Choice now... but for what? Choice to own a slave? Choice to own a rocket propelled grenade launcher? In our consumeristic society "choice" is seen as an inherently good word. But being "pro-choice" is an incomplete argument. What is the choice for?
free abortion on demand
Abortion, or the act of killing an unborn child by stopping her heartbeat, poisoning her and then dismembering her young body, is evil enough when it is paid by the mother. Now they want our tax dollars to pay for it as well, which does happen by Planned Parenthood.
against abortion? don't have one! (alternately Pro-life? Great. Now stay out of mine!)
This is illogical. While some things fall under personal conviction (some people go to R-rated movies and other don't, some people drink beer and others abstain, some consenting adults have one-night stands and others wait for either marriage or a monogomous relationship, and so on). This is where personal choice is appropriate. But once a person gets drunk and then drives, she or he endangers others' lives and it becomes illegal. Once a person is not consenting, or once a minor is involved, then sex becomes illegal. Personal "choice" is inappropriate when it endangers or harms other human beings. Abortion involves not just the mother but the child as well, and both are dehumanized when the child is killed. If this motto were logical, then we could say, "against slavery? then don't own a slave!" or "against drunken driving? then don't drink and drive!" Killing of an innocent human being as a form of birth control is not a logical choice to allow.
every mother willing every child wanted or alternately pro-choice means wanted children
Just because a child is unwanted does not mean that she or he should be killed. An unexpected or unwanted pregnancy is different from an unwanted child, since the child could be adopted or be accepted by her or his mother and father once born. This ideology that only the wanted should be allowed to live has applied not only to unborn children but born children as well, such as when a newborn with Down syndrome is unwanted, they have let the child die in the hospital. Or when a couple kills a newborn by throwing her or him into a dumpster then they get only a year or two in jail.
pro-woman, pro-child, pro-choice (alternately pro child, pro choice)
Being pro-woman conflicts with being pro-choice to kill her unborn child because abortion dehumanizes both the woman and the child. Being pro-child is so antithetical to being pro-choice to kill a child it would be laughable if not so evil.
pro-sex, pro-child, pro-choice
This nonsensical and irrelevant motto isn’t really worth a reply, either. Being pro-sex is also an incomplete argument. What kind of sex? Obviously those men that have sex with women in meaningless flings devoid of any fidelity are more for abortion, since they view women as objects and also want to avoid child support payments. But being for sex between a man and his wife is a beautiful concept.
if you can't trust me with a choice how can you trust me with a child
This overly simplistic propaganda does not explain why it should be permissible to kill a living human being because someone was irresponsible. Why punish the child with death? And what about adoption? Many people are irresponsible with sex, but that does not mean the child should suffer, and it also does not mean the woman and man would not make a good mother and father. Even if it does lead to irresponsibility in general, the child should not have to be killed for irresponsibility.
jesus was pro-choice
This blasphemous t-shirt design is not really worth a reply. It’s kind of like saying Jesus was pro-Satan or Jesus was pro-murder. Jesus was not for abortion, or any form of murder, the killing of an innocent human being. This is self-evident from scripture. But he was for some choice—the choice whether or not to follow Him or reject Him, to accept salvation or not accept salvation. Again, “pro-choice” is an incomplete argument. Jesus was against the “choice” of the Pharisees to have the adulterous woman stoned. This is disgusting, blasphemous and plain untrue.
no uterus no opinion (or alternately, I'll give up my choice when George W. Bush gets pregnant.)
This extremely simplistic, sexist and nonsensical motto basically states that males cannot have an opinion when it comes to killing an unborn child. This is akin to saying that women cannot object to child abuse because men mainly do it. Of course this is not true, either. Everyone, regardless of sex, was once an embryo, a fetus, and a newborn. Usually those men that do impregnate women from one-night stands want abortion, and often pressure the woman to kill because he does not want to pay for child support. There are many men that volunteer to baby sit for single mothers. Many men are in monogamous relationships with their girlfriends or wives and do not consider women “objects” but rather people and they abhor abortion as a form of birth control. Anyone, female or male, can stand up for the voiceless.
my body, my choice
This simplistic motto begs the question. The unborn child is not simply a body part, but is a genetically distinct human being. Abortion involves the dehumanization of not just the mother but the child as well. Should a mother have the right to kill her newborn as well? Some leftists think so. The right to control one’s body should relate to sex and how and when to have it, and who with. But unlike sex, killing another human being is more than simply a “choice.” It involves two bodies, not just one.
georgie dearest: no wire hangers ever again! Support a womans' (sic) right to choose.
This simplistic propaganda hints that if abortion as a form of birth control is banned, then women will “resort” to illegal back-alley abortions, rather than being responsible when it comes to sex in the first place or keeping their baby. Just because someone does something violent does not make it so that it should be allowed by law and even tax-funded. People are going to murder, rape, do crack cocaine and steal from convenience stores, but that does not make we should make it “safe, legal and rare.” In fact we should make harsh penalties for all of these crimes, especially murder, rape and also robbery. This “logic” that because something will happen we should make it legal has been applied to the near-legalization of murdering newborns as well: some couples and mothers have killed their newborns and the couples or mothers have gotten off on probation or only a year or two in jail.
pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion
Yes it does. Being for a choice to do something promotes that which the choice is for. If a person is against personally owning a slave but doesn't want to take that choice away from other plantation owners, they are considered pro-slavery. If it is simplified to pro-choice, it would more accurately be called "pro-choice to own and beat a slave." So, "pro-choice" in this context really means "pro-choice for someone to poison and dismember a living human being" as a form of birth control.
if you are not pro-choice you are anti-freedom
Many pro-aborts complained about some people who have said that if you are against certain wars you are against freedom. But this is the same exact thing. It is not that simple. Freedom is not absolute. A person who is pro-life is against the “freedom” to kill an innocent human being as a form of birth control. And what about the freedom of the unborn child to live, or the freedom of the woman to have the child and be supported by society?
my parents are pro-choice!
