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

[Cecilie1200]

Who?
Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.

Facts or link please.

View attachment 269109

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Economic Forum. The report starts with this and other disclaimers. Not a good reference.

You sound like Trump. Cannot read beyond a few sentences? Don’t like details, yet you like to make childish conclusions?
The Gender Gap report has been sponsored by the World Economic Forum for a dozen years.
Here are words you missed:

“The Global Gender Gap Index was first introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 as a framework for capturing the magnitude of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress over time. This year’s edition of the report benchmarks 149 countries on their progress towards gender parity on a scale from 0 (disparity) to 1 (parity) across four thematic dimensions—the subindexes Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment.”

The sexist USA is ranked #98 in Political Empowerment for women. USA has over 80% men in Congress and never a woman President.

If you think the report is bogus, go ahead and show us how, but first READ the relevant sections and provide statistical or conceptual evidence. Are you capable of that?

I already posted the words YOU missed, where they said the exact opposite of what you claim they do. Next time, don't just read the first page and then copy the pictures your Internet masters told you to.

 

[beautress]

You can say whatever stupid thing you want to say, but when in society, you go after someone's neck, that's where your freedom ends and theirs begins.

What the hateful women's superiority groups don't know is that it could be the American people have had enough of hearing how abortion clinics are actually killing fields that rival Chinese genocide against themselves in the few years surrounding WWII, and while the rest of the world was preoccupied with going after each other's armies, Mao was going after harmless citizens of his own country for the "crime" of speaking against him. His killings were so vast, some say he killed 100 million of his own people. Others put the figure as anywhere between 20 million and 60 million. Others call the killings "countless." His killing spree surpassed Russia's similar killings of farmers as well as Russia's gentry, and Mao killed more people than Hitler did. Socialists to horrible things once they get power, from the first minute until the last. The Soviet Socialist Republic was a terrible place to be during war years. Lenin's murders have no place in the civil world. He killed innocent farmers just because they were stubborn and wanted to have some say so in all things agricultural. He wasn't hearing of it, so he bloody starved them to death with cat-and-mouse maneuvers of the KGB to empty farmhouses of food as long as it took for the farmers to die off of starvation. What fools. It resulted in long lines at the markets all over Russia while oranges rotted on the trees, people died of scurvy. Unbelievably, Lenin was a really creepy foot shoot specialist.

The only thing positive that came out of it for America is that those of us who had good history programs from first grade on up knew that Russian people were having hard times because of the Weekly Reader program. What nobody seemed to know except for Eisenhower was that Linen was killing off his own. And now when AOC brags about being a Socialist, all I can do is envision her in a KGB outfit killing off the best people in America that she likes to poop all over.

That was a general non-specific rant.
Anything specific you want to address about a woman’s right to her own body (this thread) or about what specific language AOC said about the abortion issue?

When a woman chose to get pregnant by having sex, her body is no longer hers. She is sharing it with another human being. No matter what the government say.

Nope. A woman’s body and a man’s body are COMPLETELY in their own decision-making domains.
If a man transfers his semen to a woman, whether voluntary or rape, that sperm becomes the sole property of her body & mind (as well as husband’s in secondary order).
That developing mindless “human being” inside the woman’s body is completely dependent on her, both physically and her mind.

Do what you want with YOUR body. Don’t impose YOUR will on others. That’s anti-American, isn’t it?

What you do with YOUR body stops at going after another human being's DNA at whatever stage it is in. Roe v. Wade made an egregious mistake, and as a consequence, this nation has killed as many human beings as Mao did hiding behind the flak of WWII to get rid of Chinese sects he personally hated for not believing he was a living diety. Here, women are being spoon-fed shit that they are the diety of the child. That is a bald faced lie and it is far from the truth as murder being the answer to minor disagreements among men.

We need to reconsider Roe v. Wade. God demands it of us. If we do not, he will send great enemies against us who will prevail to kill twice as many of us as Roe v. Wade did. You do not want to see that side of the Almighty, but you will if you do not stop the madness of killing other people just because they can't form a fist and knock your vicious teeth out.

Galatians 6:7: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”

And for the human being a woman murders that is not her dna, she's the one mocking God's gift to her and her bed partner. Next time you hear an angry voice of someone who murdered her child, you will know what anger God has when one of his creation gifts is mocked with annihilation by an excrutiatingly painful death and dismemberment by abortion. God's principles for decent living are ten. One of them is "thou shalt not kill," and you will find it in the twentieth chapter of Exodus.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I do not. And the reason I do not is because if the SC reverses themselves, then the abortion issue goes to the states. If that happens, there are 12 to 15 states which will never outlaw abortion, which means that any US citizen can have a legal abortion performed simply by visiting one of those states. If that is a problem, there are now drugs available over the counter and through the mail from Europe that one can order and one can induce their own abortion at home,

In short, Frank, it is a win/win for personal freedom and privacy, and a lose/lose for government invasion of privacy and control over my wife and daughter's bodies. Get over it.

