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

[beagle9]

the worst thing so called 'pro lifers' say - i say "the worst" but in reality, they're all bad.... is when they use the term 'baby' when referring to a zygote or embryo or a few 'weeks' old gestational fetus is the same as a post born person with a history.

when a clump of cells & tissue has more value than babies whose cord is cut...& they & their mamas are on their own as far as food, medical care, housing & education or GOD forbid, they are brown & are in cages ready to be sent back to their 3rd word 'shit holes' , something is seriously & defectively wrong with their brains.

1. A zygote, embryo and fetus are just terms to use for human development, like newborn, toddler, preschooler, pre-teen, teenager. They don't confer designation of worth on a person.

2. The 70s called, they want their busted "clump of cells" talking point back.

3. No one is saying the baby has MORE value than the mother. But, you do not KILL someone because another finds the life inconvenient or unwanted. This goes without saying in all other facets of life.

4. You deflect to ranting because you have no other case to make. See above.

A) rant? LOL!!!!!!!!!! silly you. you're the one ranting or you wouldn't have started this thread.

B) a clump of cells is still a clump of cells no matter what you try to change it into. you wanna legislate so that personhood starts at conception.

C) i see you didn't address the issue of what to do with all those forced to term pregnancies once the cord is cut.

D) now tell me how you want your taxes raised to accommodate all that new precious life & their welfare mamas.

E) did your god decipher the difference in 'personhood' in the OT? start with exodus & then numbers.

So your stance is that the world in which the left has created is now unstoppable, and it's highly unaffordable, so it best to stop the added pressures to that world while they are still in the womb ?

Otherwise to keep balance or to try and keep balance in leftist world, these things must continue to take place because there is no way out of leftist world now right ?? Trump caused a 7.9 quake to strike in leftist world, and the left went slam crazy afterwards.

 

[dblack]

But she doesn't care, she has made it clear that she doesn't care about anything but herself.

No, she's made it clear that she rejects any attempt to make her internal organs state property.

 

[dblack]

God will sort it out. Bank that one

That's fine. Just as long as he doesn't try to get involved in our laws. That's none of his business.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The christian bible says life begins when the first breath of air is taken through the nose

Where does it say that?

It doesnt. If you're referring to the creation of the first man, Adam, it says God "breathed into him the breath of life and Man became a living soul (being).

A person who is STILL LIVING may need CPR. A baby gets slapped on the bottom to force him to START BREATHING. That doesnt mean the baby was DEAD before this, but without the first breath they will be -- Adam, or all babies ever born.

Dana, you dont know that you're talking about, and you clearly have reading trouble.

it does say in the christian bible that if a husband even suspects his wife of infidelity - then a 'priest' can force an abortion.

Bad translation from the NIV 2011 edition. Not an abortion in any other translation. So, wrong.

It's hilarious when left loons try and use the Bible to justify their stance.

Epic fail everytime

They are desperate. They know Science is against their unethical position so they're grasping at religion to justify their evil.

 

[Dana7360]

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

If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate. Maybe both.

I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories. They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic. And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.

…and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.

I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus. Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs. Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years. The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks. It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week. When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want. Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.

The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.

Who will raise it?

Who is responsible for such a being?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder.

Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate.

I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive.

Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical.

Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’

Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’

As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.

And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.

 

[BWK]

Here's some reality for you to ponder. You have no control over MY pregnancy. ZERO. ZILCH. NONE. NADA.

You'll never even know if I'm pregnant. How you gonna stop me?

Don't like it? Tough shit. Come for me and see what happens big boy.

This kind of attitude is why I always tell men NOT to put penis in vagina unless they have a signed contract with the woman.

It's definitely a start in the right direction. Even then, it would be best to be triple wrapped if you are concerned about any life you might be creating.

No worries as long as no penis/vagina contact. Do I need to tell you how many ways a woman can satisfy a man and visa versa? You know, it may be YOUR body but you are letting sperm into it that has the expressed purpose to fertilize your eggs. How unwise is that if both of you are not prepared?

What's it to you? Are you God? If not, then who are you? Who gave you the moral high ground to ask, considering no human knows when life begins? Answer, you don't. But you have no problem in letting your ignorance, arrogance, and religious fanaticism tell others what they should be doing. Shame on you.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder.

Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate.

I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive.

Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical.

Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’

Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’

As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.

And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.

Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

NotYourBody. Not your body either because one day the Grim Reaper is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO

This is an example of the dangerous religious extremism and arrogance the right to privacy protects citizens from, by prohibiting such religious extremism and arrogance from being codified into secular law.

 

[BWK]

What will republicans do when the condom breaks??

Dunno but, the Democrat death-cult will kill the fetus. Then the Democrat man will go find another sucker-woman.

How is it killing? Did you prove when life begins? I must have missed it on here someplace?

 

[BWK]

So women feel empowered in an abortion? You are the most ignorant person yet.

I'm totally okay with your moral judgements. The answer to control of my body and it's internal processes is still NO.

You can stomp your feet and say no all you'd like, your body is and always will be subject to a higher authority. It's why you can't sell a kidney. It's why you can't engage in prostitution. It's why you can't procure illicit substances. It's why you can't drive drunk. Etc. "My body my choice" is a fallacious argument used only by those who have no valid argument to begin with.

And that higher authority knows when life begins. You don't.

 

[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.

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 first. The woman is living, breathing and fully alive. According to you, because women can control how many children to have and when, there is no law to protect living people from assault.

Again, IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE. Allowing others to exercise their rights and freedoms according to their beliefs is the Constitutional and American thing to do. Trying to legally impose your religious beliefs on others, violates the Constitution.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

NotYourBody. Not your body either because one day the Grim Reaper is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO

This is an example of the dangerous religious extremism and arrogance the right to privacy protects citizens from, by prohibiting such religious extremism and arrogance from being codified into secular law.

