A video with answers to common pro choice arguments which are continually thrown around by those who defend the murder of the innocent.
Duration : 0:4:28
[youtube R8_6D-DUt1Y]
Anti Abortion: Answers to common pro choice arguments
This entry was posted in abortion arguments and tagged abortion, antiabortion, choice, life, pro, prochoice, prolife. Bookmark the permalink.
Finally your last …
Finally your last sentence shows ignorance of the issue. You use the word “unwanted kids” as if there are or will be thousands of them. In fact there is the opposite problem. There are too many parents out there wanting children who cant have their own. many will never be able to adopt because they are so many in number. Adoption is a viable alternative.
but killing …
but killing innocent children isn’t a valid solution. Many women even those who have children at a young age claim that they are the best thing that ever happened to them and that caring for that child fulfills their life and makes it more whole rather than ending it as you suggest.
3. No one has ever claimed that pregnancy and child birth were easy or that an unwanted one isn’t a tragedy but if its a choice between a woman giving birth and a child dying then the answer should be obviouse.
ok number 1: The …
ok number 1: The spelling point I can accept, but I don’t think it takes away anything from the arguments presented. Really all that is is an ad hominem attack which is fine just dont expect to be taken seriously in academic or debating circles if you use them.
2. A womens ambitions don’t end when she has a child, I could name countless examples of woman who have achieved their dreams and become successful all achieved AFTER having kids. I agree we need to give more support to single mothers…
Ok whoever created …
Ok whoever created this video needs to learn how to spell before they try to act smart. A few points I want to clarify about this video are: first of all when a woman has a child they do not just give up 9 months of their life. They give up the rest of their life for that child, most ambitions that a person had for their own life are over. It is worse for younger women. Second your body never goes back to the way it was before. Third are you pro life people going to adopt all the unwanted kids.
I’ll be looking …
I’ll be looking forward to it.
This is just too …
This is just too tempting, I have to post a video responce. will post link above.
and I assure YOU …
and I assure YOU that right, in general, is 100% absolute. The right to do whatever you want with your body may not be-but the right to deny acess to bodily functions, organs, or just body , is ABSOLUTE–no doubt.
We dont have the …
We dont have the right to choose what is best for us when that invloves infringing on the rights of others. For example I may think the best thing for me is to rob the rich 80 year old women next door to me but I dont.
It’s not about what’s best for us. It’s about the rights you already have–legal wise. You can’t rob teh oold lady because she has a right to property..You do NOT have a right to her property. But you have a right to deny access to YOUR body or organs to any person. (cont)
oh just in case we …
oh just in case we still aren’t clear on teh subject of organ usage in case yoou try to argue a way out of it—
A woman’s uterus is her reproductive ORGAN and a fetus depends on it’s access for survival, which is part of her body.
life? You wont — …
life? You wont — its not there.
If I cant be forced to donate a pint of blood to save the life of an adult which everyone agrees is a human being with a right to live, then a woman cant be forced to provide her body, organs, and blood to sustain the live of a fetus whose legal and moral status is questionable.
In short a right to life doesn’t sustain a right to bodily autonomy. If it did, then it would be natural for someone to take your organs & blood anytime w/o your consent.
other human …
other human beingThe personal, bodily autonomy of the woman takes precedence, regardless of the status of the fetus.
What this means is that arguing that the fetus has rights accomplishes nothing unless it can be demonstrated that the woman has no right to make the final decision about what happens to her body. Where, for example, can you find even the slightest legal precedent for the government forcing any human being to donate something a minor as blood in order to save another’s (cont)
“3. A women does …
“3. A women does have the right to her own body, but this like most rights are not absoloute. If its a choice between the childs right to life and the womns right to control her own body then life must prevail. some rights must be sacraficed in order to protect others.”