That's all well and good, but the question was "says who"? I hope abortion remains legal, but to allow the likes of you and others to insult our intelligence with "it's unconstitutional" when anyone outside the public school system knows it is nothing more than an intentional misinterpretation of the constitution...
...the GOP wants it back to the states, they can then one state at a time dismantle legal abortion by taking over state legislature for short periods of time for that purpose, all while you pat yourself on the back for your win/win situation...
...and if you like/agree with even the tiniest form of gun control [or PC of any kind] you have no standing on constitutional issues and do not belong trying to explain anyones rights to others, now deal with it V.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Except where the second amendment is concerned.

A woman’s reason or reasons for ending her pregnancy are hers alone, having no bearing whatsoever on what another woman might decide.

says who?

Wrong.

Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Indeed, as is the case with the Second Amendment right, the right to privacy is not absolute – it is lawful for the states to prohibit an abortion after a certain time period; likewise, the states may place limits and restriction on the possession of firearms, provided when government places restrictions of the right to privacy or the Second Amendment right those restrictions are consistent with the relevant case law.

Just as it’s un-Constitutional for government to ban the possession of handguns, so too is it un-Constitutional for the government to ban abortions.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The Supreme Court.

very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.

I do not. And the reason I do not is because if the SC reverses themselves, then the abortion issue goes to the states. If that happens, there are 12 to 15 states which will never outlaw abortion, which means that any US citizen can have a legal abortion performed simply by visiting one of those states. If that is a problem, there are now drugs available over the counter and through the mail from Europe that one can order and one can induce their own abortion at home,

In short, Frank, it is a win/win for personal freedom and privacy, and a lose/lose for government invasion of privacy and control over my wife and daughter's bodies. Get over it.

btw, with the exception of my screen name that entire post is just a parroting of things that have been said repeatedly by the liberal media over 50 years until it became embedded memory for those pretending to engage in insightful debate.

Abortion it is not a matter of privacy, it is merely for convenience sake, nothing noble in it for anyone.

 

[LilOlLady]

"Right to privacy" is not a constitutional right to abortions. There is no “right to abortion” in the Constitution. ...

 

[beautress]

We are Waaay ahead of Muslim countries with regard to women-even that she witch Omar.

Who?
Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.

Facts or link please.

View attachment 269109

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf

Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?

From your link:

"• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%). This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; Iraq, Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while the other new entrants rank lower."

"Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."

Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common: they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.

"The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."

The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.

When you get the turds out of your nasty mouth, I will consider taking you off ignore. Meantime, may your evil curses come right back to the practicing witch that you have made of yourself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right. This thinking puts us on the same plane as Hitler. A fetus is a living being from conception when cell began to divide and grow toward a full grown human being. Everything has a beginning and the fetus is the beginning of a growing human being.

Murder is legal doctrine relegated solely to criminal law, having nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy that prohibits the states from compelling a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

Murder is the unlawful taking of the life of a person entitled to Constitutional protections.

As a fact of settled, accepted law, an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' is not entitled to Constitutional protections, where the termination of a pregnancy is not ‘murder.’

Consequently, references to ‘murder’ with regard to the right to privacy fail as a red herring fallacy, and the ‘argument’ made by those hostile to privacy right likewise fails.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

What other abortion talking points do you find stupid, laughable, both or other?

~S~

George Carlin was a bitter old left wing bigot who should have been aborted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who?
Yeah, we are way ahead NOT!
USA is a sexist country ranked #98 in the world regarding political equality between the sexes.

Facts or link please.

View attachment 269109

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2018.pdf

Did you even read your own linked report, you walking turd?

From your link:

"• All eight geographical regions assessed in the report have achieved at least 60% gender parity, and two have progressed above 70%. Western Europe is, on average, the region with the highest level of gender parity (75.8%). North America (72.5%) is second and Latin America (70.8%) is third. They are followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia (70.7%), East Asia and the Pacific (68.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (66.3%), South Asia (65.8%) and the Middle East and North Africa (60.2%). This year the 149 countries covered by the report include five new entrants: Congo, DRC; Iraq, Oman, Sierra Leone and Togo. Sierra Leone is in 114th position while the other new entrants rank lower."

"Political Empowerment is where the gender gap remains the widest: only 23% of the political gap— unchanged since last year—has been closed, and no country has yet fully closed political empowerment gaps. Even the best performer in this subindex, Iceland, still exhibits a gap of 33%, and this gap has widened significantly over the past year. Just six other countries (Nicaragua, Norway, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Finland and Sweden) have closed at least 50% of their gap. On the other end of the spectrum, almost one-quarter of the countries assessed has closed less than 10% of their gender gap, and the four worst-performing countries— Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Yemen—have yet to bridge over 97% of their gap."

