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

[Unkotare]

lolol. Wow. The interesting this is how you always completely leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."

Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:

Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.

My ONLY ONLY ONLY concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.

It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.

So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just canNOT have any control of my body or what is inside of it.

NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO

Society has had that control your entire life, and will even after you die. Grow up, because that FACT isn't going to change.

 

[Unkotare]

Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.

If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!

I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.

Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.

Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.

I'm still in control. You are not.

But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.

Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.

 

[NotYourBody]

Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way.

"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others.

It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can.

How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath.

Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.

If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.

I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.

 

[NotYourBody]

Society has had that control your entire life, and will even after you die. Grow up, because that FACT isn't going to change.

Yeah? Is that why you can't stop me from getting an abortion if I want one. Is that what you call Winning!

 

[NotYourBody]

Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.

If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!

I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.

Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.

Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.

I'm still in control. You are not.

But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.

Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.

Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Would know better than what?

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.

Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion

 

[Vandalshandle]

When we desensitize ourselves to be able to legally murdering of unborn babies, it desensitizes people to murder children. ... Parents were responsible for 61-percent of child murders under the age of five. ... statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States. ....The sanctity of life no longer exists.

When we desensitize ourselves to the redefined definitions of words, like, "abortion" is "murder", and so many other redefinitions that can be found in the novel, "Animal Farm", like, "everyone is created equal" means that, "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others", then, authoritarian Big Brother (from "1984") becomes our dictatorial leader. As much as he may think that is true, it is not, and we are not sheep of the RW.

When we play semantics to justify the taking of human life we have lost our way. Nothing teaches our children - the ones we allow to be born - the value of life like abortion.

Feel free to teach your children anything you like. I will do the same.

Pro Choice teaches your kids disrespect for life. Children know the baby in your stomach is her brother and sister and not a nothing fetus. They feel it move, hear the heartbeat and say pictures. Never heard a child call the unborn a fetus but call it a baby. This should tell us something, Maybe those old Pro Choice fucks beyond the age of viability and usefulness should be aborted to make room for those babies that are aborted. Oh, Nature has already done that.

So, you are in favor of my teaching to YOUR kids? Ok. let's start with atheism.

 

[NotYourBody]

Definitions are queer things. Infanticide on one hand, abortion on the other.

Pretty sure both are in the dictionary, if you are confused.

I was asking a sort of, what do you call it, a rhetorical question.

Oh it was a question? My mistake.

OK, perhaps you don't understand what rhetorical means. Would you like to make a point?

No. I'm good. Perhaps you can discuss your rhetorical question with someone else.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

Would know better than what?

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.

Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion

And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.

 

[NotYourBody]

Maybe some kind of boot camp, where young women are taught proper Christian values. What would the punishment be for refusing to go?

If need a boot camp to teach anything, then you have truly messed this country up now. Do you listen to yourself making crazy statements due to your stance on being pro-baby in the womb killer or a justifier of it ??

Because even non-Christian women must follow Christian values? Good grief.

Do you listen to yourself making INSANE statements about your feelings of entitlement over control of another person's body and what is inside of it? A person you have never even met? That doesn't sound strange to you?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Would know better than what?

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.

Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion

And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.

Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.

The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.

You ARE pro abortion

 

[SassyIrishLass]

lolol. Wow. The interesting this is how you always completely leave the preborn baby out of the equation. You completely ignore that pesky little fact, in every single post, by repeating the same tired, overused, debunked phrases like "my body."

Here's another image from Secular Pro-life, that is tailor-made for you:

Sorry, I'm not interested in YOUR arguments.

My ONLY ONLY ONLY concern about abortion is having complete total 100% control of my own body and anything inside of it 100% of the time. And I want that right preserved for other women who feel the same way I do.

It's not *remotely possible* that I will EVER give up that control to anyone.

So you can scream and holler, rant and rave, and try to get up all in my business. That's fine. You just canNOT have any control of my body or what is inside of it.

NEVER NEVER. NO WAY. NO

lol. You're projecting. I'm the one trying to have a rational debate here (which I can see is impossible with you) and you're the one who has been acting like a child, basically saying "I don't care ,I don't care I don't care! la la la la la" with fingers in your ears.

I do hope that some day you grow up. As I and others said to you before, you WILL be held accountable for your actions. I have zero doubt about that.

You're trying to tell me why I should believe the same things you believe and why I should follow your idea of what I must do with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm telling you that is not only not your business, it is not even in the realm of your control.

You want to debate that? Tell me how I'm wrong. Because until you can do that, I'm not sure why I would listen to you.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I am providing you with one pro-choice position. I feel it is stronger than any other position a person can take on the abortion issue and, so far, nobody has been able to demonstrate that I am incorrect.

So we'll continue fighting this never-ending war and women who want/need/are determined to get an abortion, WILL get an abortion.

The whole thing seems pointless but you do you, and I'll do me.

Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way.

"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others.

It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can.

How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath.

There she is....well done Pumpkin. Well done

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.

Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion

And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.

Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.

The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.

You ARE pro abortion

He's a dunce spewing the same tired BS

 

[Vandalshandle]

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.

Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion

And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.

Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.

The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.

You ARE pro abortion

I must have missed that in the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the article in question, and send it to chief justices who decided otherwise. As a matter of fact, even murder is not a federal crime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You'd think they might have learned the folly of trying to force widespread change on society without a consensus.

Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion

And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.

Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.

The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.

You ARE pro abortion

Wrong.

Government’s most basic duty is to respect and follow Constitutional case law, to respect the rights of citizens, and to obey the rule of law – in this case respect a woman’s right to privacy.

 

[Unkotare]

Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.

If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!

I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.

Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.

Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.

I'm still in control. You are not.

But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.

Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.

Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?

Are you still pretending to be a woman, or are other trolls taking a turn with your sock account?

 

[beagle9]

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.

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?

Now let me get this straight. You are saying a human corpse is actually dead and a fetus is alive.

That's exactly right. The soul has left the dead body once it passes, but a unique soul has entered into the flesh that is forming or growing in the womb of another.

The soul is a unique character/personality given to the flesh in order to complete the whole person or human being that occupies the flesh that is forming or has formed in the womb......

 

[buttercup]

Telling someone "There's nothing you can do about it" doesn't even begin to touch on the ethics of the argument, you're only saying "They can". That's a fallacious argument because something being a certain way doesn't mean it should be that way.

"I'm not sure why I should listen to you" is just an appeal to ignorance. Refusing the exchange of ideas only implies that your ideas are so weak that you don't want to be exposed to others.

It's not "strong", because, as explained, it doesn't touch on ethics. If we did things on the basis of being capable, that's basically egoism, or "Might Makes Right". If that's the form of ethics that you subscribe to, I don't think anyone can actually explain actual ethical arguments and get through to your humanity, because "Might Makes Right" means you don't care about your own safety, that if someone stronger than you chooses to kill you, you're completely fine with that, because they can.

How about instead of stating "You can't stop me", you actually stop for a second to justify Abortion, since that's the active position, therefor carrying the burden of proof. I won't hold my breath.

Definitely a good idea about the breath holding.

If this were an issue that did not involve subjugation of my body to another person's will, I would be far more willing to discuss it. But I draw a line over control of my body and anything (child/body/tissue/fetus/baby/life....use whatever term you like) inside of it. That is simply NOT up for debate.

I question the ethics of those who think they have the right of control over my body and what is inside of it. That's some weird shit right there and you might want to re-think your sense of entitlement.

The baby didn't suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere, like lightning striking. It's YOUR own actions (and of course the guy's) that cause that new life to come into existence. Cause and effect. That is a universal truth, that you can't get around. Actions have consequences. So when you KNOWINGLY engage in an act that has consequences, don't turn around and act like the victim, when people expect you to face those consequences, in a responsible, ethical way. Again, you are not the victim. The new precious human life you brought into existence - the one you advocate dismembering and disposing of like garbage - is the victim.

We as a society need to get to the point where (as someone else put it) the current brainwashing is undone, and we begin to view these matters in an entirely different way. Unless one is mentally retarded or a child, everyone KNOWS that sex can cause pregnancy. It is one of the consequences. So if you have sex, KNOWING the consequences, yet you willingly do it anyway, then you are tacitly consenting to those consequences. Including pregnancy. Face the consequences, stop trampling all over the rights of others (innocent, vulnerable human beings) due to your selfishness, irresponsibility and desire for convenience.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Definition is one thing, but the application of is something people love to tinker with.

If we could all just walk in lock-step, right?!

I think that you've lost the debate by your responses now.

Not one person has demonstrated HOW they can stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion if she is determined.

Not one person has demonstrated how they will even know they need to punish me because I had an abortion.

I'm still in control. You are not.

But.............you win! I hope that makes you feel better. Really, I do.

Look at this ghoul, pounding her hairy chest and insisting on her intention to kill others.

Stop me then. Come for me big boy. You scared bro?

You're a guy arent you. Probably recently banned so you grabbed this username.

 

[beagle9]

Sorry, but of the two sides - pro-life and pro-abort - it's not the pro-lifers who did an end run around "the consensus".

These laws are being passed by the people the voters elected to create laws, and I'm relatively certain that the representatives passing these laws were open with the voters about where they stood on this issue. If the voters decide they don't like the laws being passed, they retain the power to replace those lawmakers and demand that the laws be changed. That is how the system is supposed to work, and is the opposite of "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

Pro-aborts, by contrast, looked at a nation which had laws reflecting the wishes of the voters of different states, said "That's not how I think it should be", and then bypassed the voters entirely to have a group of nine lawyers-in-robes tell hundreds of millions of people that they were wrong and this was how it was going to be and they were no longer going to have input into it. THAT is "forcing widespread change on society without a consensus."

There is no such thing as a "pro-abort".

You lie. All the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. Your people CHEER when one of your leaders speak about having an abortion

And you republicans, who's main platform for the last 100 years is to get government out of our lives, are universally in favor of putting big government in our doctor's offices.

Our position is the same as it's always been. It is the same as you once believed.

The governments most BASIC DUTY is to protect the RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE INNOCENT.

You ARE pro abortion

Wrong.

Government’s most basic duty is to respect and follow Constitutional case law, to respect the rights of citizens, and to obey the rule of law – in this case respect a woman’s right to privacy.

Respect ??? Where does the baby get this respect ?? The people have gotten so evil, that they don't respect those they can see, much less of those they can't see while refusing to view the ultrasound. The indoctrination has been long and deceptive over the years. Time to change all that by going back towards the light.