Wanted: Clever Pro-Choice Slogans

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Abortion: It really brings out the kid in you.

[Gauthier]

How about:
"please get it out before it ruins my figure"
"support one stop chopping"
"there is only room for one immature, selfish brat in my life"

Yes, because abortion is so trivial.

It's a pity we're looking for catchphrases, because it's hard to condense how the entire anti-abortion platform is so desperate to force births, and then so willing to completely not give a fuck about the mother or offspring afterwards... into a catchy small slogan.

"I'll sign a paper to not abort the fetus if you sign a paper to adopt the baby."

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Abortion: It really brings out the kid in you.

[Mike the Progressive]

No more Americunts anymore!

How are you still posting?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

No more Americunts anymore!

How are you still posting?

That's a rather common occurrence here. The mods must be crazy!

[New Hayesalia]

How are you still posting?

I suck the cock of some mods.

WHYETH DOES THY MODETHS NOT SLAY THOU BEAST!

[Nulono]

You could go with the Freakonimcs approach: Crime rates drop starting 17 years after Roe v. Wade. NOT A COINCIDENCE.

And that makes it okay? Some groups are statistically more criminal, so would that make killing them okay?

"Let them be born wanted, or not born at all."
"Unwanted babies make unhappy families. Why force that life on a child?"

Because you're better off dead than in an unhappy family!

(Image)

This.

Only if you swallow.

Something along the lines of: "Fetuses are only human until they're old enough to conceive?"

So a toddler isn't human?

How about:
"please get it out before it ruins my figure"
"support one stop chopping"
"there is only room for one immature, selfish brat in my life"

Yes, because abortion is so trivial.

It's a pity we're looking for catchphrases, because it's hard to condense how the entire anti-abortion platform is so desperate to force births, and then so willing to completely not give a fuck about the mother or offspring afterwards... into a catchy small slogan.

All we want is for people to not kill their offspring. It's not that insidious. And it's not true I don't care about people after birth.

Something along the lines of: "Fetuses are only human until they're old enough to conceive?"

Again, I repeat:
"Liberals believe in a right to life beginning at birth. Conservatives believe in a right to life ending at birth."

Womb to tomb. Humans have the right to live from conception to death.

Yes, because abortion is so trivial.

It's a pity we're looking for catchphrases, because it's hard to condense how the entire anti-abortion platform is so desperate to force births, and then so willing to completely not give a fuck about the mother or offspring afterwards... into a catchy small slogan.

"I'll sign a paper to not abort the fetus if you sign a paper to adopt the baby."

Because in order to ask someone not to kill their kid, you've gotta personally adopt the kid from them. Makes perfect sense.

[Dakini]

"Let them be born wanted, or not born at all."
"Unwanted babies make unhappy families. Why force that life on a child?"

Because you're better off dead than in an unhappy family!

You might be better off not existing at all.

Something along the lines of: "Fetuses are only human until they're old enough to conceive?"

So a toddler isn't human?

You missed the joke. The joke was that women aren't considered human beings entitled to make their own medical decisions by the anti-choice group. Hence fetuses are human until they're able to conceive. Only women are able to conceive. Toddlers can't, so they're still human according to the anti-choicers.

Again, I repeat:
"Liberals believe in a right to life beginning at birth. Conservatives believe in a right to life ending at birth."

Womb to tomb. Humans have the right to live from conception to death.

Then why isn't blood donation mandatory? Where's my right to life if I'm O- and dying because there isn't enough blood for a transfusion? Why did my friend's mom have to wait 7 years for a kidney? Why isn't organ donation mandatory? Where was her right to life?

[Tekania]

Because you're better off dead than in an unhappy family!

You might be better off not existing at all.

So a toddler isn't human?

You missed the joke. The joke was that women aren't considered human beings entitled to make their own medical decisions by the anti-choice group. Hence fetuses are human until they're able to conceive. Only women are able to conceive. Toddlers can't, so they're still human according to the anti-choicers.

Womb to tomb. Humans have the right to live from conception to death.

Then why isn't blood donation mandatory? Where's my right to life if I'm O- and dying because there isn't enough blood for a transfusion? Why did my friend's mom have to wait 7 years for a kidney? Why isn't organ donation mandatory? Where was her right to life?

We've come fer your livah!

[Dakini]

You might be better off not existing at all.


You missed the joke. The joke was that women aren't considered human beings entitled to make their own medical decisions by the anti-choice group. Hence fetuses are human until they're able to conceive. Only women are able to conceive. Toddlers can't, so they're still human according to the anti-choicers.


Then why isn't blood donation mandatory? Where's my right to life if I'm O- and dying because there isn't enough blood for a transfusion? Why did my friend's mom have to wait 7 years for a kidney? Why isn't organ donation mandatory? Where was her right to life?

We've come fer your livah!

When I'm dead you can have it. However, it's funny that some people would give more rights to corpses than they would to pregnant women since organ donation isn't mandatory at all.

