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

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Otherwise it's none of your business what one who chooses abortion does.

Isn't it ironic how you, alongside others in the "pro-abortion" crowd, believe that it is completely okay to force people to pay for the abortions of others, even millions of those people think abortion is murder?...

Oh, I think abortions should be 100% free and paid for by the government.

Along with contraceptives and every other method of birth control.

I am forced to pay taxes on many things I do not support. So is everyone. It's kind of how it works.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Otherwise it's none of your business what one who chooses abortion does.

Isn't it ironic how you, alongside others in the "pro-abortion" crowd, believe that it is completely okay to force people to pay for the abortions of others, even millions of those people think abortion is murder?...

Oh, I think abortions should be 100% free and paid for by the government.

Along with contraceptives and every other method of birth control.

I am forced to pay taxes on many things I do not support. So is everyone. It's kind of how it works.

TAXPAYERS determine how our tax-dollars are spent.

Most taxpayers do not want to pay for abortions on demand.

That's why abortions on demand are not funded by our tax-dollars.

originally posted by: Annee

Oh, I think abortions should be 100% free and paid for by the government.

Along with contraceptives and every other method of birth control.

I am forced to pay taxes on many things I do not support. So is everyone. It's kind of how it works.

Case in point, as long as it is your opinion being forced on everyone you are "okay with it"... So then you shouldn't tell people that they don't have a say on abortion.

Isn't ironic how the first right mentioned in the Declaration of independence is the right to life?

...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
...

www.ushistory.org...

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Man that is a bad argument.
If you don't want to be held at gunpoint and robbed, you are a bad person, the argument is essentially a women's sexual organs(and fetus) are a taxpayers liability. Those are the kinds of arguments that get sexual behavior regulated.

There is a better way, a way that restores traditional mating and family behaviors. This would be that the government makes the parent's families pay for the welfare. This severely limits the moral hazard for society. A family will intervene in bad behavior as they are responsible.

Children are first and foremost the responsibility of the parents.
If the parents are not responsible enough to care and provide for the child these parents should not be having sex. Having sex and shifting responsibility to the taxpayers is very very selfish and immature, Not to mention the sheer narcissism of not caring about the child's future.
That is what the nun should be teaching. The church's job should be to advocate abstinence for those too immature and selfish to act responsibly.

When and if abortion takes place is a religious issue, until it can be proven when the soul/conscious/ghost in the shell enters the fetus the argument for banning abortion is difficult. It requires a leap of faith.
If a soul and its entry is ever proven then abortion should be banned.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Creator at the end of the Declaration of Independence wasn't even in the first 2 drafts.

It was an after thought.

And it represents a Deist God. You know, he created everything then turned it over to man and walked away to let man take care of himself.

Boo Hoo - - as if you are the only person who's taxes are used for things you don't agree with.

Jefferson's Original Declaration of Independence Did Not Use the Word "Creator": candst.tripod.com...

originally posted by: jellyrev

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Man that is a bad argument.
...

Not to mention the fact the nun doesn't seem to understand that millions of people who are pro-life willingly give charity to help people and children. Millions of people think it should be their decision what to do with their hard earned money, and how to use it. Not to mention the fact that instead of helping, a lot of tax dollars which supposedly were there to help people, imposed sterilizations, and forced abortions to people in third world countries.

If you let your tax dollars go to "progressive charities" instead a large portion of your tax dollars go to impose the will of "progressives everywhere", even thou the 1973 Helms Amendment Act prohibits the use of U.S. foreign assistance from tax dollars being used in overseas abortions.

Of course, there are already left-wing newspapers claiming the use of tax dollars for abortions overseas is already banned.

Contrary to What Sean Spicer Says, Taxpayer Dollars Don’t Fund Abortions Overseas

But this is not true...

Thursday, 12 July 2012
UN Slammed for Its Forced Abortions in China Using U.S. Funds

Written by Alex Newman

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is under heavy fire after an investigation by the Population Research Institute (PRI) showed yet again that the UN is working with the communist dictatorship ruling mainland China to enforce its barbaric “one-child” policy — complete with forced abortions, involuntary sterilization, kidnapping of “illegal” children, and other brutal tactics. The evidence of UN complicity in the atrocious human rights violations is undeniable, according to PRI President Steven Mosher (pictured above), who said U.S. taxpayers should permanently halt funding to the global anti-population agency.

Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Programs this week, Mosher and several other witnesses described the mass abuses being perpetrated by the UNFPA and its communist partners in Beijing. Also offering testimony was a victim of the Chinese regime’s “population control” who was kidnapped by the “family planning” officials before having her baby murdered in cold blood.
...

www.thenewamerican.com...

...
PRI has numerous documents which demonstrate unambiguously that America's foreign aid agency USAID has underwritten such camps in India for decades. They also establish that the agency – in concert with a host of American charity groups, India's biggest bank and private funders like Bill and Melinda Gates – has been the primary architect and a major overseer of the country’s state-run population control.
...

www.pop.org...


