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

[dblack]

Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?

Dumb

 

[dblack]

Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?

Dumb

You forgot evil!

 

[SweetSue92]

Now that I think of it, I really love Dragonlady's Stupid Abortion Talking Point of the day she thinks is so clever. It is this in all caps and bolded:

IF IT'S NOT YOUR BABY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

What's funny about that is everything else IS their business. Imagine if we took that leftist Stupid Talking Point and applied it elsewhere:

IF IT'S NOT YOUR GUN PURCHASE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF IT'S NOT YOUR GAY WEDDING CAKE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF I WANT 50 PLASTIC STRAWS A DAY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

OH that's right--EVERYTHING is Leftists' business EXCEPT the dead babies. They don't care about the dead babies, but they sure as heck will micromanage all the straws you use.

Because dead squid in the ocean.

 

[Dragonlady]

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights. Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

If that’s what you believe, that’s your CHOICE but leave the rest of us out of it.

IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights

You realize you're typing word salad here right? What does "not yet living, are alive" mean? Is this how logic works in your brain?

Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

Yes dear, here's how it works, at least here in the USA: The right to life is primary. So a citizen doesn't get to KILL SOMEONE because they were in their way in line, or cut them off in traffic. Nowhere in law do you get to KILL SOMEONE because "rights"--because the right to life, again, is primary. If you are defending YOUR life, that's another story. But not just for "convenience".

No it’s not. The rights of parents to denytreatment to their children based

The definition of "life", or of "human being" for that matter, does not in any way include location.

Also, I don't see the post you're responding to mentioning God at all. That would be the pro-abort SHE responded to, trying to create a straw man to attack.

So according to you the dead have rights because they’re human beings.

So according to you, words are just sounds without meaning (or in this case, lines on a screen without meaning). Dead people are DEAD. They are human in origin, that is true, but they no longer meet the scientific definition of life.

A zygote, embryo, fetus - whichever stage you wish to focus on - DOES, however, meet the definitions of BOTH "human" and "alive".

One more time, and do us all a favor and print this out and pin it to your computer monitor, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Life

Definition

noun, plural: lives

noun, plural: lives

(1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

A fetus grows; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus metabolizes; a corpose doesn't. (Because you probably don't know, "metabolizes" means processes food for use as fuel.)

A fetus responds to stimuli; a corpse doesn't.

A fetus adapts to environment; a corpse doesn't.

While a fetus is not capable of reproduction at that stage of life (as is true of many born people), he is developing that capability; a corpse cannot reproduce and never will.

I would also add that the definition of life is often expressed as including the ability to maintain homeostasis (physiological balance). This would be included in adaptation. Whatever the scientifically backward among us think, a fetus controls and maintains his own body, development, and homeostasis; the mother's body does not do that for him. The mother provides the environment for him to adapt to, and the nutrition for him to metabolize, but the fetus himself independently directs all of the above-listed processes.

And when you've been fully, soundly trounced in your argument, you try to pretend dead humans are the same as alive humans.

You'd think at some point these people would have the good sense to slink away. But then that statement is predicated on "sense" in the first place.

It is you who is trying to pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights. Furthermore those rights would supersede any rights that their parents have, any rights anyone else in the world has to make decisions about their own very real lives.

If that’s what you believe, that’s your CHOICE but leave the rest of us out of it.

IF IT’S NOT YOUR BABY, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

As to your last sentence, imagine a husband who wants to beat his wife senseless on the daily making this argument: IF IT'S NOT YOUR WIFE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

THINK, woman, for pity's sake

You're an idiot without the good sense God gave a goose.

Since you persist in believing that a woman's rights to self-determination ends the moment an egg is fertilized, there is no point in discussing this with you. You think abortion is wrong and that you have the right to force YOUR belief on the rest of us. Women have died throughout history for the right to make that choice and if abortion is outlawed in the USA, women will continue to die because of it.

The decision to have a baby isn't something that should happen by happenstance. The results are to important to the life
you're planning on bringing into the world.

The only women affected by such a law are poor women. Rich women will just go to a jurisdictiono where abortion is legal. Poor women cannot.

