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

[Vandalshandle]

I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....

Only when one of you unhinged loons lose your minds over one and beat someone over it..

 

[NotYourBody]

The parents. See how easy this is

Tell me your plan for FORCING parents to take full responsibility from birth to adulthood for that childs physical and emotional (that's important, so they don't later shoot up schools, churches, concerts, etc.) needs?

I'll need a method that has not already failed.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!

I have a niece in Texas getting an abortion. Please send her a check for $1,815.

 

[BWK]

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

And you keep saying nothing. Why are you such a coward? A question was asked, and you cowardly attack the poster. Lol! This is all you people do.

 

[BWK]

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.

Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more. X2!

 

[Rustic]

I'm not sure when life begins, but brain death is evident whenever you see someone wearing a MAGA hat....

Lol
Political correctness is developing shit stains like this little fella... You’re out of touch with reality

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

The problem is, they all agree. They want a world where THEY do as they please, without responsibility, and leave YOU and me to pay their way thru life. Self-centered bastards!

I have a niece in Texas getting an abortion. Please send her a check for $1,815.

You pay for the irresponsibility

 

[The Purge]

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

Keep your pussy to yourselves and NO PROBLEM

 

[Rustic]

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.

Stop posting stupid shit. It destroys the Right's argument even more. X2!

 

[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.

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.

Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb. No longer is her privacy allowed to trump the life of a human being growing inside of her body. The state recognizes two human beings instead of one in the case of a pregnant woman. If she is killed along with her unborn baby in a crash where the drunk person is at fault that hit her, then two charges are levied in the case against the perp. One for the mother, and one for the baby. The drunk didn't just kill one, he killed two.

 

[NotYourBody]

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.

Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.

 

[NotYourBody]

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.

Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus before birth. Was that just a mistake?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.

Yeah. We know. That's why, when it is born, the husband and wife are to raise the child. The child is "attached to and nourished by" the father (husband) and mother (wife).

 

[Rustic]

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.

Maybe you should let God figure it out. He gave women the ability to access the contents of her uterus. Was that just a mistake?

 

[NotYourBody]

Yeah. We know. That's why, when it is born, the husband and wife are to raise the child. The child is "attached to and nourished by" the father (husband) and mother (wife).

Hold on there cowpoke! Husband and wife? Only a married husband and wife can conceive a child in your brave new MAGA world?

 

[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.

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.

Listen closely, the woman gave up her right to privacy when she allowed another life to form inside of her womb.

That's your claim, and that's what we're rejecting. Perhaps it's you who's not listening.

It reminds me of the excuse for all the "public accommodations" laws - they claim that if a person starts a business, they give up their rights (property, privacy, association, etc...). That's bullshit. And so is your claim.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Everyone can forget about the religious angle on this. God talked to me about it, and told me that he is cool with abortion. In fact, he told me that was why there is nothing in the Bible about it. He also told me that he, personally, causes miscarriages every day.

 

[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.

Men may not know this but the fetus inside a uterus is not separate from the woman's body. It is created in, attached to, nourished by, and grown in a woman's uterus.

Wait a minute, the life wasn't there, and then it is, and the attachments are formed to supply life sustaining nutrients etc to that life now forming in the body. Two lives now, and not one for whom decides the other one doesn't matter, so just end that life ? Evil.