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

a reply to: Grambler

Look, laws are not legislated to impose morality. They are legislated by and for the people, according to the US Constitution, to provide the best possible scenarios for the public good.

The autonomy and privacy of a woman's relationship with her body, her doctor and her family are Constitutionally protected. Roe V Wade intrudes and violates that relationship in a way that rationalized public good. Okay. Beyond that, your input, your church's or your personal philosophical outlook have no bearing on judicial jurisdiction of the regulation of the contents of a woman's uterus.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm not attacking you, first off.

Second, I stand by the actual law, which hinges on viability. I don't know if Annee was speaking about viability or not, as she may take that aspect for granted but if she doesn't, then her suggestion is outside the law.

I am personally not capable of abortion- circumstances would have to be extreme for me to even have it cross my mind. I had that option due to my son's heart defect as he was not viable without massive surgeries.

We opted to carry him to term and take on his medical care. He has almost died a few times along the way. He is in need of another surgery which is another huge financial hit. Such is life. It has been intense. I don't drink alcohol, and I'm on-call 24/7 to be available for an emergency. We call it Extreme Parenting as his brother is severely autistic.

I bring this up so you understand where I am coming from. I am not pro-abortion.

I am for adults being able to make their own decisions based on the law.

I am pro-child and for making the world a better place with better care and education and nutrition and opportunity and security for children regardless of their ability or disability.

I am for diminishing the factors that lead up to unwanted pregnancy. I am for both personal and collective responsibility when it comes to children and families. I don't think this is a particularly radical stance.

Peace,
AB

a reply to: Annee

Give me ONE unselfish reason to bring a child into this world.

To allow that soul to be born. The soul did choose your body, according to certain reincarnation principles.

you earlier stated:

I consider the health of the soul more valuable then a physical body.

Do you communicate with that soul prior to birth? What criteria do you use other "than the soul simply moves onto another host". Why would the soul entering this incarnation be entering a less than ideal world ( I suspect that that is your fear, I could be mistaken)

a reply to: Annee

Well then suicide should be legal, euthanasia, driving without a seatbelt, illegal vaccinating of children without informed consent by the child, fluoridation of water....

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Annee

Well then suicide should be legal,

Yes, it should. You're not beating the determined as it is.

euthanasia,

This also should be legal. Dude, I watched my grandmother wither & die from a very painful cancer a few years back. She was livid that we're still in the stone age on this one. She'd have chosen it before it became unbearably painful to wait for it to run it's course. It'd have been as humane as euthanizing a pet, except we don't bother with that kind of humane end-of-life stuff for people. Barbaric to withhold that option.

driving without a seatbelt,

Let Darwinism do it's thing. Stupid people will always die doing stupid things.

illegal vaccinating of children without informed consent by the child,

You ran out of steam starting here, didn't you?

fluoridation of water....

We know where the public and scientific opinions stand on this one.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

To allow that soul to be born. The soul did choose your body, according to certain reincarnation principles.

Maybe saying "No" to a lifelong karmic relationship, being rejected by someone, is what's in the cards for some souls.

Well then suicide should be legal

This is a regulation that has to do with public good. No one can stop a person from killing themselves, but society, through the law, won't turn its collective back on extreme cries for help.

driving without a seatbelt

An insurance issue that effects public good in the form of premium rates, supposedly.

vaccinating of children without informed consent by the child, fluoridation of water

Again, all in the name of public health/good, supposedly.

Historically, removing the unwanted and the spoils of society has been done in the name of public good. Altruism is a luxury.

a reply to: Annee

But then you would logically have to call your two children parasites until they started earning their keep?

Nun. A CREATED CHARACTER.

Show me a nun wearing clothes she picked out herself, and Ill show you an opinion (as opposed to an agenda)

To allow that soul to be born

Ugh. First you have to prove there are souls, then you have to prove that they really need to come here and be in a human body. Thirdly, why would they want to descend from the spirit realm to this horrible reality? It's much better for them to stay up there forever, closer to God. Assuming they they exist, and he exists, both of which are very unlikely.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

Look, laws are not legislated to impose morality. They are legislated by and for the people, according to the US Constitution, to provide the best possible scenarios for the public good.