USAID Funding of Sterilization Camps in India


As to your other points I do agree in part. If anyone has to pay for abortions, or contraception it should be an individual responsibility. It should be those who are having the abortion, and their families, and if you are old enough to have sex, then you should pay for your own contraception, or in case of minors the parents should be responsible to provide them.

Interesting that only my opinion is being forced on others.

Isn't it odd that it doesn't apply to those complaining about that.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

cause nothing says charity and helping others like government taxation

originally posted by: Annee

Creator at the end of the Declaration of Independence wasn't even in the first 2 drafts.

It was an after thought.

Even the rough draft talks about "equal creation".

...
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable;[2] that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights(3) inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;...

jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu...

If there is a creation, there is a Creator.

originally posted by: Annee
And it represents a Deist God. You know, he created everything then turned it over to man and walked away to let man take care of himself.

So I guess according to you after "creation" mankind can do whatever it wants... Yet again, the declaration of independence does say creation/life is an inherent & inalienable right.

originally posted by: Annee
Boo Hoo - - as if you are the only person who's taxes are used for things you don't agree with.

Are you talking about paying for an standing army when you say you disagree with some of the things tax dollars are used?...

First, of all, paying for a standing army doesn't necessarily means "bombing other countries"...

Second of all, what do you have to say about your progressive/democrat candidate, ex-President Obama bombing the hell out of 7 countries?...

Heck, how many bombs using drones did he use? over 20,000 bombs dropped a year for 6 years under ex-President Obama?...

'Peace' President? How Obama came to bomb seven countries in six years

Actually it should be Obama bombed 8 countries, because Phillipines is another country where he used drone strikes and dropped bombs. But to be fair, so did Bush. However, Obama has been at war with more countries than Bush, Reagan, or even Bill Clinton.

And then again, we don't even know for certain how many ground forces were sent to these countries.

Here, from a left-leaning newspaper...

Pentagon Won’t Say How Many Troops Are Fighting ISIS

Should we also discuss how many wars democrats/progressives have started vs republicans?... Really?...

Oh wait, I forgot, this discussion is about "abortion"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I live in the present.

I support the Constitution as a framework of our government.

I am really not interested in the type argument you are trying to put forth.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Otherwise it's none of your business what one who chooses abortion does.

Isn't it ironic how you, alongside others in the "pro-abortion" crowd, believe that it is completely okay to force people to pay for the abortions of others, even millions of those people think abortion is murder?...

Oh, I think abortions should be 100% free and paid for by the government.

Along with contraceptives and every other method of birth control.

I am forced to pay taxes on many things I do not support. So is everyone. It's kind of how it works.

People think the only rights that matter are the rights of the parents, not the rights of the new citizen. A new citizen deserves a pregnancy without illicit drug consumption, without alcohol consumption, and with proper nutrition. A new citizen also deserves good genetics, and adequate housing, education, health care, mentally fit parents. In other words there are prerequisites that need be met before a new citizen is allowed into this world.

What needs be developed is safe reversible sterilization, and only those who're intent on having a baby, assuming they meet the basic requirements, only then can the procedure to reverse sterilization be carried out temporarily to allow for pregnancy.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Otherwise it's none of your business what one who chooses abortion does.

Isn't it ironic how you, alongside others in the "pro-abortion" crowd, believe that it is completely okay to force people to pay for the abortions of others, even millions of those people think abortion is murder?...

Oh, I think abortions should be 100% free and paid for by the government.

Along with contraceptives and every other method of birth control.

I am forced to pay taxes on many things I do not support. So is everyone. It's kind of how it works.

People think the only rights that matter are the rights of the parents, not the rights of the new citizen. A new citizen deserves a pregnancy without illicit drug consumption, without alcohol consumption, and with proper nutrition. A new citizen also deserves good genetics, and adequate housing, education, health care, mentally fit parents. In other words there are prerequisites that need be met before a new citizen is allowed into this world.

What needs be developed is safe reversible sterilization, and only those who're intent on having a baby, assuming they meet the basic requirements, only then can the procedure to reverse sterilization be carried out temporarily to allow for pregnancy.

Some have suggested all male babies have reversible vasectomies at birth.

Will that work for you?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: windword

That's why you need to read the discharge. As I said "know thyself".

Holy s#, women need not listen to this crap at all. It's bogus because there is significant variation between womens' bodies, and it's not minor statistical anomalies.

Secretion thickness and texture can change on a dime and is not reliable. The difference between thin & stretchy or thick and creamy can be as simple as getting sick, a change in diet, or plain ol' fricking stress. Charting basal temperatures is not accurate either for the same reasons, and many women don't have a basal temp shift prior to or during ovulation. Even being overheated or too cold to begin with can significantly alter those results as the body compensates to stabilize body-wide temperature. This is not the same as a coroner taking a liver temp FFS. If you're betting your fertility on a slight temperature variation, if you swing that at all, then prepare to feel as swindled out of those temping kit costs as I felt. I do not recommend them as a reliable indicator method. Few women experienced with them do.