Since I doubt that you could even find any of those four countries on a map, let me just tell you what they all have in common: they're all overwhelmingly Muslim, dolt.

"The second subindex where the gender gap remains very large is Economic Participation and Opportunity. Globally, just 58% of this gap has been closed, with minimal progress since last year. Nineteen countries— predominantly from the Middle East and North Africa region—have yet to close over 50% of their gap, 94 countries have yet to close 30% gap or more, and just 14 countries are above the 80% milestone. These countries are fairly distributed among five regions: two are from the East Asia and the Pacific (Lao PDR and the Philippines); two are from Eastern Europe (Belarus and Latvia); two are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Barbados and Bahamas); six are from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Guinea and Namibia); and two are Nordic countries (Sweden and Norway). Lao PDR is the best performer on this subindex, having closed 91% of the gap."

The next time you want to mindlessly throw up a link to something and ASSume it supports you (and pray that no one bothers to fact-check your bullshit claims), don't.

When you get the turds out of your nasty mouth, I will consider taking you off ignore. Meantime, may your evil curses come right back to the practicing witch that you are.

When you pull the stick out of your ass, I will consider caring whether you like my posts or not. But probably not. Next time you get your panties in a wedge, pick it out silently and assume that no one but you cares.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Wrong.

Citizens aren’t required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

no but they are required to justify a right that cannot be found in the constitution though

Indeed, as is the case with the Second Amendment right, the right to privacy is not absolute – it is lawful for the states to prohibit an abortion after a certain time period; likewise, the states may place limits and restriction on the possession of firearms, provided when government places restrictions of the right to privacy or the Second Amendment right those restrictions are consistent with the relevant case law.

it would have made more sense to address this to vandal than me, oh well...
...and the right to to bear arms is clearly not to be abridged by any congressional law[it' actually says that in the constitution], and if our right to privacy is not absolute then it should be, but to claim that abortion falls into that category [which is a stretch even in legal terms] takes us back to the question you tried not to answer by using age old libralese language ..."says who"?

Just as it’s un-Constitutional for government to ban the possession of handguns, so too is it un-Constitutional for the government to ban abortions.

Says who? the government not banning the right to bear arms is directly spelled out, the constitution makes no such distinction for abortion...but that is just strawman distraction, answering the question "says who?" will allow you to see who can or cannot ban abortion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court.

very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.

Correct.

In fact, those hostile to privacy rights need to be careful of what they wish for.

Should the Court overturn Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey/Whole Woman’s Health, the states would remain at liberty to recognize a woman’s right to privacy – and abortion will remain legal in most of the United States.

States that refuse to acknowledge the right to privacy will suffer a considerable political backlash; indeed, some states which might have considered ‘banning’ abortion may elect to not do so for that very reason.

And of course women will continue to have abortions in states where the procedure is ‘banned,’ or travel to states where the right to privacy is still recognized to terminate their pregnancies.

This illustrates the fact that those hostile to privacy rights aren’t really concerned about ‘saving babies’ or ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity and punishing dissent, it’s about conservatives wanting more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Supreme Court.

very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.

I do not. And the reason I do not is because if the SC reverses themselves, then the abortion issue goes to the states. If that happens, there are 12 to 15 states which will never outlaw abortion, which means that any US citizen can have a legal abortion performed simply by visiting one of those states. If that is a problem, there are now drugs available over the counter and through the mail from Europe that one can order and one can induce their own abortion at home,

In short, Frank, it is a win/win for personal freedom and privacy, and a lose/lose for government invasion of privacy and control over my wife and daughter's bodies. Get over it.

btw, with the exception of my screen name that entire post is just a parroting of things that have been said repeatedly by the liberal media over 50 years until it became embedded memory for those pretending to engage in insightful debate.

Abortion it is not a matter of privacy, it is merely for convenience sake, nothing noble in it for anyone.

Well, now, Frank, if the right to privacy has been quoted by liberals for 50 years as a justification for the right to have an abortion, there is a reason for that. The reason is because that was exactly the prevailing argument of Roe Vs. Wade. In short, I have no idea why your panties are in a wad about the term being used.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The Supreme Court.

very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.

Correct.

In fact, those hostile to privacy rights need to be careful of what they wish for.

Should the Court overturn Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey/Whole Woman’s Health, the states would remain at liberty to recognize a woman’s right to privacy – and abortion will remain legal in most of the United States.

States that refuse to acknowledge the right to privacy will suffer a considerable political backlash; indeed, some states which might have considered ‘banning’ abortion may elect to not do so for that very reason.

And of course women will continue to have abortions in states where the procedure is ‘banned,’ or travel to states where the right to privacy is still recognized to terminate their pregnancies.