The autonomy and privacy of a woman's relationship with her body, her doctor and her family are Constitutionally protected. Roe V Wade intrudes and violates that relationship in a way that rationalized public good. Okay. Beyond that, your input, your church's or your personal philosophical outlook have no bearing on judicial jurisdiction of the regulation of the contents of a woman's uterus.

The constitution applies to all people in the country.

I lean close to being a libertarian. I believe in maximum individual liberty, and constraints on government action.

However, the rights of the individual stop when the wish to do harm to others.

So even if everything you say is right, it only applies if the fetus or baby is not considered a life. Once we do consider the baby a life, then it to has rights under the constitution.

Now when is the baby a life? Its a very complicated matter i and I am not researched enough to even begin to make a good argument.

However, I know that at 9 months, all science says the baby is alive. Therefore that baby has rights too, such as the right to life.

Now i am taking no stance on if the motjers life is in danger or other issues. That is a complicated debate, and I think in that case the abortion should be ok.

But annee and others claim that it should only be up to the woman and she can abort at any time for any reason is horrible, and needs to be called out.

Who the hell is aborting a baby at 9 months?

Bottom line is that a fetus at 2-3 months has no self awareness, no personality, no emotions, no consciousness. Therefore all these comparisons to murder are utterly absurd.

Yes, it shouldn't be used aa birth control, ideally. It's hardly practical. But having a baby too young, or when you can't afford it, or if it's simply a mistake and you don't want one, is an awful idea. It's also a contributing factor to global poverty and famine, thanks to (for example) us marching round the world 'educating' all the 'savages' with catholicism not so long ago. Forcing people to bring a life into the world to fit your agenda is careless and selfish to both the parents and the child.

You have zero right to tell a woman she must have a baby once she conceives a fetus. Period. And the religious argument is completely and utterly irrelevant. It's 2016.

a reply to: Nyiah

Vaccination of one who is under 18 years of age is reprehensible in my eyes. Do they get to read the many side effects and view the actual science? No?

Fluoridation keeps the populace compliant. Ever wonder why they use fluorine in psychiatric drugs? Is the logic too difficult?

www.darkpolitricks.com...

Fluoride – The forced medication of the masses Share3 4 Votes Fluoride – The forced medication of the masses By Dark Politricks I have just read the following article which details how a man suffering severe arthritic pain in his bones had his symptoms reversed after he stopped brushing his teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride.

www.voxy.co.nz... Now whether you agree that fluoride is good for your teeth or not it cannot be denied that fluoride as a base compound is a poison. If you swallow toothpaste containing it you are advised to go to hospital! If you don’t know your history about who came up with the idea of adding it to your water supply then you should investigate Farben and the Nazis. “The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps.

The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)” The communists also took interest in this method to control the populaces they had power over and many in the 50’s saw the fluoridation of their water supply as a communist plot.

In fact the CIA was also very interested in this tactic and a recent book from a retired CIA officer claimed on a mission in South America they added fluoride to the water supply of a camp before attacking it to dumb down and mentally incapacitate the occupants. Whether you think that the amount in our water supply is so minute as to be harmless it is still forced medication of the populace.

a reply to: Grambler

So even if everything you say is right, it only applies if the fetus or baby is not considered a life. Once we do consider the baby a life, then it to has rights under the constitution.

NO! Wrong! Dogs, dolphins and orangutans are alive and they don't have Constitutional rights. Neither do my cats, who own me!

14th Amendment. Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...

The US Construction is clear. The rights it protects are extend to "persons born". PERIOD!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

Look, laws are not legislated to impose morality. They are legislated by and for the people, according to the US Constitution, to provide the best possible scenarios for the public good.

The autonomy and privacy of a woman's relationship with her body, her doctor and her family are Constitutionally protected. Roe V Wade intrudes and violates that relationship in a way that rationalized public good. Okay. Beyond that, your input, your church's or your personal philosophical outlook have no bearing on judicial jurisdiction of the regulation of the contents of a woman's uterus.

