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

originally posted by: CB328

example Africa. Thousands of children are conceived due to a lack of birth control and a lacK of choice. Birth happens and the kids are left to starve

This is just one of the many, many ways that conservatism kills. I would say that nothing in this world has killed more people that conservatism except for diseases and plagues.

I totally agree.

Day Bush "W" took office he stopped all foreign funding to Planned Parenthood.

Day Trump took office he reaffirmed it and began his attack on Planned Parenthood in the states.

a reply to: Annee

Hi there Anne

You generated the late term example and now you are pushing your words in her mouth and then grandstanding for the glory.

At issue is the women right to choose.

BUT THE THREAD has drifted into an polorised argument sir rounding a doctor lost his way/mind/ethics.

We can all see he was out of control.
So let's all argue honestly about the issue.

originally posted by: SmilingROB
a reply to: Annee

Hi there Anne

You generated the late term example and now you are pushing your words in her mouth and then grandstanding for the glory.

At issue is the women right to choose.

BUT THE THREAD has drifted into an polorised argument sir rounding a doctor lost his way/mind/ethics.

We can all see he was out of control.
So let's all argue honestly about the issue.

Not clear on your position.

My position is a woman's body can not be legislated.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

The status oue is prochoice does that bother you?

a reply to: Annee

Wait you believe in a license and maybe a lottery to reproduce?

So your belief is that the government has no right to interfere with the reproductive rights of a woman if she wants to have an abortion, but women should have to go through the government for permission to have a child?

Wow.

a reply to: Xenogears

Take your outdated oppression laden filled philosophy back to the 1600's.

Can you say that sh&t in pulic or only on the Internet where nobody knows your name and face?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

It's a heavy burden of law to place upon women, but just stop and think it all the way through from the POV of individual human rights including the rights of the unborn.

Just so you know - - I have had an elective abortion. I chose it.

And I would have been really pissed off if there was a law denying me that choice.

Later, got things to do.

According to the solution that I'd proposed, the same choice would have remained, except that you would simply have been responsible for detection of the pregnancy and the making of that choice within a reasonable timeframe like 48 days from conception.

originally posted by: SmilingROB
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

The status oue is prochoice does that bother you?

Yes. I think the decision point needs to and must be defined in terms of fetal development, to provide reasonable timeframe within which to detect and abort, but one that also protects the right of the human being, once formed.

If it's true that the developing fetus takes on its spirit on the 49th day, then what's wrong with saying you've got 48 days to detect and decide?

And if it were like this right across the board, then just consider what that might mean within a spiritual context for those who have chosen to incarnate.

Human beings in development cannot and should not be put to death on the basis of a what could amount to a whim.

As to the existing law - question: What is the cutoff point beyond which an abortion cannot be performed by law?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Annee

Wait you believe in a license and maybe a lottery to reproduce?

Yes.

Not a lottery. Selected mix from all "pools".

This applies to everyone across the board for the good of the planet. It does not target women.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

I am telling you that your belief that it should be legal for a mother to terminate a nine month term baby is wrong and disgusting, regardless of why you believe that.

I'm telling you that no one has the right to legislate a woman's body. Period!

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

Does the mother own the child's body?

The fetus is a growth inside a host.

Not a child until born and independent of host.

You're comparing a fetus to a growth.

A: It is 100% empirically a growth
B: It's a parasite

par·a·site
ˈperəˌsīt/
noun
an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

It is not a child until it's no longer a parasite. This means it's a parasite until it doesn't need the host to sustain it's life. Ergo; it's not alive, it's a symbiont, it's not conscious, and it's not able to form memories or be self aware until it's independent from it's host. I.E. The definition of birth.

Therefor; Abortion is the same as abstinence or castration. Nowhere in the bible does it say abortion is morally wrong, and even if you did make abortion illegal for what ever barbaric reasoning you can twist up, you would not stop people from getting abortions -- you'd just make them criminals and put them at greater risk of self harm which could be damaging to others they have to care for.

At what point is it wrong to make criminals out of people just because you don't agree on something that is philosophical and non-factual and not based on science in anyway? At what point in time is it an encroachment upon freedom when you dictate what one can do with his or her own body?

Wake up, pro-lifers are brainwashed by charlatans that represent local churches. No where in scripture is abortion mentioned to be unacceptable. All it says in the bible is thou shall not spill thy seed -- which I might add, everyone who is prolife does willy nilly, no questions asked.

