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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

And?

That one might perceive abortion to be a ‘sin’ is not ‘justification’ to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

Citizens are at liberty to subjectively believe that abortion is ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ or a ‘sin’ and to not have an abortion accordingly.

Citizens are at liberty to speak out against the practice and to advocate for an end to abortion consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

But citizens are not at liberty to ‘ban’ abortion the consequence of their subjective personal or religious beliefs and compel a woman to give birth against her will where the state has no authority to do so.

 

[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

It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.

The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.

The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.

Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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?

Good Allah you guys are dumm

par·ent
/ˈperənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
plural noun: parents

1. 1.
   a father or mother.

 

[BWK]

…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?

Good Allah you guys are dumm

par·ent
/ˈperənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
plural noun: parents

1. 1.
   a father or mother.

So you can't answer the question as we suspected you wouldn't. But was just checking to see if you had answered it honestly the first time, and you did not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the right to privacy.

That some might subjectively believe that the reason or reasons why a woman elects to terminate her pregnancy are ‘wrong’ or ‘invalid’ is legally irrelevant, in no manner ‘justification’ to deny a woman that choice guaranteed to her by the Constitution.

 

[BWK]

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

It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.

The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.

Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless

I will ask you again, while you run from the question.
Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

You run your fat keyboard on this forum until you can't. Stop being a coward and answer the question.

 

[NotYourBody]

Again, I am not validating YOUR arguments.

I stated my position on late term abortions. A decision between a woman and her doctor regarding her late term pregnancy is still her decision. No control has been taken away from her. I trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing. The rest is not my business.

Hahaha. I never asked you to validate MY argument, Einstein, I've been asking you to support YOUR own so-called argument. You see, that's what people do in these discussions. The reasonable people, anyway.

But yeah, I know, you won't answer direct questions, you won't support your own 'argument', you seem oblivious to your numerous logical fallacies, and as Pumpkin said, you're just repeating your same tired stawman over and over and over. *yawn*

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll just assume you do support killing a full-term baby moments away from delivery for no reason at all. In other words, infanticide. I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer would get along great with you.

For the millionth tired time. I'm not seeking your approval.

In fact, I have defended my position so perfectly that not one person in here has been able to prove me wrong. I think that is what has you so aggravated.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.

To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.

The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.

Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless

I will ask you again, while you run from the question.
Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

You run your fat keyboard on this forum until you can't. Stop being a coward and answer the question.

At conception dumbfuck. Now sit your loudmouth stupid fucking ass down...jackass

 

[BWK]

Does that mean the woman controlling her own body is responsible for controlling a man's dick? Where's his responsibility in all this?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

You keep tripping over reality then picking picking yourself up and carrying on as if nothing happened

That one is as stupid as a sack of hammers

 

[beagle9]

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.

Her internal organs are separate from her baby forming in her womb. Refusing access to those organs in which sustains the baby's life is a premeditated plot to end that life prematurely.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.

To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.

But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.

None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.

This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.

To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.

But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.

None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.

This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[BWK]

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

James 4:17

It's why we have laws about aiding and abetting.

The ignorance of this is beyond remarkable.

Jones flapping his arms and babbling away...clueless

I will ask you again, while you run from the question.
Speaking of "hit and run", when did God or Science establish when life begins again? /rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

You run your fat keyboard on this forum until you can't. Stop being a coward and answer the question.

At conception dumbfuck. Now sit your loudmouth stupid fucking ass down...jackass

That's not what the science tells us. I already posted the link proving that there is no consensus when life begins according to science. Telling me it begins at conception is not proving a scientific point. You'll have to take my link apart if you are to be credible. So far you have said shit. Get started, or you've been bull shitting and lying the whole time.

You want to debate on this forum? Fine! Then debate. Show us what you got, because the pro-choice crowd is tired of these chicken shit games of using religion and non supporting arguments to make your case.

I need for you to show me from a link where life begins. I don't want theories, philosophical, or religious excuses. I want hard evidence. And if you can't provide it, then shut the hell up about it and go back into your hole.

 

[BWK]

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.

Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.

To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.

But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.

None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.

This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more.

 

[beagle9]

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.

And yet you advocate to assume responsibility for that position as if you know more than God or rather you are a risk taker with your soul by thinking that you can out think God or convince God that you are right and he is wrong.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Without God, you wouldn't be. Think about it.

To attempt to separate yourself from him and his judgement is impossible. Some will regret heavily the positions they have adopted in their lives, and the evilness they have turned to for guidance on the issues.

But none of this ‘justifies’ violating a woman’s right to privacy.

None of this ‘justifies’ compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

None of this ‘authorizes’ the state to criminalize a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy.

This is subjective religious dogma, devoid of legal merit, and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more.