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

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone

If those idiots do not want babies in the first place, why do they even get pregnant?

Contraception is approximately 98% safe, which means that for every 100 times people have sex, 2 babies are made.

Not exactly how the stats work..
You see, humans are not the most fertile of creatures, blame it on whatever you will, tight undies, cellphones in pockets etc.
Also, condoms are not necessarily designed as a contraceptive specifically, they are also there to keep std's off your junk.

So, to assume that failing 2% of the time means people are getting pregnant 2% of the time is a ridiculous assumption.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
People should butt in other's business. The world is messed up because people have "personal space" and what not. All this is BS if you ask me.

Sure, ask people in North Korea how it feels not to have 'personal space'. Ask any person living in a dictatorial country how they feel, because this is what you are suggesting, Big Brother. Ever read 1984?


EDIT:

originally posted by: GreenGunther
Not exactly how the stats work..
You see, humans are not the most fertile of creatures, blame it on whatever you will, tight undies, cellphones in pockets etc.
Also, condoms are not necessarily designed as a contraceptive specifically, they are also there to keep std's off your junk.

So, to assume that failing 2% of the time means people are getting pregnant 2% of the time is a ridiculous assumption.

LOL ridiculous? Believe what you like, I prefer to go by the NHS data, I'm sure the experts know their math.
( LINK )

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone


Having a sex while taking contraceptives and knowing there is 1% chance to fail, is like wanting to have a baby.

Really? I would have thought that wanting to have a baby involves not taking any contraceptives/precaution .....

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No. There is no "Life Fairy" that bestows life where there once was none! The egg was alive pre-conception, that's a scientific fact. The sperm was alive pre-insemination, that's a scientific fact. So no. scientifically life doesn't begin at conception, that's superstition. Chemical transformation occurs at conception. Also superstition is the belief that a fertilized egg has any kind of rights and that women have a duty to carry that egg to term.

And, by the way, I'm not a progressive, I'm a constitutional conservative who thinks that the US Constitution protects women from people like you, who would try to impose their religious beliefs and forcefully legislate their superstitious ideology on others.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

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

That right, as well as all the other rights enumerated in the Constitution, like the right to bear arms, free speech and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure are rights that are only extended to "persons born:". The unborn have no Constitutional rights.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone

If those idiots do not want babies in the first place, why do they even get pregnant?

Contraception is approximately 98% safe, which means that for every 100 times people have sex, 2 babies are made.

Many people do not want nor try to get pregnant, their contraception fail. They did not want a baby, so why should you force them to have an unwanted child? Who are you to force a woman to go through a life changing pregnancy when it was the contraceptive fault?

Perhaps contraceptive companies should be the ones forced to look after unwanted children? (due to their products failing).

Or are you suggesting that people should only have sex to procreate and not for pleasure?

And so that we are clear: I got pregnant whilst using a very safe contraception, she is almost 13 now. But just because I chose to have my baby, it doesn't mean I will feel holier than thou and point fingers at women who actually decide not to have a child they did not want to have.

The key is there: choice. I wish abortions were never carried out, but I will fight fiercely for women to have the right to choose whether they will have one or not. It's their choice only.

But whatever happened to equal rights ? The men get no choice .. in whatever way the women decides the future of that fetus. It isn't the womens right to make decisions for three.. just because it is her body. The only reason she has a body to make a decision about is because she was actually given birth to. Just sayin'😕 It is not always solely about the woman.

Why doesn't this nun do something about helping all these " unwanted" children. Many great souls have lived childhood in poverty .. it isn't a curse to a human and often more of a blessing to the soul than prosperity can be.

I say start a home for unwed mothers, sister, and help them get a good start with their children instead of writing more books🙄

Does she even donate any of her tax exempt money to help these causes for young pregnant single mothers?

My guess is .. no😕

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
I see the people that do sex for pleasure as w****s. Sex for pleasure should only be done between gay couples. Not between a male and female when the female can give you babies every time you have sex with them.

I'm married, 12 years this coming summer.
2 kids, both unplanned broken condom accidents.

Don't go thinking you've got the right to tell me I can't bang my husband for pleasure, buster. You've got another thing coming (your apparent bible, up where the sun don't shine)

a reply to: Forensick

I will hot some of your main points.

You claim I have faux outrage on this thread, you are wrong.