 

[dblack]

Now that I think of it, I really love Dragonlady's Stupid Abortion Talking Point of the day she thinks is so clever. It is this in all caps and bolded:

IF IT'S NOT YOUR BABY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

What's funny about that is everything else IS their business. Imagine if we took that leftist Stupid Talking Point and applied it elsewhere:

IF IT'S NOT YOUR GUN PURCHASE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF IT'S NOT YOUR GAY WEDDING CAKE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF I WANT 50 PLASTIC STRAWS A DAY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

OH that's right--EVERYTHING is Leftists' business EXCEPT the dead babies. They don't care about the dead babies, but they sure as heck will micromanage all the straws you use.

Because dead squid in the ocean.

Right. That's where the hypocrisy starts to get pretty rank. You're making all the same "It's for the children!!!!" arguments that the left does when they want to claim power over people.

I guess "it's different when we do it".

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Now that I think of it, I really love Dragonlady's Stupid Abortion Talking Point of the day she thinks is so clever. It is this in all caps and bolded:

IF IT'S NOT YOUR BABY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

What's funny about that is everything else IS their business. Imagine if we took that leftist Stupid Talking Point and applied it elsewhere:

IF IT'S NOT YOUR GUN PURCHASE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF IT'S NOT YOUR GAY WEDDING CAKE, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

IF I WANT 50 PLASTIC STRAWS A DAY, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

OH that's right--EVERYTHING is Leftists' business EXCEPT the dead babies. They don't care about the dead babies, but they sure as heck will micromanage all the straws you use.

Because dead squid in the ocean.

Now ya done it...she's totally flummoxed

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When is it a human being? Is something that cannot live outside of the womb a human being? You are playing God. Picking a arbitrary time is playing God. Using the power of the state to enforce YOUR beliefs is playing God. The fact is that Northam was talking about a bill to make 3rd trimester abortions easier to get. If you want to use God then quite lying.

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

Since life can’t begin at any point without conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.

Again, not at issue.

At issue is the wrongheaded notion that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which as a fact of law it does not; an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the protected liberty of the woman is paramount.

Religious dogma or subjective personal belief might hold that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which is perfectly appropriate, where the right to privacy ensures that each citizen is at liberty to practice and express his beliefs.

But religious dogma or subjective personal belief neither justifies violating a woman’s right to privacy nor justifies the state compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide whether to have a child or not, not the state.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How about we concentrate on 'when is it a living thing'?


Then we can move on to whether you have a right to kill it.

When is that?

As has been pointed out so many freaking times that it staggers the mind, medical sciences tells that the beginning of life is conception.

No, that is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. What medical science tells you is, " Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus."

The idea that life begins at conception is a belief based on religion not science.

Since life can’t begin at any point without conception, then conception is essentially the beginning of life.

Again, not at issue.

At issue is the wrongheaded notion that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which as a fact of law it does not; an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the protected liberty of the woman is paramount.

Religious dogma or subjective personal belief might hold that ‘personhood’ begins at conception, which is perfectly appropriate, where the right to privacy ensures that each citizen is at liberty to practice and express his beliefs.

But religious dogma or subjective personal belief neither justifies violating a woman’s right to privacy nor justifies the state compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide whether to have a child or not, not the state.

Loon

 

[PoliticalChic]

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.

I know to whom I am speaking. Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.

I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.


Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.

Put him on ignore. Nobody takes the loon serious anyway. Hate filled and incapable of being civil

Actually, I never put anyone on ignore.

He is such an embarrassment to the other side, we should encourage him to post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion. 90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage. At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement. Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring. At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain. In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain. It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body. Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.

One of the folks on your side said it isn't either alive nor human.


Keep your friends close.....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LYING FUCK.

Whether that newborn can live is an opinion of doctors. Happens all the time on hospitals when babies are born with no chance pf survival.

No one is just deciding to kill babies. Quit being such a fucking asshole for once in your miserable little life.

A reminder....you aren't speaking to your folks.

