ignored, and abortion will proceed as it has for thousands of years. Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.

 

[satrebil]

Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.

The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.

 

[dblack]

Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.

The 18th Amendment was proposed by the US Senate on December 18th, 1917 and it was ratified on January 16th, 1919. Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency at that time. History is your friend.

Huh. Then you'd really think Republicans would know better. Guess they are following the Democrats' lead.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The RW redefines legal definitions endlessly over this issue, even though the SC has held that abortion is NOT murder. Nevertheless, it is all academic. The Right is simply not going to be given the power to expand government control over women's bodies any more than they already have. Throwing doctors in prison is a ridicules "solution". The Hillbilly states' new laws will be held unconstitutional. If not, the laws will be ignored, and abortion will proceed as it has for thousands of years. Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.

Prohibition is owned by the dems, dumbass

 

[SAYIT]

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..

10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:

 

[satrebil]

The RW redefines legal definitions endlessly over this issue, even though the SC has held that abortion is NOT murder. Nevertheless, it is all academic. The Right is simply not going to be given the power to expand government control over women's bodies any more than they already have. Throwing doctors in prison is a ridicules "solution". The Hillbilly states' new laws will be held unconstitutional. If not, the laws will be ignored, and abortion will proceed as it has for thousands of years. Maybe the Right should give alcohol prohibition another shot, instead. It went over so well last time.

Prohibition is owned by the dems, dumbass

Don't worry, he'll come back and give us the "parties switched sides" diatribe. Leftists never own up to shit.

 

[dblack]

A fetus is not a baby until birth and it takes its first beath? Science debunks that. The unborn baby is taking in life-sustaining oxygen and nutrient early in development and is a LIVING BEING. After 5-6 weeks of pregnancy, the umbilical cord develops to deliver oxygen directly to the developing fetus's body.
For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother’s nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining. Life begins at conception. The embryo protection law in force as of January 1, 1991, defines the beginning of life in a medical sense, to wit, the embryo is the fertilized egg cell capable of development already from the time of fertilization. ... No other law explicitly provides a similar definition of the appearance of early human life.

The fifth-grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell."

No one is disputing the fetus is alive.

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..

10 week old "fetus" preparing to join the world:

Caption this photo...

 

[SAYIT]

An entity that is technically living and has human DNA is not equivalent to an entity that we should consider a person with all the rights, values and protections therein. In short, there is a difference between a living human entity at the cellular level and a person.

But that doesn't fire up self-righteous ire. You've got to imagine an actual person, sitting there in the womb, patiently waiting to be born. Then you can fill yourself with rage at the 'baby-killers',..

10 week old "entity" preparing to join the world:

Caption this photo...

You think I'm trying to trick you or do you not know how to copy and Google?

https://assets.babycenter.com/ims/2015/01/pregnancy-week-10-fingernails_square.jpg?width=600

 

[Coyote]

The rise in STD’s is noteworthy. Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?

U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common

Neat.

Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?

View attachment 262039

View attachment 262040

View attachment 262042


Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report

And race has what to with it?

 

[satrebil]

The rise in STD’s is noteworthy. Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?

U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common

Neat.

Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?

View attachment 262039

View attachment 262040

View attachment 262042


Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report

And race has what to with it? Nothing.

"My statistics count but yours don't!!!"

- Leftists

 

[Coyote]

The rise in STD’s is noteworthy. Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?

U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common

Neat.

Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?

View attachment 262039

View attachment 262040

View attachment 262042


Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report

And race has what to with it? Nothing.

"My statistics count but yours don't!!!"

- Leftists

“I’m going to insert something completely irrelevent and claim victory”. Rightists.

 

[satrebil]

The rise in STD’s is noteworthy. Guess which states are experiencing the highest rates?

U.S. States With High STD Rates Have One Thing In Common

Neat.

Now how about we factor race into your stats, shall we?

View attachment 262039

View attachment 262040

View attachment 262042


Just to name a few. Source: STDs in Racial and Ethnic Minorities - 2016 STD Surveillance Report

And race has what to with it? Nothing.

"My statistics count but yours don't!!!"

- Leftists

“I’m going to insert something completely irrelevent and claim victory”. Rightists.

I didn't claim victory in any way, shape, or form.