That same book says you should be stoned to death for cutting your hair or divorcing/adultery. You can't cherry pick -- you either follow the bible or you realize that most of what's in it isn't morally acceptable -- you can't just cherry pick the extreme # you want to force on other people and then write it into law.

There is supposed to be a separation between church and state, this means you aren't supposed to legislate based on religious beliefs or philosophy that cannot be proven factually; ergo, you're not allowed to ban abortion for religious reasons -- which means you'd have to prove your case sans god, and that would be with science, but the science doesn't support the philosophy, which is why it's actually legal in all regions of the world.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

It's a heavy burden of law to place upon women, but just stop and think it all the way through from the POV of individual human rights including the rights of the unborn.

Just so you know - - I have had an elective abortion. I chose it.

And I would have been really pissed off if there was a law denying me that choice.

Later, got things to do.

According to the solution that I'd proposed, the same choice would have remained, except that you would simply have been responsible for detection of the pregnancy and the making of that choice within a reasonable timeframe like 48 days from conception.

OK, and I did. But, I had the funds and support to get it done.

What if you can barely put food on the table? Where is the money going to come from to pay for an abortion?

What if the father is all "Yeah, I'm for it!" - - then splits 4 months later?

ALL women should have access to FREE abortions.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Annee

Wait you believe in a license and maybe a lottery to reproduce?

Yes.

Not a lottery. Selected mix from all "pools".

This applies to everyone across the board for the good of the planet. It does not target women.

It does target women. If a woman wanted a child but wasn't chosen by the goverment, she would have no choice. Hence the government is lierally telling that woman what she can do with her body.

So you think the government can legislate a woman's body if it's for the good for the planet.

So if we get to the point where the death rate is too high and the planet needs more babies, you would support the government telling women they can not abort and must have the child for the good of the planet?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

It's a heavy burden of law to place upon women, but just stop and think it all the way through from the POV of individual human rights including the rights of the unborn.

Just so you know - - I have had an elective abortion. I chose it.

And I would have been really pissed off if there was a law denying me that choice.

Later, got things to do.

According to the solution that I'd proposed, the same choice would have remained, except that you would simply have been responsible for detection of the pregnancy and the making of that choice within a reasonable timeframe like 48 days from conception.

Setting any kind of time frame on it is arbitrary. There is no functional difference from the moment of conception all the way up until the moment of birth. The only difference is stages of the growth of the parasite. Until the moment it's no longer living off of you [read: until it ceases being a part of your body and it can survive separated from it's host, natural or artifical; incubators and simulated wombs] it is not a person. Period. The end of story. There is absolutely nothing that can change this, this is a fact whether or not you like it, whether or not you want to ignore it, nothing you say or do will ever prove this not to be the truth.

Until it opens it's eyes, breathes air on it's own for the first time, and is able to start forming memories it is not capable of being conscious or self aware, which means it's not sentient and therefor is not a person -- it is a fetus, which is the name we've given to the human parasite that has the potential to grow into a living person.

Terminating a fetus is terminating the potential for life, which is the same exact thing as masturbation/abstinence/sterilization/castration. For you to believe that terminating a potential is the same thing as killing a person means that in order to actually be pro-life, you very literally have to also be anti-masturbation, anti-abstinence, anti-sterilization, and anti-castration -- since all of those things are terminating potential life. You very literally in order to not contradict your own belief -- encourage people to procreate as much as possible as to not waste any eggs or any sperm so we don't eliminate or terminate any potential persons.

You also have to be anti anything that can lower a sperm count or create situations that increase potentials of a woman's infertility.

Also -- in order to detect a pregnancy, you generally have to have some symptoms of pregnancy, which often times don't manifest in 48 days.

Some women show profoundly at 11 weeks, some women don't show at all, all the way past the 30 week marker. Some women miss their periods, others bleed heavier. Some pregnancy tests give false positives or false negatives. There is no way to 100% with certainty identify a pregnancy within 48 days -- it's just impossible.

After reading this, you should have a firm grasp on just how crazy, irrational, non-sensical, unproductive, and damaging your belief is. If you don't -- educate yourself. That means with scientific knowledge and facts, not scripture.

a reply to: SRPrime

So if the timframe is arbitrary, you think is ok to abort at 9 months, because the 9 month fetus is the same as a one day old fetus.?