I know to whom I am speaking. Ignorant people who whine about me typing "Fuck" who love that orange PIOS who says it all the tine. Fuck you & your fake outrage.

I'm going to keep forcing the vulgarity out of you because of how you stain the other Leftists.


Bet everyone is proud of your mastery of the language you picked up in the little boy's room.

Put him on ignore. Nobody takes the loon serious anyway. Hate filled and incapable of being civil

Actually, I never put anyone on ignore.

He is such an embarrassment to the other side, we should encourage him to post.

He's like our neighbor's yapping little poodle...Gawd that mutt annoys me

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone that disputes that the unborn are not alive is wrong. The fetus or embryo is certainly alive because it is composed of living cells and it's a developing organism. It lacks self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control but it will acquire these characteristics as it slowly develops into a person. At what point the organism is a person is of course the subject of debate.

I don't refer to a fetus or embryo as a human because the word has a number of different definitions and connotations. Fetus or embryo is the correct biological term for the the unborn.

By the fact that it is alive, it is a human being.



There are four references to ‘Divine’ in the Declaration of Independence:

1) in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’

2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,”

3) Supreme Judge of the world, and

4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph.

This is important because our historic documents memorialize a government based on individuals born with inalienable rights, by, in various references, by the Divine, or Nature’s God, or their Creator, or the Supreme Judge, or divine Providence.
Those rights include life.




Hussein Obama's science adviser, Peter Singer claims that "lacking self-awareness, self-determination, and self-control" are reasons to slaughter the unborn, and the born, and the ill and the elderly with Alzheimer.

Have an opinion?

The term human being has multiple definitions, one being a man, woman or child. A fetus is certainly not a child.

But we've agreed that it is both a human being, and alive.


How can an unelected, non-judicial, 'mother' decide to kill it?


. So, according to [Democrat] Gov. Northam, whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.” Precious moments slip by as the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table, but the mother and doctor are discussing whether or not she should live? At this point we are no longer talking about abortion or a woman’s body. We are talking about a child who has clearly become the patient.” What Happens to a Child Born-alive? The Media Won’t Tell Us.






This is the position of the Democrat Party:

"...whether a newborn gets the chance to live or not is a matter for “discussion.”

"...the infant is fighting for her life on the delivery table,..."


It's called infanticide. That's the reality.

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse. However, the connotations we associate with "being human" is not the same as being a member of the species.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, abortion. 90% of abortions occur within the 1st 13 weeks and nearly half are at the embryo stage. At 13 weeks, when most women will see their fetus for the first time through an ultrasound scan, its neural circuitry is roughly on a par with that of an earthworm or a marine snail. It's neural circuity is sufficient to preform reflex reactions without any brain involvement. Movement doesn’t mean the fetus is exploring. At this stage there’s no link between the neurons of the spinal cord and the brain. In short, the fetus at 13 weeks has no sense of pain. It has no self awareness and no self-control and is incapable of living outside of a human body. Terminating a fetus at this point is not the same as taking a human life because the existence of the fetus is not human life as we know it and in some cases, never will be.

Correct.

And that an embryo/fetus might be alive doesn’t mean it’s a person entitled to Constitutional protections – which of course it’s not.

The mistake those hostile to privacy rights make is to venture out of the realm of religion and personal, subjective opinion and enter into the realm of the law when seeking to ‘ban’ abortion and criminalize the procedure, one having nothing to do with the other.

"...doesn’t mean it’s a person entitled to Constitutional protections...."


It means you can kill it??????



If you were an American, you'd understand this:

. “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.” Thomas Jefferson.

And based on the above, every conservative, every real American, is pro-life.



For Democrats/Liberals/Progressives, the central idea goes back to the early 20th century:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

 

[PoliticalChic]

We found what Republicans are like and the kind of people they are.

Once they legislate women’s bodies, who do they go after next?

Will their next attack be directed at:

Gays
blacks
Muslims
Hispanics

We know they’re looking to destroy the constitution and they’re going after the Free Press.

But what group of Americans will they attack next?

Democrats are killing hundeds of thousands of children every year and you want to know who Republicans are going to attack next?

