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

[Vandalshandle]

I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?

"By George, he's got it!"

So? Where did I suggest otherwise?

I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I also said that was their risk to take, just as any other crime would be. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?

My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.

Totally debunked myth. Laws actually do lessen the number of abortions.

So, you think that the 4th time you posted this that I would watch it?

 

[dblack]

So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?

Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.

Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I imply nothing. You can look up D&C's on the internet, and it will tell you everything you want to know. It was the abortion technique of choice before Roe, but it is also a procedure that is done for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?

"By George, he's got it!"

So? Where did I suggest otherwise?

I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I also said that was their risk to take, just as any other crime would be. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?

My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.

See my edit.

So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?

Your argument dies an excruciating death on those points alone, and there's a whole bunch more I could list.

Oh, please spare me, Sat. I attended the funeral of MLK in my home town of Atlanta. Did you?

 

[satrebil]

I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?

"By George, he's got it!"

So? Where did I suggest otherwise?

I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I also said that was their risk to take, just as any other crime would be. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?

My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.

See my edit.

So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?

Your argument dies an excruciating death on those points alone, and there's a whole bunch more I could list.

Oh, please spare me, Sat. I attended the funeral of MLK in my home town of Atlanta. Did you?

What the hell does that have to do with my question(s)?

Typical leftist. Can't dispute the facts so change the narrative.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It's been fun, boys and girls, but my cats are demanding their nightly treat and attention.....Adios.

 

[buttercup]

I'm aware. So what are you suggesting, exactly? That D&C's would be used as medical cover for "under the table" abortions?

"By George, he's got it!"

So? Where did I suggest otherwise?

I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I also said that was their risk to take, just as any other crime would be. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?

My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.

Totally debunked myth. Laws actually do lessen the number of abortions.

So, you think that the 4th time you posted this that I would watch it?

Just refuting what you said. If you refuse to look at anything that refutes what you say, that speaks about you, not me. It's actually the same mentality as another poster on this thread, willfull ignorance. Sad and very unbecoming.

 

[satrebil]

So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?

Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.

Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.

The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.

 

[dblack]

The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.

Yep. And we're seeing where that precedent will take us.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"By George, he's got it!"

So? Where did I suggest otherwise?

I didn't. Moreover, I actually said that in the event abortion was made illegal many women would still likely seek them. I also said that was their risk to take, just as any other crime would be. They might get away with it, they might not. So what's your point?

My point is simple. Your efforts to legislate your morality would have the same effect as prohibition, which is no effect at all. At the same time, you would attempt to restrict people from making the most important personal decisions of their lives, and put them into the hands of the government. I have a big problem with that. You see, I used to be a republican.

Totally debunked myth. Laws actually do lessen the number of abortions.

So, you think that the 4th time you posted this that I would watch it?

Just refuting what you said. If you refuse to look at anything that refutes what you say, that speaks about you, not me. It's actually the same mentality as another poster on this thread, willfull ignorance. Sad and very unbecoming.

OMG! Does this mean that I don't have your approval? Oh, the horror of it all!

 

[Vandalshandle]

So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?

Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.

Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.

The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.

Now, Sat., there you go again. Even it Roe is overturned, there has never been, and never will be, a penalty against the woman. Only to the abortionist. How many windmills have you tilted against and won?

 

[Chuz Life]

So... when we legislated morality on slavery and said we have no right to own other human beings - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said women should have a say in the political process equal to men - that was wrong?
When we legislated morality and said skin color should not dictate where your allowed to sit on a bus or attend school - that was wrong?

Those aren't examples of "legislating morality". Those are examples of protecting civil liberties and ensuring equal protection. "Legislating morality" is a phrase used when laws dictate behavior based on morals rather than rights. Porn is a classic example. No one's rights are being violated if someone makes and sells a porn movie. It was illegal for moral reasons.

Now, I know you're going to say that the fetus has rights - but that's where we're stymied. I think it's a ridiculous concept, except that it's not funny because it would set a terrifying legal precedent.

The fetus does have rights, which is why if I deliberately kill one I go to jail. The precedent already exists, thousands of times over. The difference is that, currently, a woman who gets an abortion is legally immune from those precedents. Legal immunity does not negate culpability, only prosecution. A foreign diplomat could execute someone in the street in front of 100 cops and they can't do shit about it - that doesn't mean he didn't murder someone.

Now, Sat., there you go again. Even it Roe is overturned, there has never been, and never will be, a penalty against the woman. Only to the abortionist. How many windmills have you tilted against and won?

The goal is not to punish women.

The goal is to secure their rights from the moment their lives begin.

After all, a woman's rights should begin when her life does and not just when society decides it can not stomach or justify the denial of her rights anymore.

Shouldn't they?

 

[SweetSue92]

And as I've said repeatedly in this thread - laws do not exist to prevent unacceptable actions, they exist to punish them.

How you gonna know I had an abortion big boy?

Tell me you plan. I keep asking you. You scared?

And I've answered you. Repeatedly. If you had an attention span beyond that of a goldfish you would have seen it. Search the thread. Unlike you, I'm not going to play your childish little fucking game and reiterate myself in perpetuity.

Are you the 99 year in prison poster? I forgot. You were going to work on getting that legislated?

