Clarifying Question

Temujin

Well-known member
Ok so, a 'no' in response to the original question means the embryo/fetus isnt part of the woman's body. So why do you think pro-choice people say that?
They do not. What is more intriguing is why anti-choice people say that they do.
 

BMS

Well-known member
They do not.
I thought that was a given.

What is more intriguing is why anti-choice people say they do
Well the link I give above shows they do

But who are the anti-choice people? Do you mean us? We don't call ourselves anti-choice, more often pro-life. Where is your evidence for anti-choice?

Once again your worldview seems so opposed to ours, we cant communicate
 
Last edited:

Nedsk

Well-known member
I refer you to the answer I gave in post #2 to the question posed by the OP. I know that it might be a trifle long-winded and difficult for you to understand, but I am happy to explain any sections that you have particular difficulties with. Good luck.
It's not her body that's the answer. "My body my choice" is asinine. Good luck.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
The unborn child is human, obviously, and no one with any sense says anything else. That doesn't make it a person. It is for society to choose when a human being becomes a person with rights. Societies in different times and places make different decisions. We, who live in this time and place may agree or disagree with those various judgements. Your views on morality are very different from mine, but that's fine. What counts is not what is moral, but what is legal. If society decides, as a whole, that abortion should be illegal, then so be it. Until then, it is legal, and I hope it remains do, because I personally think that banning the right to abortion is disgustingly immoral.
Once again, vintage, and I do mean vintage tactics of abortion supporters: obfuscate, confuse, confound, conflate, and when all else fails, change the subject and hope the pro-lifer is too stupid to miss the sleight of hand. Sir, as I have told you before and I will tell you again: you are not on CNN, MSDNC, ABC, CBS, or NBC. You are not on capital hill testifying to a sympathetic congress who won't challenge your assertions, or otherwise ask difficult questions. You are not on "The View." This is CARM. We will hold your feet to the fire here. Woppie Goldberg, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, etc, aren't here to bail you out. They aren't here to shout down opposition---and think that by doing so, they are making good arguments.

"It is for society to choose when a human being becomes a person with rights..." I can't believe you are actually asserting this; and openly so! You do not see the dark road this goes down? As long as we have determined the unborn have no rights becasue they are human but not persons, on what basis do we claim minorities have rights? On what basis do we condemn racism? That is the whole argument of racists everywhere: minorities are not human subject to rights, therefore who cares what we do to them? For that matter, on what basis do we claim ANYONE we don't like has rights and are human persons? It is my opinion that the founders were right when they said certain rights are alienable. If certain rights are not, then rights come from government. What the government gives, the government can take. As the people are the government, then as you say--people get to decide who does and does not have rights, who is and who is not a human person.

Then again, I have to give you credit for logical consistency here. You DO realize where your arguments lead---and apparently, you are alright with that. What happens when they come for YOU? What happens when your own arguments are turned against YOU and people say you are not a human person subject to rights, so we get to kill YOU? Will you just as blithely dismiss this---as a respectful disagreement and go peacefully into oblivion?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I refer you to the answer I gave in post #2 to the question posed by the OP. I know that it might be a trifle long-winded and difficult for you to understand, but I am happy to explain any sections that you have particular difficulties with. Good luck.
You call that an answer, do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Temujin

Well-known member
It's not her body that's the answer. "My body my choice" is asinine. Good luck.
I assume that English is not your first language. Nothing you have said makes any sense, either on its own or linked to anything else in the thread. Please try again with less meds.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I thought that was a given.

Well the link I give above shows they do

But who are the anti-choice people? Do you mean us? We don't call ourselves anti-choice, more often pro-life. Where is your evidence for anti-choice?

Once again your worldview seems so opposed to ours, we cant communicate
You are talking through the wrong orifice. Nobody says that the foetus is the woman's body. "My body, my choice" refers to the uterus, not the occupant.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
"It is for society to choose when a human being becomes a person with rights..." I can't believe you are actually asserting this; and openly so! You do not see the dark road this goes down?
Slippery slope fallacy.

Disproven by the fact that rights equality among (born) persons has increased, not decreased, throughout history.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Once again, vintage, and I do mean vintage tactics of abortion supporters: obfuscate, confuse, confound, conflate, and when all else fails, change the subject and hope the pro-lifer is too stupid to miss the sleight of hand. Sir, as I have told you before and I will tell you again: you are not on CNN, MSDNC, ABC, CBS, or NBC. You are not on capital hill testifying to a sympathetic congress who won't challenge your assertions, or otherwise ask difficult questions. You are not on "The View." This is CARM. We will hold your feet to the fire here. Woppie Goldberg, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, etc, aren't here to bail you out. They aren't here to shout down opposition---and think that by doing so, they are making good arguments.
The person not making any arguments, but slagging off the opposition instead, is you. You clearly spend too much time practicing your oratory while looking in the mirror.
"It is for society to choose when a human being becomes a person with rights..." I can't believe you are actually asserting this; and openly so! You do not see the dark road this goes down?
A good deal less dark than you deciding for everyone else.
As long as we have determined the unborn have no rights becasue they are human but not persons, on what basis do we claim minorities have rights? On what basis do we condemn racism? That is the whole argument of racists everywhere: minorities are not human subject to rights, therefore who cares what we do to them? For that matter, on what basis do we claim ANYONE we don't like has rights and are human persons?
On the basis that these are human persons. Most normal people do not require the Bible to tell them what is right or wrong. Much less do they require a Bible-basher such as yourself to do so.
It is my opinion that the founders were right when they said certain rights are alienable.
I thought they said they were inalienable? Either way, they were clearly wrong. Rights, if they mean anything at all, are rooted in our human heritage and both granted and taken away by the society we live in. You choose to worship the founders of your society, forgetting that they would be completely lost in the modern world and that the values they actually lived by were execrable by today's standards.
If certain rights are not, then rights come from government. What the government gives, the government can take. As the people are the government, then as you say--people get to decide who does and does not have rights, who is and who is not a human person.
Exactly correct. Well done. I know that this was by accident, but you have just described the real world