[Flameswroth]

When I'm dead you can have it. However, it's funny that some people would give more rights to corpses than they would to pregnant women since organ donation isn't mandatory at all.

As a vehement non-organ donor, I agree. I love that I can ensure how my body is used, even after I'm dead, so why shouldn't someone be able to control that when they're alive?

I hope this doesn't start the cycle anew with 'because another body is involved' and all that stuff. o_0

[Gauthier]

Because in order to ask someone not to kill their kid, you've gotta personally adopt the kid from them. Makes perfect sense.

Considering "They can be adopted!" is one of the more popular anti-choice "defenses" against abortion, it's telling them to put their money where their mouth is.

[Nulono]

Because you're better off dead than in an unhappy family!

You might be better off not existing at all.

Then you should be arguing for contraception.

So a toddler isn't human?

You missed the joke. The joke was that women aren't considered human beings entitled to make their own medical decisions by the anti-choice group. Hence fetuses are human until they're able to conceive. Only women are able to conceive. Toddlers can't, so they're still human according to the anti-choicers.

Women, like men, aren't human beings entitled to kill other human beings.

Womb to tomb. Humans have the right to live from conception to death.

Then why isn't blood donation mandatory? Where's my right to life if I'm O- and dying because there isn't enough blood for a transfusion? Why did my friend's mom have to wait 7 years for a kidney? Why isn't organ donation mandatory? Where was her right to life?

I'm talking about the negative right to live.

Because in order to ask someone not to kill their kid, you've gotta personally adopt the kid from them. Makes perfect sense.

Considering "They can be adopted!" is one of the more popular anti-choice "defenses" against abortion, it's telling them to put their money where their mouth is.

No, it's trying to shift the blame for the child's death to anyone not adopting.

When I'm dead you can have it. However, it's funny that some people would give more rights to corpses than they would to pregnant women since organ donation isn't mandatory at all.

As a vehement non-organ donor, I agree. I love that I can ensure how my body is used, even after I'm dead, so why shouldn't someone be able to control that when they're alive?

I hope this doesn't start the cycle anew with 'because another body is involved' and all that stuff. o_0

Well, it's an important distinction. You can control your body, but not someone else's.

[-St George]

Because in order to ask someone not to kill their kid, you've gotta personally adopt the kid from them. Makes perfect sense.

Considering "They can be adopted!" is one of the more popular anti-choice "defenses" against abortion, it's telling them to put their money where their mouth is.

Aye, but like most of their arguments, the majority of anti-choices know it's bullshit. I quote from the recently locked 'House Passes Anti Abortion Bill' Thread:

An expanded adoption system still wouldn't cover it.

In 1992, the last time comprehensive statistics on the number of adoptions per year was compiled, "the National Center for State Courts gathered adoption totals from a variety of sources, and estimated that 126,951 children were adopted through international, foster care, private agency, independent and step-parent adoptions." - Source. The NCSC also "estimated that stepparent adoptions accounted for 42% of all adoptions and foster care adoptions 15%." From the same source. So, that's 57% of 126,951 adoptions that weren't pertaining to orphans/unwanted children.

So, in reality, perhaps 50-55,000 unwanted/uncared for children were adopted in 1992. How many abortions happened in 1992? Well, thanks to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance of legal induced abortions, it was found that 1,359,145 abortions took place in that year (the 5th highest since the land mark Roe v Wade Case and indeed in US history). - Direct Link to CDC Survey. Wiki page that you might actually understand

And, even with the passage of Acts of Congress that made it easier to adopt, there were still 115,000 children awaiting adoption in the US care system in 2009. The system would have to expand tenfold if it were have any lasting effect, assuming, of course, that all abortions undertaken in the US in 2009 were changed to adoptions, both exceedingly unlikely and unquantifiable as 2009 figures haven't yet been released by the CDC, but a fair estimate would be between the 2005 figure of 820,000 or so (a record low since 1977), and the 2006 figure of 846,000 meaning that the system would have had to expand, and fast.

And an expansion of the adoption system leads to further problems, both in the regulation of it, and the providing of willing temporary accommodation for children awaiting adoption. Not to mention the inevitable private v public sector arguments, etc.

[Nulono]

As I said in that thread, that doesn't cut it.

[Tekania]

Well, it's an important distinction. You can control your body, but not someone else's.

Wrong, only an actual person, that is someone with the capacity of self-agency, can control their own body. At best a fetus can never be anything other than a fictional person subject to the agency of another.

[-St George]

As I said in that thread, that doesn't cut it.

And I refuted, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

My point wasn't that abortion is justifiable because there aren't enough adoption homes, it's that the 'oh they could put it up for adoption' argue, doesn't cut the mustard.

[Dakini]

You might be better off not existing at all.

Then you should be arguing for contraception.

I do. Contraception sometimes fails.