I commented on this thread for one reason only, there was a person getting tons of stars for saying there should be no laws regulating abortion and if a woman decided to have an abortion at 9 months for any reason it would be ok.

You say she didn't say she would do it, but thats not the point. She said over and over again that its the right of the mother, and if she wanted to terminate at 9 months, she should be allowed. People agreed woth this, and refused to call that out.

Thats what disgust me. I said in this thread and even to you that I am open to hearing all sides of the issue, and understand abortion is complex, byt arguing a woman she be allowed to kill a nine month term baby on her whim is such a vile extreme position that I had to call it out.

You and other have said "well it would be unlikely for women to do that, so why discuss it or pretend to get outraged?" Because this is a discussion board, and I have the right to call out repugnant claims.

If we are discussing refugees, and someone says on here "I think we should bomb and kill all Muslims and that would slve the refugee problem" that is such an extreme point, I am going to call it out. And yet there you would be, saying I had faux outrage.

All of your points to allowing women to have abortions early or middway through a pregnancy are irrelevant, these are defensible positions. I am arguing one thing; the people saying women should be allowed to terminate 9 month term babies.

And I can't believe your point on the homeless. I made the point that if your argument is true, and terminating a child for to avoid extreme poverty is applied to a nine month term baby, why wouldnt it also be applied to the homeless if we euthanized them painlessly without their consent.

Your argument is "well the homeless do commit suicide" Thats insane! So your point is because some homeless kill themselves, we as a society have a right to painlessly kill any homeless we decide on even if they don't ask for it? You are endorsing the staright up murder of homeless people.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
No. There is no "Life Fairy" that bestows life where there once was none! The egg was alive pre-conception, that's a scientific fact. The sperm was alive pre-insemination, that's a scientific fact. So no. scientifically life doesn't begin at conception, that's superstition. Chemical transformation occurs at conception. Also superstition is the belief that a fertilized egg has any kind of rights and that women have a duty to carry that egg to term.
And, by the way, I'm not a progressive, I'm a constitutional conservative who thinks that the US Constitution protects women from people like you, who would try to impose their religious beliefs and forcefully legislate their superstitious ideology on others.

Roe vs Wade ruling is the law of the land by the authority given to the judges from the Constitution.

And because of the same Constitution, there's nothing stopping the House Republicans from introducing a bill outlawing abortion. Given their majorities from the last election and that liberal Democrats and been vanquished from government. What is stopping the Republicans from delivering on a major plank of their platform????????

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Annee

When a 9 month old fetus is a BABY, and se half the population says we should be able to chop them out and KILL them (BABIES), it should be everybodys business if that's the kind of barbaric society we want to be.

Who really says that? Hint: NO ONE

Abortion is legal prior to viability of the fetus. It is not legal after the fetus can survive on its own without the mother.

Viability in Abortion Law

So you are basically making up a story here with zero facts. There are no late term abortions of healthy babies. That is called "birth." It can be premature and need medical care but if put up for adoption at birth the child is a ward of the state and Medicaid pays for its care in the PICU.

If the fetus is advanced and viable, abortion is illegal. How many people know that? That is the core of Roe v Wade.

If, however, in the late second or third trimester a severe genetic problem or defect is clearly presented that would equal no chance of survival after birth, then that is still a question for the medical staff to review with the parent(s). Should they carry to term or abort?

Make no mistake this is a horrible tragedy for people who were attempting to carry a child to term, most likely anticipating the joy of parenthood. Neither they nor their doctors are monsters. Please have empathy for this situation.

I know of two women who carried such children to term and paid the cost of palliative care, holding their child while they died. That was their choice.

A fantasy about late-term abortions of healthy, viable fetuses should not dictate the law.


There is a lot of BS out there so I realize it's not always clear. Be aware that there are pro-life groups that lie about this too, or they choose not to see real facts but emotional "alt-facts" that have no place in honest and real discussions.

Legality of abortion begins and ends with viability.


AB

a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.

That should be the church and their dollars' role, not tax dollars. The goal should be to get people OFF assistance.

True charity is not enslaving them to the Government.

Now what does that have to do with abortion?

a reply to: Annee

They become part of the "village" at first breath outside the womb.

"Village" we live in caves of steel. Any romantic notion of a village raising children ended 100 years ago. If you mean it takes a "village to raise a child" I would still disagree with that observation as most families need 2 working parents and much of the dubious raising is done by day care centres or schools.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Annee

When a 9 month old fetus is a BABY, and se half the population says we should be able to chop them out and KILL them (BABIES), it should be everybodys business if that's the kind of barbaric society we want to be.