Then again, I have to give you credit for logical consistency here. You DO realize where your arguments lead---and apparently, you are alright with that. What happens when they come for YOU? What happens when your own arguments are turned against YOU and people say you are not a human person subject to rights, so we get to kill YOU? Will you just as blithely dismiss this---as a respectful disagreement and go peacefully into oblivion?
I dismiss it as ridiculously unlikely. Less so where you live perhaps, but I bet you would be in the mob holding the pitchfork rather than amongst those being rounded up.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I assume that English is not your first language. Nothing you have said makes any sense, either on its own or linked to anything else in the thread. Please try again with less meds.
I know you havent got grasp of reality, and that confuses the language you use.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The person not making any arguments, but slagging off the opposition instead, is you. You clearly spend too much time practicing your oratory while looking in the mirror.

A good deal less dark than you deciding for everyone else.

On the basis that these are human persons. Most normal people do not require the Bible to tell them what is right or wrong. Much less do they require a Bible-basher such as yourself to do so.

I thought they said they were inalienable? Either way, they were clearly wrong. Rights, if they mean anything at all, are rooted in our human heritage and both granted and taken away by the society we live in. You choose to worship the founders of your society, forgetting that they would be completely lost in the modern world and that the values they actually lived by were execrable by today's standards.

Exactly correct. Well done. I know that this was by accident, but you have just described the real world


I dismiss it as ridiculously unlikely. Less so where you live perhaps, but I bet you would be in the mob holding the pitchfork rather than amongst those being rounded up.
Never mind all that. Do you now accept that 'my body my choice- is the argument frequently used by pro-choice abortionists? Or do you need some more evidence?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Never mind all that. Do you now accept that 'my body my choice- is the argument frequently used by pro-choice abortionists? Or do you need some more evidence?
Of course it is. It is a slogan I too would use were I pregnant.

Why on earth do you think that this means that the foetus is part of the woman's body?

Incidentally, don't you think it rather rude of you to butt into someone else's conversation with "Never mind all that."? You should apologise. If not to me, then to the other poster for being so dismissive of his carefully crafted faux outrage.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Of course it is. It is a slogan I too would use were I pregnant.

Why on earth do you think that this means that the foetus is part of the woman's body?

Incidentally, don't you think it rather rude of you to butt into someone else's conversation with "Never mind all that."? You should apologise. If not to me, then to the other poster for being so dismissive of his carefully crafted faux outrage.
Well you can never be pregnant because you are a man.
It is of course inside and attached to the woman's body, by the umbilical cord for example. Can you not see that?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Well you can never be pregnant because you are a man.
It is of course inside and attached to the woman's body, by the umbilical cord for example. Can you not see that?
So would be a tapeworm. That doesn't make it her body. The phrase "My body, my choice" refers to the choice the woman has to allow a foreign body, such as a tapeworm, or in this case a foetus, to reside in her body, talking nutrients from it and acting as a threat to her health. I find it bizarre that you are arguing that the foetus is indeed part of her body, since if that were the case it would destroy the anti-choice argument that the foetus is sn independent life form with the right to life.
 

BMS

Well-known member
So would be a tapeworm. That doesn't make it her body. The phrase "My body, my choice" refers to the choice the woman has to allow a foreign body, such as a tapeworm, or in this case a foetus, to reside in her body, talking nutrients from it and acting as a threat to her health. I find it bizarre that you are arguing that the foetus is indeed part of her body, since if that were the case it would destroy the anti-choice argument that the foetus is sn independent life form with the right to life.
So a tapeworm would be the same analogy in that it is attached, but 'my body my choice' would surely apply to the human reproductive process as well
I find it bizarre that you cant see that. It begs the question, what do you understand by attached.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
I assume that English is not your first language. Nothing you have said makes any sense, either on its own or linked to anything else in the thread. Please try again with less meds.
No need, you clearly wouldn't understand. Talking to you is like talking to a three year old.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So a tapeworm would be the same analogy in that it is attached, but 'my body my choice' would surely apply to the human reproductive process as well
I find it bizarre that you cant see that. It begs the question, what do you understand by attached.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?
Do you think that the foetus is part of a woman's body or not?
Do you think that a tapeworm is part of the human body or not?
Do you think that the uterus is part of the woman's body or not?

My answers are No, No, and Yes. If yours are the same, what are you arguing for?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
No need, you clearly wouldn't understand. Talking to you is like talking to a three year old.
Ahh, in other words you have cottoned on to the fact that you were making yourself look rather foolish. Thanks for the typical Christian apology.
 
Top