Even if we grant that a fetus has the same moral and legal status as an adult, it wouldnt change the fact that the state has no authority to force a human being to provide their body and organs for the use of any (cont)
“2. Well no there …
“2. Well no there not but there equally as bad as each other. The only difference is the age of the victims. To say abortion is any better is discrimination on the basis of age. ”
You haven’t made a sufficeint argument for that. So prove how abortion is discrimination on the basis of age.
“1. The right to …
“1. The right to life is the most important because all others pre suppose it. The right to CHOOSE how you live your life presupposes the fact that you have the right to that life. When to rights clash the right to life should always prevail.”
I see, so someone in in need of a kidney,appendiix or any other organ who has a right to life has an absolute right to your organs and it shouldn’t even be argued if you have a say in the matter. You have no choice, do you agree?
3. A women does …
3. A women does have the right to her own body, but this like most rights are not absoloute. If its a choice between the childs right to life and the womns right to control her own body then life must prevail. some rights must be sacraficed in order to protect others.
We dont have the right to choose what is best for us when that invloves infringing on the rights of others. For example I may think the best thing for me is to rob the rich 80 year old women next door to me but I dont.
1. The right to …
1. The right to life is the most important because all others pre suppose it. The right to CHOOSE how you live your life presupposes the fact that you have the right to that life. When to rights clash the right to life should always prevail.
2. Well no there not but there equally as bad as each other. The only difference is the age of the victims. To say abortion is any better is discrimination on the basis of age.
can you even …
can you even justify everything that she said…Or is it the common way for the pro-life anti choice movement to just open an ear to one and close the ear to another.
@riffermaniac I …
@riffermaniac I agree with you 100%
bit more on your …
bit more on your methodologies to come up with better conclusions. They are choosing what’s best for them. Because it is a UNIVERSAL RIGHT when it comes to ones BODILY AUTONOMY. That is what the anti-choice do not even consider when it comes to that. But i give them the benefit of the doubt due to opressions of religion, chauvanistic parti-archy, and ignorance of neurology, logic ,and reality.
questions ,coments, concerns?
point by point*
…
point by point*
*I haven’t heard of one convincing argumen where a right to life should sustain a right to bodliy autonomy. I hope you can give on I’D be more than happy to hear.
*Abortion and infanticde aren’t teh same thing.
* we can’t grasp: how people expect somones to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, what part of right to choose body legistlation don’t they get?,
And that no PERSON has the right to use someone else’s body/organs.
*you might want to think a little (cont)
i think pro lifers …
i think pro lifers hold a very powerful and convincing argument, killing children at any stage of life is evil, what is it about that people cant seem to grasp? the only conclusion i can come up with is pro choicers know its wrong but dont care as long as they can kill their own children when its convenient for them and be allowed to.
lol i typed in my …
lol i typed in my own reply box and it said @S.o.S.
@S.O.S Homicide ( …
@S.O.S Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of a human killing a human being. So if it’s a human BEING than we can probably call it that. Now we must find the definiton of a human-BEING and when does this human BEING come into existence? If it’s at conception then people who take the mourning after pill are guilty of homocide and manslaughter.
the true line is, feticide and infanticide. And it’s actually feticide-killing of a fetus i bet.:-)
@SoilderofScience i …
@SoilderofScience i don’t think it’s murder or would even fit the moral definition or legal definiton. Miscarriages(Spontaneous abortions-expulsion of a fetus) would count as involuntary manslaughter. So yea they are going to have to find a new definition. And actually abortion(in the general sense) would be involuntary man slaughter to anyone who belives the fetus is not a person nad thinks it’s just a mass of tissue or clump of cells. It might fit the definition of HOMICIDE maybe. Let’s see.
Yea that point is …
Yea that point is moot. Murderers are murders. They have criminal intent on harming another. So if a murderer believes he’s doing the right thing that wouldn’t matter or put him in a different category. Murder is unjust, meaning without justice or no just cause. Moral and legal definition. If you kill somebody for using your body or trying to use your body without your permission by means of ANYTHING , whether they know it or not than it is just. I don’t see how that is unjust.