As for the cervix also being a reliable indicator, it's totally not. Been shoving my hand up my crotch testing this boneheaded theory since last summer because why not. The height & direction position of the cervix, firmness of and whether or not the Os is open is ALSO BS as a reliable indicator. They tell you jack s#. I don't know anybody who's charted this and had any modicum of a reliable pattern to work with. Aside from my own & friends' changing on a daily basis and having zero consistent position, zero consistent firmness and zero consistent minor dilation or lack thereof, there is ample evidence from god knows how many women on umpteen online forums admitting it's not adequate BC to simply "know thyself"

Oh look, a male contraceptive.

Make sure you get on that guys. Be responsible.

www.parsemusfoundation.org...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

the catholic church is a joke and so are their nuns

originally posted by: LiberLegit
a reply to: Southern Guardian

the catholic church is a joke and so are their nuns

This really isn't about them, is it?

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose
a reply to: Southern Guardian

cause nothing says charity and helping others like government taxation

If charity could resolve all these issues there wouldn't be a need for government involvement.

Ask the charities what they think about government not getting involved in public education, healthcare, orphanages. You won't get the answer you like.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Hard to disagree with her.

...

Also, I really don't think men (and I'm a dude, too) should really have any say in the matter.

...

I think men should have a say in the matter if this is the situation:

* The man is the biological father.
* The woman wants an abortion.
* The man wants to keep his child.
* There is no rape involved - And I mean rape, not "3 months later I'm quite sure I wasn't in the mood that night".

This would be the case if a couple is in the process of breaking up - she doesn't want the baby, he DOES.

Let him have the baby, and it's out of her hair.
Then they can go separate ways and never deal with each other again.

If I was the father, I wouldn't want her anywhere near the child - because SHE didn't even want it born in the first place.

It takes two to tango - it's just as much the mans child as the womans.

Yea.

a reply to: jellyrev

he argument is essentially a women's sexual organs(and fetus) are a taxpayers liability.

But wasting tax money on controlling what women should be allowed to do with their body is A-Ok.

By the way, it doesn't matter what you do. It will ALWAYS fall back on the tax payer. You could get government out of education, healthcare, welfare, but in the end those orphaned or neglected children from broken homes, those single parents who struggle and may turn to crime, unspeakable acts, all this will inevitably impact the tax payers one way or another.

It's unavoidable.

parents should not be having sex.

Humans are at the mercy of their sexual instinct, nature. We're naturally pushed into the world to procreate. People have been having sex and will continue to do so for time to come. This isn't lala land, it's the real world. It's unavoidable. You can't expect people to live in a sterile world, it's beyond logic.

originally posted by: Grambler

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?

OK, point 1:

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.

First off, "repugnant and disgusting" is your opinion (and others) but your opinions are based on your morality. I do not disagree completely, it does not sit well in my moral compass, however, having never been in the situation I will not judge those that have been.

My personal feelings are irrelevant but in my opinion you are brainwashed into pigeon holing things, we are not a binary race however laws tend to be. I am sure a 9 month old baby is alive inside its mother as well as a 4 month fetus is, but that isnt the point, confirm it is alive, therefore, does it have the same rights as a 10 year old?

If you want to go down this route:

1. Mother is arrested for providing junior with nicotine.
2. Mother is arrested for giving a 1 month old alcohol before she even knew she was pregnant.
3. Mother of 3 month fetus is driving a car with airbag which will crush/harm fetus...need new cars.

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?

Which is what most people would agree with, if you gave the mother a choice, you would be talking about the 0.005% of women who would terminate a 9 month pregnancy.

Your assumption is giving a mother a choice there would be an increase in abortions, or in your words, MURDERS of 6-9 month old fetus. I would say that most mothers gone 6 months would already have it squared away and I think you are playing the most unlikely event as a usual occurrence to help your faux outrage.

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?

Well actually I buy the big issue, i play soccer 3 times a year in the homeless games and I am a coach of junior soccer team trying to keep kids out of trouble. My club waive the fee for those in poverty and yeah, I am a volunteer and I am a hard but fair coach.

You do know that people with: "extreme pain, or the desperate homeless, or late stage drug addicts" do commit suicide?

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.

No it wasnt, the point you were making was that someone here who disagreed with you was repugnant, disgusting and other words you posted.

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.

As I said earlier you are using faux outrage for some strange reason, you are creating fantastic scenarios in order to bolster your argument, I will humor you.

If said women had access to free abortion, why would she wait until the baby was a week old until she killed it? She could have had it aborted at 3 months?

What if, instead of spending all their spare time ruining peoples lives, pro-lifers signed up to a strict program of adoption, then any unwanted baby would not need to be killed at 1 week after birth? THIS IS WHAT THE OP IS SAYING.

I agree that once a baby is born and is free of its mother then a mother shouldnt have a say, however, if you want to draw this into a 6 month vs 9 month discussion then we are into the realms of cutting a fetus out of a mother to protect is life I refer you to point 1.....if you see a pregnant mother smoking, will you cut the baby free, put the mum in prison?

You think you are angry by a poster saying mind your own business about the 9 month thing? The poster never said she would terminate a 9 month pregnancy, you have nothing other than faux outrage and turning that sentence into people murdering 1 week old babies is poor work.