What children have the Democrats killed?

TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973:
59,115,995

Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014, with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The firearm regulatory measures advocated for by the left are perfectly Constitutional; the right’s desire to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law is not.

The Supreme Court has never held that measures such as magazine capacity restrictions, AWBs, or background checks are un-Constitutional; the state has the authority to enact those regulations.

The Supreme Court has held, however, that ‘banning’ abortion is un-Constitutional, that the state has no authority to violate a woman’s reproductive autonomy.

Indeed, the left very much appreciates gun rights consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s conservatives who fail to appreciate the right to privacy, advocating for more government and more interference by the state into citizens’ private lives.

 

[SAYIT]

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse..

I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.

​

That in red... A human fetus is alive and developing... a human corpse is dead and has no life. A human corpse is not a 'being' because it is no longer living. A human fetus IS a being because it is alive and has human DNA and will MOST LIKELY develop into a human infant and eventually a separate Human being with the parents' DNA. Do I have to really explain this basic stuff to you dunder heads?

Evidently yes because there is no bottom, no ridiculousness to which anti-lifers won't stoop (perhaps even believe) to justify their ideological adherence to what may be the 21st Century's most inhumane religion … Leftardism.

 

[dblack]

Will the leftists appreciate gun rights more when the fundies come to collect their daughters?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

No it doesn't. A false comparison fallacy requires an actual comparison. You, on the other hand, fail as a pompous phony, who really doesn't know jack-shit about rhetoric or logical fallacies.

 

[dblack]

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse..

I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.

Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.

 

[SAYIT]

Of course it's alive, it's an organism in the women's womb within the placenta attached uterus. If by human being, you mean it's a member of species Homo sapiens, that is also true as it is true for a human corpse..

I believe the focus of this thread - "Worst Abortion Talking Points" - has been validated by the herculean efforts the anti-lifers have descended to prove it but your argument has to be the single most brain-dead argument in support of anything … ever. Congrats.

Well, you do have your beliefs, don't you? Fortunately, for now at least, the Court and the Constitution protect us from your desire to force you beliefs on others. We'll see how that holds up. Lord knows you chickenshit fuckers are working hard to tear it all down.

Perhaps it is your belief - that people have the constitutional right to slaughter babies in the womb because a court once said "it's just a fetus" - which is threatened. I see any adult that lacks the cojones to speak for those too small to speak for themselves to be the true "chickenshit fuckers," Chickenshit.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

 

[BWK]

I say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad. The Abortion Industry has nothing on their side anymore: not science, not truth. They have talking points to win over the uninformed. That's all.

The one I particularly loathe is "My Body, My Choice". Stupid women love this one, but the stupidity is laughable. It's not your body, sweetheart. If it were your body, you could do what you like. Have your entire female organs removed, tattoo it up, pierce your entire face--I agree. Your choice.

But again. Not your body.

Your BABY'S body. Separate DNA, separate heartbeat, separate and unique set of fingerprints. Not yours. His. Or hers.

What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?

The radical religious Right in this country have lost their collective minds. I read this OP and these folks think they are God. Who in the f... do you people think you are to tell others it's not their body? Are you out of your friggin mind? What a disgusting bunch of nuts. Have you read the Constitution? Get out of here with your lunatic talk.

Nice rant, but you are the one who has lost your mind. The lunatic talk is the justification of killing human beings forming in the womb or have formed in the womb. The lunatic action is using abortion to kill something because a woman decides she had sex but regretted it, and then decides to abort because of her wrecklace actions in life.

People want to talk about "when does life start", but I ask when does very important individual responsibility start ???

I love these Toads and how they put it all off on the woman, as if she got pregnant on her own.

And then look at the contradictions on top of it. "People want to talk about when does life start", meaning you don't know, then tries to remind us that the "woman decides to kill something", when you are admitting you don't even know when life starts. And the poster wants to talk about my "lunatic talk"? If your contradictions aren't lunacy, I don't know what is. People, these are the kind of retarded arguments we are dealing with with these Religious Right-wing nuts. They really can't get their stories straight. Lol! Pathetic!