The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Carib Gyal]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

Yeah I heard you say something like that before. I guess a nose bleed is better than bleeding out ya ass, olden.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

Still working on being able to think without moving your lips?

 

[koshergrl]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

Yeah I heard you say something like that before. I guess a nose bleed is better than bleeding out ya ass, olden.

It's more of the word games.

They think they can alter reality by lying.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

This is the eviction argument warmed over. She can evict people from her body, but she can't kill them unless her life is threatened.

 

[koshergrl]

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

This is the eviction argument warmed over. She can evict people from her body, but she can't kill them unless her life is threatened.

Exactly.

And she can't evict them, even, until they have adequate time to pool their resources and obtain alternate shelter.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Life begins; like everything else... at the beginning. And the Beginning of human life is conception... and despite the Left's chronic attempt to debate, this is not even remotely debatable.

"Personhood" is a foolish rationalization which came about by a child. She was an anti-theist, a feminist and a fool who was attending Harvard and authored a paper which espoused the 'personhood' thesis.

As all rationalizations do... "Personhood" avoids reality... and specifically the reality that for there to be a right, that right must exists for everyone... and the exercise of that right cannot usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights. And Abortion strips a human being of its life, thus usurps the means of that human being to exercise it's right to its life.

And that is truly all there is to this...

A Woman's 'right to choose' is very real. It is exercised by the woman making the decision, thus the choice, in with whom, when and where she allows a man to enter her body through sexual intercourse. As long as the male is aroused, thus indicating his willingness to enter her... and BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation... and that the pleasure that is at hand is going to last a few minutes, but that the responsibility for the life that will likely be conceived is going to last for DECADES, at that point she has MADE her choice. At which time the right ends and the responsibilities BEGIN.

When nature designed us, having lots of babies was necessary for the survival of the species.

Yep...

And nothing's changed, accept people no longer respect themselves or their responsibilities to others, which is a manifestation of evil. And evil produces only chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Now, there is only one set of ideas which reject objectivity. What is that Ideology?

In the answering of THAT, you'll find: The Problem.

 

[Skylar]

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

....in your opinion.

Oh, the right to control the use of her body isn't mere opinion. Its well established law.

Not as you are defining it, I'm afraid.

Her womb is her body. And she's denying the use of it to.....anyone or anything. The embryo has no right to the use her body anymore than it has a right to the use of anyone else's.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

This is the eviction argument warmed over. She can evict people from her body, but she can't kill them unless her life is threatened.

She has the authority to deny the use of her body to the embryo. That the embryo dies is a consequences of the embryo being unable to survive without using her body against her will. Which it has no right to do.

Rights are on only side of this argument. The embryo has none in regards to the use of her body. And she has them all in the use of her body.

 

[koshergrl]

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

....in your opinion.

Oh, the right to control the use of her body isn't mere opinion. Its well established law.

Not as you are defining it, I'm afraid.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

This is the eviction argument warmed over. She can evict people from her body, but she can't kill them unless her life is threatened.

She has the authority to deny the use of her body to the embryo. That the embryo dies is a consequences of the embryo being unable to survive without using her body against her will. Which it has no right to do.

Rights are on only side of this argument. The embryo has none in regards to the use of her body. And she has them all in the use of her body.

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live. Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

And screwing the wrong guy is not good cause.

 

[Skylar]

Now, there is only one set of ideas which reject objectivity.

You don't have objectivity. You have subjectivity. You believe what you choose to believe, based on your own personal opinion, culture, society and personal context. That you are convinced and certain that your beliefs are the only moral truth is irrelevant. Lots of other people have the same belief, with most of them disagreeing with you.

And you can't all be right. Nor is there anything that mandates that any of you are. And since your assessment of objective moral truth is mutually exclusive in relation to all the other assessments of objective moral truth, that means that most of you are wrong. That your 'certainty' is self delusion. And worse, its entirely possible if not probable that all of you are wrong.

Demonstrating elegnatly that certainty is one's own moral infallability has no particular relationship with accuracy.

Just like PC, your argument requires that we accept you as an infallible moral arbiter. If we don't, you've got nothing. No logic, no reason, just random personal opinion. In short, your argument is meaningless to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Which is about as uncompelling and unpersuasive as an argument can get.

 

[koshergrl]

Now, there is only one set of ideas which reject objectivity.

You don't have objectivity. You have subjectivity. You believe what you choose to believe, based on your own personal opinion, culture, society and personal context. That you are convinced and certain that your beliefs are the only moral truth is irrelevant. Lots of other people have the same belief, with most of them disagreeing with you.

And you can't all be right. Nor is there anything that mandates that any of you are. And since your assessment of objective moral truth is mutually exclusive in relation to all the other assessments of objective moral truth, that means that most of you are wrong. That your 'certainty' is self delusion. And worse, its entirely possible if not probable that all of you are wrong.

Demonstrating elegnatly that certainty is one's own moral infallability has no particular relationship with accuracy.

Just like PC, your argument requires that we accept you as an infallible moral arbiter. If we don't, you've got nothing. No logic, no reason, just random personal opinion. In short, your argument is meaningless to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Which is about as uncompelling and unpersuasive as an argument can get.

^^^Ironic post of the day.

 

[Carib Gyal]

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

....in your opinion.