Who really says that? Hint: NO ONE

Abortion is legal prior to viability of the fetus. It is not legal after the fetus can survive on its own without the mother.

Viability in Abortion Law

So you are basically making up a story here with zero facts. There are no late term abortions of healthy babies. That is called "birth." It can be premature and need medical care but if put up for adoption at birth the child is a ward of the state and Medicaid pays for its care in the PICU.

Annee said that very thing on this thread. Many starred her post, others seconded thaat there should be ZERO laws for ANY reason regulating a womans right to chose.

And as far as saying it would never happen, Kermit Gosnell was arrested, he was a doctor that not only did extremely late term abortions, but actually aborted babies after they were born, several times.

In Pennsylvania, most doctors won't perform abortions after the 20th week, many for health reasons, others for moral reasons. Abortions after 24 weeks are illegal. Until 2009, Gosnell reportedly performed mostly first and second trimester abortions. But his clinic had come to develop a bad reputation, and could attract only women who couldn't get an abortion elsewhere, former employees have said. "Steven Massof estimated that in 40 percent of the second-trimester abortions performed by Gosnell, the fetuses were beyond 24 weeks gestational age," the grand jury states. "Latosha Lewis testified that Gosnell performed procedures over 24 weeks 'too much to count,' and ones up to 26 weeks 'very often.' ...in the last few years, she testified, Gosnell increasingly saw out-of-state referrals, which were all second-trimester, or beyond. By these estimates, Gosnell performed at least four or five illegal abortions every week."

www.theatlantic.com...

So it may not be a lot of people suggesting extreme late term abortions should be allowed because no one has any right to tell the woman anything, but they are on this thread, and they are being cheered on. And here is oe dpctor that was willing to terminate babies at any term, even after they were born.

So do I think that we should decide abortion law based on extreme situations like 9 month term abortions. Abdoslutely not!

But we should be able to call out the evil disgusting comments that killing a nine month term baby for any reason should be legal and is only the womans decision, especially when so many on this thread are cheeering that on.

I hope that you too would call out this type of extreme position.

a reply to: dfnj2015

And because of the same Constitution, there's nothing stopping the House Republicans from introducing a bill outlawing abortion.

Yes there is. The Constitution clearly states that the rights enumerated within it are bestowed on "persons born". The unborn are not Constitutionally protected. That's a legal fact that even Trump's new SCOTUS nominee has admitted.

14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

It would require a Constitutional amendment to change that to include the unborn. That's never going to happen.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.

Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked

The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?

She replied.

No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?

Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?

a reply to: AboveBoard

Dems support it. Obama flat out said he did.

Look at his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Michelle Obama wrote a letter being for it.

This cynical ploy is designed to intimidate a group of physicians and force them to drop their lawsuit seeking to have the so-called partial birth abortion ban ruled unconstitutional.

The fact remains, with no provision to protect the health of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned.

www.theblaze.com...

Hillary Clinton did not specify she agreed with 9 month abortions, but her position was it should be legal. She never once said it was wrong in principle. Her voting record iirc was always in line of voting against a ban on abortion after viability.

a reply to: Annee

Its not actually, its a "moral" word.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

It is illegal to abort a healthy fetus past the point of viability. Obviously a 9 month "abortion" of a healthy child is illegal.

There may be mitigating circumstances for severe medical conditions and deformities where a fetus will not survive after birth due to missing organs or being brain-dead in the womb, etc.

NO ONE is suggesting true infanticide that I have ever seen or heard. No doctor would do that and it is just as illegal as murder.

That is the law.

Read this thread, that is exactly what Annee is suggesting, and people are defending. Start on like page 3. I even asked

The second point is I would ask Annee if she can right here say she would be against allowing a mother to terminate a 9 month old for non life threatening reasons, even if it was legal?

She replied.

No one should have the right to legislate a woman's body or her choice to abort. Period!

Good enough for you?

Is that clear enough for you?

Not only did people star this post, but not one person on the pro life side was willing to say to call out this extreme position.

Would you be willing to call this out?

I think its an emotional response to a moral issue....I believe that most women would not do so ( abortion at 9 months) but the thought that it is a legislation issue just infuriates them