This illustrates the fact that those hostile to privacy rights aren’t really concerned about ‘saving babies’ or ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity and punishing dissent, it’s about conservatives wanting more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

Not a lot to disagree with but again, we cannot continue honest debate if you keep insisting "abortion" and "privacy" are one and the same...they are not...those who really do value the right to privacy are very afraid of those who would allow it to be undermined by using it as a shield to get something else they really want by sacrificing this right, if abortion is to become a thing of the past I have no doubt the left will destroy that right to privacy as punishment for not getting their way.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Supreme Court.

very good, it means you will have no argument down the road when they reverse themselves.

Correct.

In fact, those hostile to privacy rights need to be careful of what they wish for.

Should the Court overturn Griswold/Eisenstadt/Roe/Casey/Whole Woman’s Health, the states would remain at liberty to recognize a woman’s right to privacy – and abortion will remain legal in most of the United States.

States that refuse to acknowledge the right to privacy will suffer a considerable political backlash; indeed, some states which might have considered ‘banning’ abortion may elect to not do so for that very reason.

And of course women will continue to have abortions in states where the procedure is ‘banned,’ or travel to states where the right to privacy is still recognized to terminate their pregnancies.

This illustrates the fact that those hostile to privacy rights aren’t really concerned about ‘saving babies’ or ‘ending abortion’ – it’s about the authoritarian right seeking to compel conformity and punishing dissent, it’s about conservatives wanting more government, bigger government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

Not a lot to disagree with but again, we cannot continue honest debate if you keep insisting "abortion" and "privacy" are one and the same...they are not...those who really do value the right to privacy are very afraid of those who would allow it to be undermined by using it as a shield to get something else they really want by sacrificing this right, if abortion is to become a thing of the past I have no doubt the left will destroy that right to privacy as punishment for not getting their way.

Sounds like you should take this up with the SC. The right to privacy being the reason for the prevailing of the ruling of Roe Vs. Wade was their opinion, not mine.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Well, now, Frank, if the right to privacy has been quoted by liberals for 50 years as a justification for the right to have an abortion, there is a reason for that. The reason is because that was exactly the prevailing argument of Roe Vs. Wade.

of course there is a reason for it being quoted for 50 years, and of course you got it wrong, you had a left leaning court, you no longer do, if this court will most likely remove the word "PREVAILING" from your argument

In short, I have no idea why your panties are in a wad about the term being used.

try not using it then...that will give you more than just an idea why you wonder about men in panties.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Sounds like you should take this up with the SC. The right to privacy being the reason for the prevailing of the ruling of Roe Vs. Wade was their opinion, not mine.

You seem to now be wondering aimlessly through this discussion V...it IS going to be taken up with the SC, that is why it was so important that I get you [or anyone] to claim "SAYS WHO" was the SC...so when the decision is overturned/reversed you will no longer want pretend their decision is the correct one as you do now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Murdering another living human being is not a fundamental right. This thinking puts us on the same plane as Hitler. A fetus is a living being from conception when cell began to divide and grow toward a full grown human being. Everything has a beginning and the fetus is the beginning of a growing human being.

The problem with this sophistry, of course, is that in order for it to be valid, it must be applied consistently – where the state would need to do more than just ‘ban’ abortion, it would also need to ‘ban’ all manner of birth control, including condoms, IUDs, and the pill.

 

[LilOlLady]

Unborn babies can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation or earlier ...I worked in the abortion ward of L. A. County General Hospital when abortions become legal and I was with these women when their babies were expelled and all of the fetus/babies were moving. I can imagine their pain when some were dismembered in the womb and the life source of oxygen were cut off. Utah recently passed a law that requires doctors to give anesthesia to a fetus prior to performing an abortion that occurs at 20 weeks of gestation or later. I quit nursing in general and went into geriatrics and mental health nursing.

 

[beautress]

Unborn babies can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation or earlier ...I worked in the abortion ward of L. A. County General Hospital when abortions become legal and I was with these women when their babies were expelled and all of the fetus/babies were moving. I can imagine their pain when some were dismembered in the womb and the life source of oxygen were cut off. Utah recently passed a law that requires doctors to give anesthesia to a fetus prior to performing an abortion that occurs at 20 weeks of gestation or later. I quit nursing in general and went into geriatrics and mental health nursing.

Current scientific studies tell us you were right all along. The pain the fetus is not only horrific, when the abortion equipment first starts prodding the small human being inside his mother, he engages in violent jerks to avoid getting further poked up to the instant he suffers death. It is horrific for the fetus. And his DNA tells us he is not the same person his mother nor the abortionist is. DNA does not lie. It is the scientific and truthful evidence that it is a separate human being in its initial stages of life from the time it is two identical cells. Even as far back in human history as Psalm 139 is, it has a spirit too that wants to be covered in God's safety net for the rest of its life.