Oh, the right to control the use of her body isn't mere opinion. Its well established law.

Not as you are defining it, I'm afraid.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

This is the eviction argument warmed over. She can evict people from her body, but she can't kill them unless her life is threatened.

She has the authority to deny the use of her body to the embryo. That the embryo dies is a consequences of the embryo being unable to survive without using her body against her will. Which it has no right to do.

Rights are on only side of this argument. The embryo has none in regards to the use of her body. And she has them all in the use of her body.

This argument is a serious reach, so let's reach back. Rape is definitely someone using her body against her will. While it's a crime, it's not a crime that is punishable by death.

Perhaps we can make being born a crime. "Hey, excuse me for being born!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

....in your opinion.

Oh, the right to control the use of her body isn't mere opinion. Its well established law.

Not as you are defining it, I'm afraid.

"She" conceived that life through her own willful and wanton behavior. She has a right to not allow her womb to conceive a child... she does NOT have a right to willfully engage in the behavior designed for conception, then to murder the life she conceived.

Says you. Back in reality, she can deny the use of her body to anyone. At any time. She can grant consent....and then change her mind. At any time. Or choose to change it back. She has an unlimited number of choices in the matter. Not just the one that you imagine she is limited to.

As no one or no thing has the right to the use of her body.

You're a moron.

What an absurd argument, that she can deny 'her body' when it was proven that the baby was not 'her body.'

She's not using the embryo's body. The embryo is using hers. And she can deny the embryo the use of her body, the use of her womb....at any time.

Without the mother's womb, the embryo dies. The basis of her right isn't the 'right to kill'. Its the right to deny the use of her body to anyone or anything.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

Its being evicted. That the eviction results in death is a consequence. Not an 'execution'. As the embryo has no right to the use of the woman's body.

And its the right to control the use of her body that is the basis of a woman's right to abort.

This is the eviction argument warmed over. She can evict people from her body, but she can't kill them unless her life is threatened.

She has the authority to deny the use of her body to the embryo. That the embryo dies is a consequences of the embryo being unable to survive without using her body against her will. Which it has no right to do.

Rights are on only side of this argument. The embryo has none in regards to the use of her body. And she has them all in the use of her body.

Of course that's not true, you moron.




The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

'As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.'

Once I destroyed your absurd notion that she had every right to alter 'a part of her body,' you attempted the oh-so-childish 'throw out the invader.;



Mark this down: she had the opportunity to 'throw out the invader' up to the moment she threw caution to the wind and had a sexual encounter the result of which she has no intention of honoring.

 

[Skylar]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, there is only one set of ideas which reject objectivity.

You don't have objectivity. You have subjectivity. You believe what you choose to believe, based on your own personal opinion, culture, society and personal context. That you are convinced and certain that your beliefs are the only moral truth is irrelevant. Lots of other people have the same belief, with most of them disagreeing with you.

And you can't all be right. Nor is there anything that mandates that any of you are. And since your assessment of objective moral truth is mutually exclusive in relation to all the other assessments of objective moral truth, that means that most of you are wrong. That your 'certainty' is self delusion. And worse, its entirely possible if not probable that all of you are wrong.

Demonstrating elegnatly that certainty is one's own moral infallability has no particular relationship with accuracy.

Just like PC, your argument requires that we accept you as an infallible moral arbiter. If we don't, you've got nothing. No logic, no reason, just random personal opinion. In short, your argument is meaningless to anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Which is about as uncompelling and unpersuasive as an argument can get.

So....your current argument is to deny authority of the commandment: thou shalt not murder?

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Neither does it give you the right to kill someone for using your body, unless their use threatens your life. We gonna talk in circles all night?

 

[Skylar]

Once I destroyed your absurd notion that she had every right to alter 'a part of her body,' you attempted the oh-so-childish 'throw out the invader.;

And when have I claimed that the embryo is 'part of her body'? Never. If you believe otherwise, quote me.

You're scripting, refuting arguments I've never made, not even reading what you're replying to. Even your arguments are scripts, cut and paste whole from whatever website you've chosen to do your thinking for you. And you don't even have the courtesy to attribute the quotes you're mechanically apeing to their source:

11) The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.

The Case Against Abortion Part of the Mother 8217 s Body

I can always tell right where your script ends and your own thoughts begin. As that's when the silly name calling starts. You don't think. You don't reason.

You merely repeat what you've been told to think. And I don't think you actually understand what you're repeating

 

[koshergrl]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Once you exist, you have the human right to live. It is a human rights violation, regardless of what the law states, to take the life of another without cause.

Again..good cause is not getting liquored up on Saturday night and screwing you brother.

 

[Skylar]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Neither does it give you the right to kill someone for using your body, unless their use threatens your life. We gonna talk in circles all night?

Again, the embryo lacks the capacity to live on its own. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

 

[Moonglow]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Once you exist, you have the human right to live. It is a human rights violation, regardless of what the law states, to take the life of another without cause.

Again..good cause is not getting liquored up on Saturday night and screwing you brother.

Is that what your did?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Neither does it give you the right to kill someone for using your body, unless their use threatens your life. We gonna talk in circles all night?

Again, the embryo lacks the capacity to live on its own. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Again, the woman has no right to kill another human, unless her life is threatened. I guess this really is a circle jerk.