Nope. Like I said, stop being a scatterbrain and read the thread.

Nah, if it doesn't detail how you aim to stop me from having an abortion if that's my decision (and we've already established that you cannot) I'll pass. You can't punish me either because you don't know about the abortion murder.

You are no threat to me.

It's almost unbelievable to me how much time you've spent arguing something so stupid on this thread.

We stop abortion the same way we stop murder--by making it illegal and by punishing the actual killers. First, shut down the killing mills. Second, punish any doctors doing abortions.

Now, if you want to go obtain an illegal, "back alley" abortion--you are absolutely right. We cannot stop you, in the same way we can't stop what goes on with murder all over the nation every single day. It should go without saying that this is the price of living in a free society--that we outlaw killing but we cannot actually STOP people of free will FROM killing if they are dead set on it.

There. I could have saved you from typing like 100 posts or something.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Are you saying that pro-choice people would make negligent and abusive parents?

 

[NotYourBody]

It's almost unbelievable to me how much time you've spent arguing something so stupid on this thread.

We stop abortion the same way we stop murder--by making it illegal and by punishing the actual killers. First, shut down the killing mills. Second, punish any doctors doing abortions.

Now, if you want to go obtain an illegal, "back alley" abortion--you are absolutely right. We cannot stop you, in the same way we can't stop what goes on with murder all over the nation every single day. It should go without saying that this is the price of living in a free society--that we outlaw killing but we cannot actually STOP people of free will FROM killing if they are dead set on it.

There. I could have saved you from typing like 100 posts or something.

LOCK THEM UP!!

Good luck with that. You could have saved yourself all that typing.

Not your body. Not your control. NEVER. NO.

 

[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.

Are you saying that pro-choice people would make negligent and abusive parents?

No plan to offer?? I thought not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.

In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.

... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.

Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it.

...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
What Is It With Democrats And Death?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Are you saying that pro-choice people would make negligent and abusive parents?

No plan to offer?? I thought not.

Plan for what?

 

[BWK]

Hey dingbat. Only YOU have control of your "reproductive system." After you create a child it no longer has anything to do with your "reproductive system." I never realized crazy was also stupid.

THANK YOU. I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:

For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) no one wants to control your reproduction.

You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies. ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.

So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights." You're fighting for killing rights. At least be honest.

Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.

I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane. If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion! You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.

Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.

If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.

But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?

We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.

 

[BWK]

"In New York it was the Democrat elected Assembly and governor who passed, signed into law, and then gave themselves a standing ovation on the dead-of-night passage of that state’s new legalization of killing children after they had been born.

In Virginia it was a Democrat governor who eerily described on morning radio step by step what happens when they decide whether a born child has the right to live or be killed.

... three NYC Democrat-controlled zip codes are the only ones where abortions outnumber live births.

Democrats have argued for mandatory tax-payer funding for low income women to have their children killed without having to pay for it.

...this week Nancy Pelosi led the charge of Democrats and for the fiftieth consecutive time were able to kill legislation that prevented post birth killing of children already born. Akin to the dead of night New York State Assembly vote—Democrats on the national stage voted to keep the killing of born children—legal."
What Is It With Democrats And Death?

You still haven't proven that it is killing. You are a liar, and you make shit up.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

THANK YOU. I was actually just about to post that to her. In case she misses the point, I'm going to post it for her as clearly as possible:

For the mentally challenged here (namely NotYourBody ) no one wants to control your reproduction.

You can have as many babies as you want. Or you can have NO babies. ONCE YOU GET PREGNANT YOU HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED.

So any proabort who is even remotely honest (which I can see is very rare) would concede that you're not fighting for "reproductive rights." You're fighting for killing rights. At least be honest.

Which is a lie once again, because no one has established that you're killing life, because we have yet to establish when life begins. And no manner of Biological science or teaching can tell us that, because there is much, if not more, that tells us exactly the opposite. By the way, have you seen any live egg and sperm cells from human beings lying around anywhere that missed their targets? Neither have I. They must have been aborted.

I cant believe I'm even taking the time to argue something this inane. If there was no life, then you wouldn't have to get an abortion! You would just leave it, because it wouldn't grow and rapidly devlop. OF COURSE THE PREBORN IS ALIVE, come on, you guys can do better than this. This is completely ridiculous.

Your argument is so unbelievably idiotic, it isn't worth the response. There you people go again, playing God. It's totally disgusting. No human has established when life begins. Are you that dense that you cannot grasp the understanding of what Life actually is? Maybe that is your problem? Did that fetus say hello to you? Did it tell you what it's name was? Did it open its eyes in the womb and say hello? This is madness to think adult humans do not understand the simple concept of life.

If a single celled organism were to be discovered on another planet the ENTIRE scientific community would hail it as a discovery of extra-terrestrial LIFE.

But somehow, if it's a multi-celled organism inside another organism - it's not a life? Are you fucking stupid or what?

We'll, if that's the rock of logic you want to die on, then abortion is going on all the time with women. Because, when the egg of cells doesn't meet the cells of sperms they just got aborted. You want to show us some science where that is wrong? I didn't think so. Hence, the anti-abortion argument is moot. And if you do not present counter arguments, then I proved you wrong.

Good grief....you've went over the edge.