(or alternately my mommy is pro-choice
This disgusting t-shirt design is intended for a child. Luckily for this child, her or his parents “chose” not to murder her or him in utero. Hopefully their siblings will have the same luck.
i'm pro-choice and I shoot back
It is self-evident than those for abortion are for violence. And this promotes violence not only against the unborn but the born as well. Only a microscopic spec of the pro-life community advocates violence against abortionists, and those people don’t even advocate violence against people for their opinion but rather for their acts of late-term abortions. This propaganda makes it look like most pro-life people are for violence against abortionists, which they are not.
pro-life? don't forget the living!
The unborn are living, this motto begs the question by starting out the argument with assumed ideas that are not true. Perhaps if they said, “pro-life? Don’t forget the born!” it would make more sense. And yes, we should fight for the lives of the unborn as well as the born.
montana is pro-choice
Give us a break.
I am pro-choice and pro-life
This is impossible. Being for the choice to kill a human being conflicts and is actually the antithesis of being for innocent life. Likewise, a person cannot be for the choice to own a slave and consider themselves pro-abolitionist.
abstinence kills babies
This nonsensical t-shirt design really isn't worth a reply. With abstinence, obviously no new life has formed such as when an egg meets a sperm.
Again, the hateful propaganda by pro-abortion organizations and pundits rely on personal, vitriolic attacks that rely on violence and hate instead of reasonable and coherent logic.
pro choice poster child, barbara had no choice!
Pro-abortion arguments try to dehumanize both the unborn and the born.
we tried but it survived
This shows further dehumanization of the unborn and trivialization of their pain and murder.
pro-choice and christian
This is nonsensical. While it is safe to assume it is not anyone’s place to judge whether or not a person is a Christian, it is theologically sound to consider a person’s argument against what a Christian should believe. Christians should not advocate the killing of innocent human beings. There is not much more fundamentally true and more important than that as far as political beliefs go. Just because a political group claims to be Christian does not make their position in accordance with Christian values. The Ku Klux Klan claim to be Christian, but racism is still in conflict with Christian values.
no woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body. --Margaret Sanger
pro-abortion because IDIOTS shouldn't populate
This seems to be more in accordance with the aims of the original pro-abortion pundits such as Margaret Sanger. It was, and is, less about “choice” than eugenic aims of keeping "less desirable" people from populating. But just because some people are irresponsible or made a bad decision does not make it right to kill a human being.
abortion is a property right
For a response to this nonsensical argument, I quote feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an early suffragist and abolitionist who fought for the right to vote as well as the life of the unborn: “When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library
I'm pro-life. The Woman's life.
That’s great, but how is being against the life of the unborn child being for the woman’s life? Abortion pits women against children, and this is wrong. Besides, what about when abortion kills the mother as well? Feminists for Life are for both the woman and the child’s life.
Eat a fetus
Well, if the unborn child is not a person, then why not? Either the unborn child is a person worthy of protection from abortion as a form of birth control, or she or he is merely “uterine material.”
Patriotic pro-choice american
It’s good to be patriotic, especially if you’re American. But that does not excuse advocacy of murder. Being “pro-choice” is an incomplete argument. What is the choice for?
Proud of my pro choice values
Being pro-choice to kill an innocent human being is not a value, but stems from a lack of values.
It's not a choice it's a parasite...
This hateful motto calls an unborn child a “parasite” but fails to explain any coherent reason why a child should be killed simply because she or he is unwanted or relies on the mother.
(picture of egg) not a chicken
Many pro-abortion pundits see no difference between animals and humans anyway, and call those that do see a difference “speciesists” (I am not making this up). They consider pigs “persons” but newborn humans not “persons,” such as Peter Singer. But that does not excuse for some pro-killing advocates to confuse birds with human mammals. Also, a human egg is not a human being, like an embryo of fetus is, genetically distinct from her or his mother. Pro-life people do not consider eggs “people.” Therefore this t-shirt design does not make sense, either. But interestingly, and ironically, there are laws to protect fertilized eggs of birds that are of an endangered species, because if you crack open one of those eggs a small baby bird emerges. I saw this once when a group of teens threw a black swan egg at a wall. It was sad, a limp, dead body of a small black swan, and if we could have caught those responsible they could have been in trouble, because this was more than just an egg. In this way, bird eggs vary greatly from human eggs, in that bird eggs house a small bird but human eggs are not organisms but need a sperm to have a new human being result, which attaches to the uterine wall.
my body! my soul! my choice!
It’s also someone else’s body and soul as well. Again, what is it a choice to do? This is an incomplete argument.
I defend freedom! I vote pro-choice!
Freedom is not absolute. You do not have the freedom to walk into a mall with a rocket launcher. You do not have the freedom to rob a bank. You do not have freedom with kill another human being (besides abortion and infanticide of course, sadly). Even freedom of speech has limitations, such as false light, defamation, libel and slander, and copyright violation. What about freedom to live? Should an abortionist’s freedom to kill outweigh the unborn child’s freedom to live just because a woman and man had the freedom to have sex without a condom? Absolutely not.
adopt some children, then you can tell me what to do, you judgemental (sic) hypocrite
Again, pro-killing advocates (especially those that can’t spell) have to rely on name-calling since it is impossible to defend abortion (killing of an innocent human being) on logical grounds. There are plenty of pro-life people that have adopted children. Would this person really listen to them, either? This simplistic, hateful motto lacks any coherent reason why a person that simply wants a Culture of Life a hypocrite. And how is a person that wants abortion as a form of birth control not a hypocrite?