I’m tired of all you pro-abortion dicks, so I’ve compiled a list of common arguments and responses to them.
“A woman has the right to her own body.”
First off, it’s silly to think that the law cannot tell us what we can’t do with our bodies. We can’t put certain drugs in them or sell ourselves for sex. Secondly, this statement totally ignores the fact that the unborn are completely separate individuals from the mother. How can someone have two heartbeats, two different blood types, two sets of DNA? And, if the unborn is a male, how can a woman have a male part of her body? Yes, the unborn need their mothers for nutrition and safety, but that does not make them any more a part of her body than some food she swallows.
To refute this statement, I’ll tell a story about a little boy who had surgery for spina bifida before he was even born. At the end of the surgery, the baby reached out of the uterus and grabbed the doctor’s finger. My question is this: who grabbed the doctor’s finger?
“What if she was raped?”
1% of all abortions performed annually are due to rape/incest. Although this is an extremely small number, this situation must be approached with great compassion, because the victim has already been through one violent act. Why would we subject her to another, that of killing her own child? Two wrongs do not make a right, and abortion will not alleviate the trauma of the rape. The victim needs love and care, and both she and her unborn child deserve better than abortion.
“You can’t impose your morality on others.”
Using that logic, should we release all the rapists and murderers from prison to go free on the streets and allow them to do as they please, because we cannot impose our morality on them? Of course not. If you saw someone beating a child bloody on a playground, would you not try to stop it? Even if that’s imposing your views on others?
We do not need to be given the right to speak up for the voiceless.
“You’re all just a bunch of self-righteous Jesus freaks.”
Authorities of both Judaism and the Muslims both agree that it is not a “human life” until the 21st day, and that therefore abortions before then are entirely ethical. You don’t have to be religious to think that killing an innocent, defenseless human being is wrong and that playing god by drawing arbitrary lines of ethical “acceptability” is a cop-out.
No, not all pro-lifers are religious, including myself. Simply because many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs doesn’t mean abortion is a religious issue. The civil rights movement was sometimes led by pastors and led in churches, but that doesn’t mean that civil rights is a religious issue. Besides, if we start rejecting laws just because they are supported by religion, since that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have get rid of all of our laws.
“It has nothing to do with you. Stay out of other people’s lives.”
If everyone were to follow this idea, then we would not have any security in our nation at all. If everyone just “stayed out of people’s privacy,” children would be molested, women would be raped in their homes, and people would kill each other and no one would do anything to stop it. We would have no security, no police force, nothing. Yeah, fuck ‘em! Let them live their own lives! Should we stay out of someone’s “privacy” when they film child pornography in their basement? Should we stay out of a man’s “privacy” as he beats his wife in their bedroom? Should we stay out of a woman’s “privacy” as she goes to have her child intentionally torn limb from limb?
“If it is illegal, then women will die in illegal abortions.”
Abortion advocates are flat-out lying when saying thousands of women died each year from illegal abortions and their own research proves it: in 1986, the Allen Guttmacher Institute, a research arm of planned parenthood, gave proof that shows in the fifteen years before abortion was legal, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in America was 136 per year and falling.
Remember: pro-lifers don’t perform abortions. If we made abortion illegal right now, and illegal abortionists came about in the next few days, each one of them would be pro-choice. Think about it: any woman that ever died or was hurt during an abortion, legal or not, it was because of someone who was pro-choice.
Basically, the abortion industry tells us, “if you make abortion illegal, women will end up dying because of it.” But what in reality they’re saying is, “if you make it illegal for us to kill babies, then we’ll start killing women.”
“It’s not a human because _______.”
This is when people start making up their own definitions of what a human is in order to dehumanize the unborn. Science undoubtedly proves that at the moment of conception, a new human being is formed, with 46 human chromosomes and human DNA. At that moment, every genetic aspect of that human being is determined: gender, hair color, eye color, metabolism, whether they will be right-handed or left-handed, etc.
The definitions of “human” and “human being” are interchangeable. Wherever you look, you will see that when either is defined, the other is one of the definitions. In order to be a human being, biologically speaking, one must be a member of the genus homo sapiens, which the unborn most certainly are.
“It’s not a person, it’s a fetus.”
Funny how people always with prefix things like that when they want to justify something heinous against someone. The easiest way to justify a wrong against someone is to dehumanize them. But hey, you’re doing them a favor, right?
Colonial slavers: “It’s not a person, it’s a nigger.” Salem Puritans: “It’s not a person, it’s a witch/demon.” Nazis: “It’s not a person, it’s a Jew/slav/gypsie/faggot.” Islamic fascists: “It’s not a person, it’s a woman.”