Good grief you're stupid

 

[BWK]

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?

NotYourBody. Not your body either because one day the Grim Reaper is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO

This is an example of the dangerous religious extremism and arrogance the right to privacy protects citizens from, by prohibiting such religious extremism and arrogance from being codified into secular law.

We are living in a time that if you were to put the religious Right in charge, women would all be hands maids, and if you resisted, they'd kill you without thought. And the Constitution be damned;

 

[SweetSue92]

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 first. The woman is living, breathing and fully alive. According to you, because women can control how many children to have and when, there is no law to protect living people from assault.

Again, IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE. Allowing others to exercise their rights and freedoms according to their beliefs is the Constitutional and American thing to do. Trying to legally impose your religious beliefs on others, violates the Constitution.

What on earth are you talking about--this is profoundly stupid. You can't even seem to grasp how stupid your talking point of "If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one" is. That's like saying, "If you think rape is wrong, just don't get raped"....but it's fine if someone else gets raped?

 

[BWK]

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

This thread has some of the most ridiculous reasons and arguments for baby murder I've ever read.

Leftists truly are evil ignorant morons

Seeing that you are unable to prove when life begins, while making that judgment call yourself, do you have any idea the ignorance, the arrogance and the religious fanaticism you bring to the debate?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate. Maybe both.

I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories. They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic. And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.

…and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.

I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus. Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs. Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years. The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks. It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week. When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want. Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.

The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.

Who will raise it?

Who is responsible for such a being?

The parents. See how easy this is

 

[BWK]

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.

If you're not willing to exchange ideas, once again, it implies that your position is so weak that you do not want to be exposed to others. That's not surprising, since you're literally stating that you have a right to control over someone else's body. It's up for debate because it's a separate body, a separate life, with unique DNA at conception. You can not prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, therefor you cannot justify murder.

Stating over and over that it's your body does not fulfill the burden of proof to give you ownership over the life of another, nor does it fulfill conditions for self defense, nor does it prove that your rights override those of another. You also cannot prove that the child gave consent for its life to be ended. Absolutely everything is up for debate.

I don't claim ownership of your body, you fool, I claim that the child owns itself, and the burden of proof is on you, since your position is the active position, while the child's is passive.

Prove wrongdoing on the part of the child, prove the child does not own itself, prove that your rights override those of the child. You otherwise cannot claim that murdering it is ethical.

Again, like others hostile to privacy rights, you make the mistake of attempting to conflate religious dogma and subjective personal beliefs with that of the law, when you make wrongheaded references to ‘murder.’

Murder is within the purview of criminal law, relegated solely to persons entitled to Constitutional protections.

The right to privacy concerns civil law – not criminal – having nothing whatsoever to do with ‘murder.’

As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’; prior to birth the organism developing in a woman’s body is not entitled to Constitutional protections, and as a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law abortion is not ‘murder,’ the embryo/fetus does not ‘own itself,’ as it is devoid of any rights or protected liberties, entitled to no due process.

And yes, you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you advocate for laws compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law; you do claim ownership of a woman’s body when you favor the authority of he state over a woman’s reproductive autonomy in violation of her right to privacy.

Hint Jones....you have absolutely zero cred on here. You're a hit and run poster and everyone knows it

Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

 

[BWK]

If that's all you got from my post you are either an idiot or illiterate. Maybe both.

I don't want to be mean, but after reading this entire thread, I've come to the conclusion that the ardent proaborts here fall into two categories. They're either dense as hell and willfully ignorant... OR they're completely morally bankrupt and some appear to be demonic. And I'm not even joking about that, I've seen that in other places, some really do seem like they need an excorcism.

…and still nothing from the right as how to end the practice of abortion consistent with the Constitution and respecting a woman’s right to privacy – all conservatives have are lies, demagoguery, and sophistry; all they offer is more and bigger government interfering with citizens’ private lives.

I think science will provide the answer by the development of the artificial uterus. Scientists have developed one now that can be used for lambs. Scientist say tests could start with humans in 3 or 4 years. The device would have limited capability as it could not accept a fetus early than about 23 weeks. It will take many years before they have a device that would accept a newly formed fetus as early as 8 to 10 week. When this becomes possible there will be no need for abortion. The fetus could be transferred to the artificial uterus as early as 8 weeks. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates would get what they want. Plus there would be the additional bonus 600,000 unwanted children.

The problem of what to do with that baby once it's born.

Who will raise it?

Who is responsible for such a being?

The parents. See how easy this is

Really? What parents?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

NotYourBody. Not your body either because one day the Grim Reaper is going to come to collect yours. And the Book of Life has all the good deeds and all the bad deeds and you will be judged accordingly. LMAO

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!

If one condones the sin they are just as guilty as the one committing the sin.

James 4:17

We need to start registering pussies, complete with quarterly inspections to detect any pregnancies, and then a birthing camp to make sure everything goes just right.

Please, don’t give the authoritarian right any ideas.

Conservatives would create a Ministry of Birth, where a doctor would be required to report to the state that his patient is pregnant.

The pregnancy would then be registered with the state and the pregnant woman assigned a ‘minder’ authorized to ‘monitor’ the pregnancy.

Any missed appointments with the doctor would be reported to the state, with the pregnant woman subject to arrest, detention, and interrogation as to why she missed her appointment.

Needless to say, the authoritarian right couldn’t care less that the child will be born into a situation of poverty and deprivation where his life and well-being would be in jeopardy as a consequence.