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

[SweetSue92]

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?

He slipped up with me already and accidentally admitted he was already leaving it up to God. This is his quote; 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.

Not up to me to leave it up to God, but more like following Gods will when it comes to recognizing life, and knowing that killing that life is evil. Once there is a consensus on that, then people have the free will to gather together, and to decide by vote, and then by laws to stop those things in which they don't want going on around them. You are the one trying to ignore the free will of the people by saying that what they think doesn't matter, but what you and just a few misguided in life think is all that matters. Doesn't work that way, and now that you have lost control of your bullyism in government, the people are gaining their rights to assemble peacefully back.

Again, words on paper will not stop a pro-choice woman from getting an abortion if she makes that decision. Even if they are signed with a Sharpie.

You have not stopped abortion, no matter how much you stomp your feet and insist it is true.

That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.

Wow. So much fail.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

This kid is very young and his outsized reaction is not his fault. His mother should be talking him DOWN from his worry, not encouraging him. He's not a "sh1t stain"....he has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Shame on HER

I think you're watching a future "environmentalist" KILLER if this is encouraged.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

This kid is very young and his outsized reaction is not his fault. His mother should be talking him DOWN from his worry, not encouraging him. He's not a "sh1t stain"....he has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Shame on HER

I'd be ashamed to post that video. Poor kid is doomed

 

[Vandalshandle]

Your ethics do not trump my ethics. Your values do not trump my values. your judgement of my morality is totally irrelevant.

Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power.

There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.

So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"

A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate.

As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.

That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me.

The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad.

If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not.

A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.

 

[SweetSue92]

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

This kid is very young and his outsized reaction is not his fault. His mother should be talking him DOWN from his worry, not encouraging him. He's not a "sh1t stain"....he has been thoroughly indoctrinated. Shame on HER

I think you're watching a future "environmentalist" KILLER if this is encouraged.

One can only hope he will come to his senses eventually

 

[buttercup]

As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!

They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.

They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.

I'm gonna miss them!

Amen. Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless. Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can. As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.

 

[NotYourBody]

abandons his child

I can agree with that. And a promiscuous woman should be spayed.

Go for it dude. Advocate. Get society on your side.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Then prove me wrong, explain how it's ethical to initiate force against an innocent person. You didn't even make an argument, you're just posting empty words with no explanatory power.

There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.

So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"

A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate.

As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.

That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me.

The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad.

If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not.

A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.

If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts.

 

[NotYourBody]

That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.

Wow. So much fail.

Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?

 

[Vandalshandle]

There are people in the world who believe that I am condemned to hell as an infidel, because I do not pray to Mecca five times per day. There are people in the world who claim that I am an evil communist, because I am a democrat. There are also people in the world who claim that I have no ethics, because I am pro-choice. I give each of these opinions the same weight, which is none at all.

So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"

A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate.

As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.

That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me.

The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad.

If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not.

A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.

If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts.

What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

 

[Vandalshandle]

That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.

Wow. So much fail.

Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?

Apparently, rape does not occur in Alabama.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So, you argument is that it's totally legitimate to initiate violence against others, because they think you're a bad person. By that logic, an infinite number of people can initiate violence against an infinite number of others, and it's totally legitimate, so long as they don't like each other. Basically, "I can hurt you because you disagree with me!"

A person disliking you doesn't inflict any demonstrable harm. The moment they attempt to initiate force against you is the moment hurting them is legitimate.

As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.

That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me.

The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad.

If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not.

A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.

If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts.

What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.

Wow. So much fail.

Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?

You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!

 

[Vandalshandle]

As a matter of fact, I was a protester against the violence in Vietnam, and was labeled a traitor by the Right for it, at the time. I think that you should stick with what I write, and not do that, ""In other words..." thing. It doesn't work on me.

That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me.

The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad.

If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not.

A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.

If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts.

What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics.

If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That just makes you inconsistent, not correct. I also don't care one bit what "The right" says, other people do not define me.

The point was that you claimed you can justify the initiation of force against an innocent person, then used as your excuse that people think you're bad.

If you're arguing for a form of ethics, they must be consistent, so either you support the initiation of force or you do not.

A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.

If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts.

What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics.

If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.

Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!

They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.

They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.

I'm gonna miss them!

Amen. Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless. Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can. As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.

And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.

 

[NotYourBody]

That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.

Wow. So much fail.

Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?

You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!

You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.

You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls all human reproduction.

I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority of our society. You lose.

 

[Vandalshandle]

A. I didn't "Claim" anything.
B. I am not arguing.
C. I am simply stating a fact. I could apologize that I do not agree with your attempt to override my conscious with yours, but, the truth is, I don't care, because you can not do that. There is no real Jiminy Cricket.

If you weren't making a claim, then you didn't answer the question. If you don't have an answer for my question, then you don't have an argument against deontological ethics and you're just making filler posts.

What I am doing is stating an opinion that is different than yours, and for reasons that I can not fathom, you have a very hard time dealing with that. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

That's riveting, however opinions are subjective, while ethics are objective. This is why I asked you to justify the initiation of force. If you can't, you have no argument against deontological ethics.

If that makes you feel better..... but your ethics are still not more valid than mine.

Not my ethics, objective ethics. Feelings are irrelevant. If you had an argument against deontological ethics, you'd have made it instead of making filler posts. I suspect you're only responding, despite having no argument, to make yourself feel better. That would make your previous post projection.

Ok. I'll go there for a few minutes. I have a question. If the USA were to draft you, and tell you that you are going to go to some country in the Middle East, and kill people who live there whose religion offends us, would you go?

 

[Vandalshandle]

As a conservative, I respect ALL life -- human and animal. Outside my kitchen window right now i watch as a mother Robin brings food to her 4 babies. When they see me walk past the window they open their mouths in the hope that I'll bring them some worms!

They were EGGS a week ago, but the mother wasnt selfish. She didnt destroy the fertilized eggs, like a tard human would do, but carefully tended to and protected the new LIFE.

They will fly away in another week, but this MOTHER has far more sense and love than a tard human.

I'm gonna miss them!

Amen. Same here. It's why I'm vegan. I have a heart for the underdog, the innocent, vulnerable and defenseless. Which happen to be the very beings that ruthless humans target, simply because they can. As Christians we are told to be a voice for the voiceless. And that's exactly what I want to do.

And old christian friends used to say, humans have the ability to CHOOSE to live as "gods" (small 'g') during our time on this earth, or like demons. We are always forced to make this choice daily. Its always the right choice to live like sons and daughters of the Creator.

That seems like a mixed message to me, since god knowingly sacrificed his own son's life.

 

[buttercup]

That is another failed argument. That's like saying nothing in human history has ever prevented rape, so we should just make it legal.

Wow. So much fail.

Rape has disappeared from our world? Since when?

You really struggle with LOGIC, dont you!

You STILL have not explained to me, in any logical way, how you will stop/prevent a woman from having an abortion if that is her decision.

You don't because you aren't willing to follow that path to it's logical conclusion. Which is your brave new MAGA world where the state controls reproduction.

I'll never submit to that and neither will the majority our society. You lose.

OH MY GOSH. You are dense. That is not the issue! That is nothing but a red herring.

Furthermore, you're simply wrong. Abortion restrictions actually DO lessen the number of abortions. Again, watch this video, she thoroughly debunks that myth:



But even if that wasn't the case, even if laws DON'T make a difference at all (which is false), it's STILL irrelevant to the question of whether or not abortion is justified. Which is the crux of the abortion debate.