The constitution applies to all people in the country.

I lean close to being a libertarian. I believe in maximum individual liberty, and constraints on government action.

However, the rights of the individual stop when the wish to do harm to others.

So even if everything you say is right, it only applies if the fetus or baby is not considered a life. Once we do consider the baby a life, then it to has rights under the constitution.

Now when is the baby a life? Its a very complicated matter i and I am not researched enough to even begin to make a good argument.

However, I know that at 9 months, all science says the baby is alive. Therefore that baby has rights too, such as the right to life.

Now i am taking no stance on if the motjers life is in danger or other issues. That is a complicated debate, and I think in that case the abortion should be ok.

But annee and others claim that it should only be up to the woman and she can abort at any time for any reason is horrible, and needs to be called out.

I don't think anyone is arguing whether the fetus or baby is alive, but what rights does it have under the constitution, which presently states that only those who are born have those rights.

a reply to: windword

Maybe saying "No" to a lifelong karmic relationship, being rejected by someone, is what's in the cards for some souls.

Maybe yes maybe no?

I responded top Annee's

It's no different then slavery. "I own you and your reproductive system".

your response below reduces the argument to the "greater public good"

This is a regulation that has to do with public good. No one can stop a person from killing themselves, but society, through the law, won't turn its collective back on extreme cries for help.

the greater public was silent in the 40/50s in the USA when it came to barbaric treatment of Psychiatric patients or sterilization of Indians and Negroes.

Read the following and tell me if this is worse than slavery?


www.nowtheendbegins.com...

The Eugenics Foundation Of Bill Gates’ Father

In an interview, Gates talked about his family, in particular – his dad. He told the interviewer that his father was a eugenicist, and that for many years his dad was the head of Planned Parenthood. When Bill Gates divulged this information, it was clear that he felt proud of his father for his work. It disgusted me....

Bill Gates explains why vaccinations can LOWER population

a reply to: CB328

Thirdly, why would they want to descend from the spirit realm to this horrible reality

Well if thats the best you've got then surely eugenics is a worthy pursuit for you.

a reply to: windword

Ok so a foreign visitor to the U.S. can be murdered at whim, right?

Of you say no you can't kill them because other laws that aren't in the constitution, why wouldn't those laws apply to a 9 month term baby?

You are trying to cloud the issue.

The issue is it is immoral to suggest that 9 month term babies should be allowed to be aborted on a whim if they are considered a life.

All science says it is a life.

You are defending people saying they have the right to take a life for convenience.

You can attempt all of the mental gymnastics you want, but that's what you are doing.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Who the hell is aborting a baby at 9 months?

Your failure to read the whole thread amounts to laziness

It's also a contributing factor to global poverty and famine,

So more babies cause droughts and bad crop's. I see... NOT

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Yes well, that's why I added the qualifier "supposedly". I'm not naïve, and even though I have been told the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary, I looked it up and it's there!

As far as eugenics, as long as it isn't legislated, meh, every man and women practice their own eugenics when they choose each other and eliminate all others. Even the Bible teaches eugenics.

When I was in my early 20s, I had a black boyfriend who wouldn't marry me because I'm white. He wound up marrying a beautiful black women and they have 2 lovely daughters who will practice their own particular kind of eugenics.

originally posted by: JD163

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

It's not an emotional response.

He could have also included.

Legislating a woman's body is the same as slavery. "We own your body". Slavery is illegal. Owning a person is illegal.

A doctor performing an abortion late term is where the ethics comes in. No legitimate doctor except in cases of saving the mother should do an abortion if the child is viable outside the womb.

But, no one ever asks that question. It's always solely focused on the woman. Blame the woman.

Hormones go crazy when you're pregnant. They don't always work in a positive way. And science of animals have found nurturing is greatly learned from involvement with "family". It is not necessarily inherent.

Nature, natural instincts are what they are. They are NOT what man has romanticized.