Also, if something is only alive that can live or breath on its own, does that mean a person that needs an iron lung to breath isn't a life?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Annee

Wait you believe in a license and maybe a lottery to reproduce?

Yes.

Not a lottery. Selected mix from all "pools".

This applies to everyone across the board for the good of the planet. It does not target women.

It does target women. If a woman wanted a child but wasn't chosen by the goverment, she would have no choice. Hence the government is lierally telling that woman what she can do with her body.

NO, it doesn't.

"If a woman wanted a child"

Obviously in your world men don't.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: SRPrime

So if the timframe is arbitrary, you think is ok to abort at 9 months, because the 9 month fetus is the same as a one day old fetus.?

Also, if something is only alive that can live or breath on its own, does that mean a person that needs an iron lung to breath isn't a life?

If the 9 month old baby could be induced and born then no, because it no longer needs it's host. Very clear and simple answer.

And no, a person who needs an iron lung to breath is a person who is already sentient. A better analogy is, is a brain dead person who can be kept alive on machines not alive? And I think we all already know the answer to that question is a profound no -- they are no longer alive, their mind is dead -- they cannot function. And yes, that's what a fetus that cannot survive without it's host is -- it's essentially brain dead -- it's not conscious and was never sentient and cannot function.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Annee

Wait you believe in a license and maybe a lottery to reproduce?

Yes.

Not a lottery. Selected mix from all "pools".

This applies to everyone across the board for the good of the planet. It does not target women.

It does target women. If a woman wanted a child but wasn't chosen by the goverment, she would have no choice. Hence the government is lierally telling that woman what she can do with her body.

NO, it doesn't.

"If a woman wanted a child"

Obviously in your world men don't.

I am sorry but you are making no sense.

The government telling a woman that she can legally not get pregnant is the ultimate control over her body.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: SRPrime

So if the timframe is arbitrary, you think is ok to abort at 9 months, because the 9 month fetus is the same as a one day old fetus.?

Also, if something is only alive that can live or breath on its own, does that mean a person that needs an iron lung to breath isn't a life?

If the 9 month old baby could be induced and born then no, because it no longer needs it's host. Very clear and simple answer.

And no, a person who needs an iron lung to breath is a person who is already sentient. A better analogy is, is a brain dead person who can be kept alive on machines not alive? And I think we all already know the answer to that question is a profound no -- they are no longer alive, their mind is dead -- they cannot function. And yes, that's what a fetus that cannot survive without it's host is -- it's essentially brain dead -- it's not conscious and was never sentient and cannot function.

But then the time frame for the fetus is important. Termination after viability unless for extreme circumstances is not good.

I am glad you clarified this, and I agree with a lot of your feelings.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Annee

Wait you believe in a license and maybe a lottery to reproduce?

Yes.

Not a lottery. Selected mix from all "pools".

This applies to everyone across the board for the good of the planet. It does not target women.

It does target women. If a woman wanted a child but wasn't chosen by the goverment, she would have no choice. Hence the government is lierally telling that woman what she can do with her body.

NO, it doesn't.

"If a woman wanted a child"

Obviously in your world men don't.

I've been in a general sort of loose agreement with you up until the regulating birth thing. Yes, It does. It target's men too, it targets couples harder. You're literally breeding people from gene charts, who raises a baby if my wife has to carry another man's child? Does his family raise it? Do I raise it with my wife? Does the government take it and raise it? If a woman wanted a child but the government told her no, she cannot have one. In this world men do exist, and if a man wanted a child but was told by the government no, he cannot have one either. How do you regulate birth anyway? You abort any babies that were conceived without approval? You put the parents of non approved children in prison and raise the children in foster homes? Does the government arrange marriages now? I mean, if the government can tell you that it's your turn to birth a child and with whom, why can't they just tell you who you're supposed to marry?

How do you regulate natural biological processes?

You can't without removing freedom and enslaving your populace under some form of tyranny and any non-conformists will have to be eliminated, so what of their kids? What do you think the tyrannical government is going to do with them?

This is a very soylent green/equilibrium style dystopic future. There is no freedom, nor happiness in that future. Just look at China, they're already heading to that future -- there is no freedom there, and I'd reckon happiness is few and far between too. I mean just look at their history of suicide rates, it's an epidemic. That's what happens when you rule with an iron fist and dictate to people if they can or cannot have a family.

If you want to justify murdering your own children then carry on. Just don't expect everyone to a agree..

I personally shun abortionists and know there is a special place in hell for them