According to the law, no, it’s not. But if the Supreme Court suddenly decided that those under the age of one year are not considered persons, would you be morally comfortable killing them too?
“Well, it’s not a LEGAL person so they shouldn’t have more rights than the woman.”
No one is advocating that the unborn have more rights than the mother; we are advocating that their rights are equal. If America was killing off women by the millions so kids could live the way they wanted, the pro-life movement would fight just as much to end that mass slaughter as well.
Everyone has the right to live how they want, but they cannot kill or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others in order to do so. When we say someone can’t shoot someone in order to get money to buy a house, it’s not to say he has doesn’t have a right to buy a house or that he has fewer rights than his victim; we’re saying that someone’s right to life is of higher value than someone else’s right to buy a house.
This idea also applies to abortion. The abortion industry’s own data shows that at least 93% of abortions are carried out for non-health issue reasons on a totally healthy baby and a totally healthy woman who just doesn’t want to be pregnant or have a baby, which shows that the abortion conflict is between the unborn’s right to life and a woman’s wanting to not to be pregnant, and even though that desire may be rational, she can’t be allowed kill for it.
Another 6% are performed due to deformities or disabilities of the unborn baby, which makes over 98% of abortions performed solely out of convenience.
“What if it’s developmentally disabled?”
The “retarded abortion” is quite possibly the most hypocritical of all abortions, from a social standpoint. Society, America especially, loves retards. They cheer at the special olympics, they champion the people who really struggle and succeed despite adversity, they praise their heroic lives of hardship and pain, they look to these people for joy and inspiration, they tear up when they see the look on those kids faces when the Make a Wish Foundation (which is an AWESOME charity) fulfills one of their dreams. But apparently that’s only good for kids and adults. Anything younger than that, and we shout, “KILL IT BEFORE IT’S BORN! IT’S BETTER OFF DEAD!!!”
A specially abled person is just as much a person as anyone else.
“The fetuses are parasites and a woman doesn’t have to be a fetal incubator if she doesn’t want it.”
Parasites are creatures of different species than the host. Since both the woman and the unborn are members of the genus homo sapien, they are both human beings and thus of the same species. Also, during pregnancy, a woman’s body goes through changes to deliberately provide nutrients and protect her baby. This does not occur in parasitic relationships.
When a woman decides to engage in sexual activity, she risks pregnancy, even if she uses birth control. An innocent human being should not have to pay with his/her blood due to someone’s poor planning or because someone’s birth control failed. If one is ready for sexual activity, one must be ready to handle the consequences of their actions.
The pro-choice thought is that if people are “acting responsibly,” they should not have any consequences. But even if people “act responsible” when driving their cars can still have accidents, and are still responsible for any damage they cause. In the case of engaging in sexual relations, “acting responsibly” is more than using birth control to avoid pregnancy: It’s also accepting beforehand that the woman may become pregnant. Abortion allows people to evade this consequence entirely and promotes reckless conduct at the expense of a child’s life.
“No one knows when life begins.”
In acknowledging this, you essentially concede that your code of ethics condones such irresponsibility as to make a decision which, if it were a mistake, would be murder: the ultimate deprivation of human rights. The fact that it very well could be at the moment of conception means that you think should be an acceptable practice to destroy them. This is like sentencing someone to death before it’s proven whether they are innocent or guilty. Ridiculous, isn’t it?
“I don’t think life begins until ________.”
Thing is, it doesn’t matter when you think life begins. Science proves it begins at conception. No scientific, biological, or medical text reference states that life begins at any other point. Besides, pure logic demands it. Life cannot come from non-life. If, at the moment of conception, the unborn are not, at least, alive, how is it that from that moment they are able to grow and develop?
“The fetuses aren’t sentient. They don’t feel anything. They don’t care.”
Would it be acceptable to kill people in their sleep, then? Or if someone you don’t like very much is unconscious, is it ok to kill them? How about someone who is paralzyed? Whether one can feel when they are being killed is of no consequence.
Besides, if any of the pro-choicers took a little initiative and researched fetal development, they’d realize that nerves are developing by the eighth week, possibly even earlier. If touched, an 8-wk-old unborn human being will respond to the touch; they will move away from the stimuli; they will grasp an object placed in the hand. And during an abortion, they will thrash around in a pathetic attempt to escape the sharp object that is ripping them apart.
“It’s a legal right. It’s about giving women a choice.”
The fact that something is a legal right doesn’t make it right. This is merely implying that the issue here isn’t abortion. It’s “chioce”, and that is saying that what is being “chosen” really does not matter.
