Catholic Nun Perfectly Explains the Hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" Argument

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So genes make an egg not part of the woman's body anymore? Does eating a hamburger make my stomach not part of my body anymore, because something foreign is being absorbed and transformed, according to biology?

You're describing chemistry, not biology.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

but there's a good chance that within your own body, there are cells that contain your mother's dna, that crossed over to your tiny developing body through the placenta, as well as if you have any older siblings you may have..
they might have settled in various organs in your body, including your brain, they might be found in your blood stream..

so, if it's just that the one little cell that happens to be a fertilized egg makes it separate from the mother's body and therefore a though shalt not kill... shall we also say that we shouldn't be removing parts of the body, taking blood samples, ect if it's found that the dna is different?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So genes make an egg not part of the woman's body anymore? Does eating a hamburger make my stomach not part of my body anymore, because something foreign is being absorbed and transformed, according to biology?

You're describing chemistry, not biology.

Biochemistry

Biochemistry, sometimes called biological chemistry, is the study of chemical processes within and relating to living organisms. By controlling information flow through biochemical signaling and the flow of chemical energy through metabolism, biochemical processes give rise to the complexity of life.

Even if you want to argue that a fertilized egg is no longer part of a woman's body, (I disagree) then she still has autonomy and should be able to evict that unwanted body from her own.

a reply to: windword

Because that's natural, like biochemistry, right?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So genes make an egg not part of the woman's body anymore? Does eating a hamburger make my stomach not part of my body anymore, because something foreign is being absorbed and transformed, according to biology?

I say no. Your logic doesn't tract. Adding something to one's body doesn't detract from one's ownership to that part of the body. The fertilized egg doesn't own it's body any more than the it owns the woman's body or the body of the male gene contributor.

Humans have 46 chromosomes. Only 23 of those are the mother's. The woman's body has a different genetic composition than that of the fetus, therefor, it is not the mother's body anymore.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

What are you talking about? Wanting to NOT be pregnant? Yes, that's natural.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Great! (Even though I disagree, Addition is not subtraction)

Then she should have every right to evict and unwanted body from her own.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Great! (Even though I disagree, Addition is not subtraction)

Then she should have every right to evict and unwanted body from her own.

I think she should have the right, personally, as long as she admits she is doing it to another human life and not her own.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

.....Terminating the existence of a potential human life.

a reply to: Grambler

Its not really murder, surely you could call it Euthanised?

So if medical science said that an unborn baby has no emotions, no feeling and no suffering when being Euthanised or you let it live in poverty and pain for the next 30 years until it gets murdered living in a cardboard house and sniffing petrol you would choose the latter?

If so, are you looking to adopt a child?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

.....Terminating the existence of a potential human life.

Using euphemism to justify the taking of life is a common trend, but at no point is a fetus dead. It is human life, and no other kind.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


What euphuism? "Potential"? That's the euphuism that the Supreme Court of the United States used in its Roe V Wade ruling.

A cancer cell is "human life" I'm sorry, but no matter how you look at it, a fertilized egg is not a person.

originally posted by: Forensick
a reply to: Grambler

Its not really murder, surely you could call it Euthanised?

So if medical science said that an unborn baby has no emotions, no feeling and no suffering when being Euthanised or you let it live in poverty and pain for the next 30 years until it gets murdered living in a cardboard house and sniffing petrol you would choose the latter?

If so, are you looking to adopt a child?

There is a ton of gray area on abortion. I am open to hearing a wide range of opinions on when the life is viable and other such points.

But there is a scientific consensus that unless there is some extraordinary circumstance, a 9 month term fetus is alive, and for people to claim they should be allowed to terminate that for any reason is repugnant and disgusting.

That is the only point I was making.

But I will answer your question.

First, I am ok if the womans life is endangered by birth, or if the child would be born with severe trauma or pain with a late term abortion like 9 months.

However, that doesn't seem to be your point. You are referencing the child growing up in extreme poverty. My question is why the hell would a woman have to wait 9 months to realize the child would be born in poverty?

So no, I feel that once the baby is deemed to be alive, which all science would say 9 months would be, then an abortion ios only acceptable for the reasons I outlined.

Now I pose a question to you.

Under your same scenario, the baby won't feel emotion or pain, and if it lives it will go through extreme poverty and pain, why shouldn't women be allowed to kill the child one week after it was born. There is not scientific reason why the babies emotions, or pain would be any different from nine months in the womb to one week out, so why can't we justify killing the new born baby for the same reason?

Further more, wouldn't your rational justify forced euthanasia of people with extreme pain, or the desperate homeless, or late stage drug addicts? As long as they were euthanized in a pain free way without their knowledge so that they wouldn't have an emotional response to it, we would be helping them by euthanizing them, right?

After so many months, to call it euthanization is but euphamization.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Annee

I didn't ask you personal baby making history.

I asked how a 'scientist' could actually manage to abort a late term baby and extinguish its life before it has a chance to draw breath.

So, you're not really interested in someone with real life experience.

Didn't think so. No one ever is on this subject.

Your response there was red herring. Just like the one you just gave grambler. And now you're trying to keep that one going? All to dodge the moral quagmire your 'its okay to murder new born babies' worldview. Pathetic.

I don't care.

It is YOUR personal emotional/moral issue.

It is not mine.

Ummm...trust me Annie...EVERYONE knows your amotional moralization...as per this issue...





YouSir

a reply to: windword

You talk about it in biochemistry natural order terms, but can you describe other natural occurrences of abortion in other species? Do monkeys have abortions? Perhaps elephants? Octopus'?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Great! (Even though I disagree, Addition is not subtraction)

Then she should have every right to evict and unwanted body from her own.

Alright, fine, you win. So once we get the 8.5 month old 'growth' out of the womb, what is the preferred method of extermination? What would be most most humane technique? Lethal injection? Choking? Blunt instrument?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

To be fair, Catholics run many charities that do exactly what she is saying.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Great! (Even though I disagree, Addition is not subtraction)

Then she should have every right to evict and unwanted body from her own.

Alright, fine, you win. So once we get the 8.5 month old 'growth' out of the womb, what is the preferred method of extermination? What would be most most humane technique? Lethal injection? Choking? Blunt instrument?

Please tell me the circumstances that would require a doctor to make such a choice.

a reply to: windword

Okay, so once you evict the tenant (baby fetus), once you remove it from your body now it is its own body and you have to kill it. Ahem, euthanize it.