You missed the joke. The joke was that women aren't considered human beings entitled to make their own medical decisions by the anti-choice group. Hence fetuses are human until they're able to conceive. Only women are able to conceive. Toddlers can't, so they're still human according to the anti-choicers.

Women, like men, aren't human beings entitled to kill other human beings.

I'm not talking about killing a human being. I'm talking about making a medical decision.

Then why isn't blood donation mandatory? Where's my right to life if I'm O- and dying because there isn't enough blood for a transfusion? Why did my friend's mom have to wait 7 years for a kidney? Why isn't organ donation mandatory? Where was her right to life?

I'm talking about the negative right to live.

The negative right to live? What? So people only have the right to life until they leave the womb?

[Dakini]

As a vehement non-organ donor, I agree. I love that I can ensure how my body is used, even after I'm dead, so why shouldn't someone be able to control that when they're alive?

I hope this doesn't start the cycle anew with 'because another body is involved' and all that stuff. o_0

Well, it's an important distinction. You can control your body, but not someone else's.

Then why are you trying to control my body?

[Tekania]

Well, it's an important distinction. You can control your body, but not someone else's.

And yet, you're giving control of the woman's body to "someone else" within the confines of your own philosophy. It's stuff like this which makes everyone here look upon your philosophical viewpoint as absurd.... You give a mindless clump of cells more rights than a functioning agent.

[Nulono]

Well, it's an important distinction. You can control your body, but not someone else's.

Wrong, only an actual person, that is someone with the capacity of self-agency, can control their own body. At best a fetus can never be anything other than a fictional person subject to the agency of another.

Infanticide is okay by that logic.

As I said in that thread, that doesn't cut it.

And I refuted, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

My point wasn't that abortion is justifiable because there aren't enough adoption homes, it's that the 'oh they could put it up for adoption' argue, doesn't cut the mustard.

Adoption is irrelevant to the morality of abortion.

Then you should be arguing for contraception.

I do. Contraception sometimes fails.

Once it fails, you can't prevent someone from existing, because they already do.

Women, like men, aren't human beings entitled to kill other human beings.

I'm not talking about killing a human being. I'm talking about making a medical decision.

We're talking about killing a human fetus.

I'm talking about the negative right to live.

The negative right to live? What? So people only have the right to life until they leave the womb?

I never said anything of the sort.

Well, it's an important distinction. You can control your body, but not someone else's.

Then why are you trying to control my body?

I'm not. I'm telling you not to kill your offspring.

Well, it's an important distinction. You can control your body, but not someone else's.

And yet, you're giving control of the woman's body to "someone else" within the confines of your own philosophy. It's stuff like this which makes everyone here look upon your philosophical viewpoint as absurd.... You give a mindless clump of cells more rights than a functioning agent.

No, I give the fetus the right to live, like any other human.

[Tekania]

Wrong, only an actual person, that is someone with the capacity of self-agency, can control their own body. At best a fetus can never be anything other than a fictional person subject to the agency of another.

Infanticide is okay by that logic.

Yes, it could be. That of course has no relevance to the issue at hand.

And yet, you're giving control of the woman's body to "someone else" within the confines of your own philosophy. It's stuff like this which makes everyone here look upon your philosophical viewpoint as absurd.... You give a mindless clump of cells more rights than a functioning agent.

No, I give the fetus the right to live, like any other human.

No you don't, you give it MORE rights to live than any other human... Which is silly because you even put it's rights above the rights of real agents (real persons).

[Veblenia]

Wow....I guess it was kind of naive of me not to realize how this thread would deteriorate.

Poster-making is this afternoon. I wanted to thank everyone who contributed constructively to this thread; I definitely appreciate your advice. To everyone else, well, thanks for reaffirming the importance of me being out there tomorrow.

I'm still torn between the punchy "If abortion is murder, then blowjobs are cannibalism" and the less attention-grabbing but also less inflammatory "Her body, her choice." I guess I'll talk it over with the other organizers.

For my purposes, the thread is done. Maybe the mods want to go ahead and lock?

[Dakini]

I do. Contraception sometimes fails.

Once it fails, you can't prevent someone from existing, because they already do.

Not as a "someone" they don't.

I'm not talking about killing a human being. I'm talking about making a medical decision.

We're talking about killing a human fetus.

No, we're talking about bodily autonomy.

The negative right to live? What? So people only have the right to life until they leave the womb?

I never said anything of the sort.

Then clarify what you mean by "the negative right to live".

Then why are you trying to control my body?

I'm not. I'm telling you not to kill your offspring.

They're not offspring until they've sprung.

It's my body, my uterus, my reproductive choice. If you want to deny me my choice, you're trying to control my reproduction, the status of my uterus and by extension, my body.

[Smunkeeville]

WAIT don't lock it yet! My daughter went to a march with me recently and her sign said "Medical choices are for patients and their doctors!" and everyone loved it. You might throw that into your mix of things to think about.