This is completely illogical, because we know that not all choices are equal. Choosing what house to buy, or what color car to purchase, is entirely different than choosing whether to produce child porn. Pro-choicers think intentionally killing another human being is perfectly fine, simply by virtue of the fact that you are excercizing your liberty to choose to have an abortion.
“Abortion isn’t about convenience. A woman only gets one if she really needs to.”
Not only is this statement a lie, but one contradicted by pro-abortionists themselves: as discussed above, planned parenthood’s own research arm, the AGI, proves that 93% of abortions are done because for the sake of convenience (e.g, the mother is single, the child would interfere with plans, the mother doesn’t want [more] kids, etc), 6% are due to deformalities with the unborn (also in “convenience” category)/health of the mother, and 1% are because of rape.
“Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion.”
Actually, yes, it is. People who support unions: pro-union. People who support gun rights: pro-gun. People who support slavery: pro-slavery. People who support gay marriage: pro-gay marriage. People who support abortion: pro-abortion.
I tried to use the ambiguous term “pro-choice” in referring to pro-abortionists as much as possible in order to evade irrelevant arguments with those who throw hissy fits at the term “pro-abortion” when debating. But as I mentioned above and shall elaborate upon below, you very much are pro-abortion, no matter how you try to mask your true intentions in positive-sounding words. The nazis could’ve just as easily called themselves “pro-Ayran” if they wanted to, and anyone who’s ever endorsed individual liberty at the expense of another (anti-abolitionists, for one) could just as easily call themselves “pro-choice” as you.
“Then that means I’m also pro-life.”
No, it doesn’t. When it comes to defining one’s stance on abortion, you are either in favor of them or against them. Pro-life = anti-abortion. Using dispicable weasel-words to make your position sound more appealing morally may work in politics and in justifying it to yourself, but not in a logical argument.
“Oh yeah? How many unwanted children have you adopted over the years?”
This doesn’t make sense. The fact that I don’t want you to kill something does not mean that I am assuming responsibility for that thing for the rest of its life. That may work with stray animals, but not with human children.
“Don’t like abortion? Then don’t have one!”
Typical pro-choice arrogance from those who realize they can’t defend their stance on abortion.
I am anti-abortion, because I have a problem with killing something we’re not sure isn’t human life. And until we know what we’re dealing with, I think abortion should be illegal. It’s not because I want to oppress women, or take away their right to choose, or force them to play incubator. It’s not. I really truly sympathize with the fact that biology is the way it is. It sucks. Bigtime. And if we had knock-down, irrefutable proof that that thing wasn’t human life, I’d support you 110%! But we don’t. So, as much as I sympathize with your plight, I cannot in good conscience support abortion.
This position makes me against abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancy. It also makes me against abortion in the case of rape, or incest, or even in the case of a teenager that’s raped by her father. But what a lot of people fail to realize is, these “circumstances” are irrelevant to the question of abortion. It doesn’t matter if it’s because you got drunk and had a one night stand, or if you violently and brutally raped - the circumstances by which you became pregnant do not magically alter the nature of (possibly human) thing that’s inside you. Because the ONLY question that needs answering is: Is that thing human life, or not?
And we don’t know. Most people pretend like they do, but they don’t. So I, for one, think we shouldn’t be taking chances. Because what if we’re wrong?
“Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance — and Democrats say we are “losing” this war. I think that’s a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.”—I’ve met Ann Coulter!
I wish my Tumblrarity never falls, I was with above 500, so sad… I think with cumulative tumblarity I can get to the top even if someone starts before me…
At least Tumblr. is modifying the page about it.. hope it improves…
And now I get Tumblr. idea of memes… you know.. I will still with those posted by whisps (smile), lavitaebela, and much more. If you believe Goya, Dali paintings are better memes than the awesome face, you are with me!
Trying three ways to see which one actually works.
Sorry to be so late in responding. I’m not sure what you’re wanting to do. Is there a chat function on Tumblr now? Hello, anyway. (smile)
I ask Mark about and he say Tumblr doesn’t have maked any change, but one day when I was writing, I link Carlos and he said to me he was someway I don’t know adviced…If you don’t receive any message saying I linked you in my post I believe he just saw my text on his dashboard and think he was poked…
Craig:I'm baptized. What about you? Face it, you don't have God's mark!
Me:Shut up, beatch! Are you circuncized? Smell my quaker's butt!
Dawkins:God doesn't exist, you can't prove it fucking exists!
Craig:You can't prove shit if God doesn't exists.
Breaking the forth wall:This actual joke comes from a windows live messenger conversation with a friend of mine. Sorry for the bad language, but if it wasn't for that, the fun factor in it will be missing!