Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

originally posted by: Ettenurb

How can you defend a practice which takes away the most important human right...LIFE!!

The minute you lose your ability to care about, and defend the most defenseless among us, is the minute your lose your humanity.

I'm sorry but I have to respond to this....

Maybe you should try to use a little compassionate understanding here. I mean, none of us are perfect human beings, are we?
How many in the political arena as well as on these boards have been beating their war drums for the past couple of decades? Why are they beating them? Stories of WMD's hidden in caves in far away lands? Possibilities of nuclear development in countries we see as our enemies? They feel threatened in some way, don't they? They see something out there that can threaten their lives, their way of living, their families, ect.!!! And so they beat their war drums willing to bomb innocent people out of existence to protect what they have!
Most of us have seen the videos of the flash mobs that go into stores, loot and destroy, sometimes beat the heck out of the shopkeepers, and we also have seen the stories of people entering into homes and murdering families. Most of us would think it's prudent to maybe have a gun behind the counter of the store, within the homes that our loved ones reside in and really wouldn't blame some one for using it if a mob of people came at them giving them the impression of wanting to do harm. And why would they harm that other person? They see them as a threat, to their life, to their material possessions, to their way of life!
Well, I can't say that I know the reason why any particular women would have an abortion I would venture to guess that many of them have about the same thought process that my two examples display. They see it as a threat, to their lives, to their possessions, to their way of life! And well, I have to say, that the threat is much closer to home, much more real than a bunch of mythological wmd's in far away lands!!!
Now let me ask you, why do you expect a women, who might be facing this threat all alone, without much in resources or wealth, to be braver and have more moral integrity, than those powerful people in washington that are beating their wardrums, or those of you on this forum who are beating them, or the shopkeepers?
Are you saying that for some reason, she should be better than them?

and don't come back and say well if she didn't want kids she should have had sex! because I could just turn around and say that if we didn't want those countries to turn around and use those wmd's against us, we shouldn't have given them to them to begin with, or that the shopkeeper shouldn't have made his shop look like such easy prey by hiring a few bodyguards!

As I just stated in the PP defunding thread, Republicans need lots of poor and uneducated people to vote for them, that's why they're so militantly against abortion and birth control. It has nothing to do with life, they have no problem with all the people that the military, big business, police, etc kill each day. The GOP is the party of oppression, torture and death.

Ua reply to: dawnstar

The best reply I can give to your question is yes, the expecting mother has to be a better person. She is the keeper of a human life other than her own.

Do you value your life? Has it always been easy?

The flash mobs, the war mongers (we've seen the same videos), those are acts done by people who have had the chance to live. They live and they choose to make the world a worse place.

I understand what you are saying, but please understand that the world being a bad place does not morally justify abortion.

a reply to: Ettenurb
so, in essence, because she is women, she doesn't have the right to protect what is her own??

she has to be better?
more self sacrificing?
have higher moral standards.....
than the men that wish to rule over her??
what would could she be trying to protect...
the job that is providing the money that she is using for feed her other kids?
the health that she needs to take care of her family??
her hopes and dreams?
HER LIFE???

nope, sorry, a danged politician can lie out his arse and manage to get us into a war that kills millions...
and well, be treated in this society with honor and riches.
women should have just as much right to protect herself and what is hers. with the amount of understanding and with honor!
but then we are talking about a culture that is dirived from a belief system that though giving birth was an obligation of all women aren't we...

a reply to: krosnos

The false assumption being that we don't want a social safety net. The truth is that we want one that actually works, meaning we want one that actually is a true hand up to self-sufficiency and NOT a perpetual hand out which is what we have.

a reply to: dawnstar


So, essentially your arguement is that because Bush lied and flash mobs steal from shopkeepers without armed guards, the pro-life idea is invalid???

Sexist cliche's and strawmen arguements don't work in convincing me of anything.

You are only able to voice your opinion because your mother decided to not have you aborted. Ask your mother if raising you was easy. I bet you'll get the answer that life is full of struggle and challenges. Toil and hardship does not morally justify abortion.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: krosnos

The false assumption being that we don't want a social safety net. The truth is that we want one that actually works, meaning we want one that actually is a true hand up to self-sufficiency and NOT a perpetual hand out which is what we have.

I honestly wish that were true, if that was the case the parties would work together and try to fix or replace the current system, instead the conservatives/republicans want to kill off every program there is, or privatize it so that there cronies can make more money on the backs of the middle class and poor. I am pro choice and anti abortion, I do not feel that the government should be involved in this very personal decision. I believe this nun has hit the nail on the head, and I am agnostic at best, the light shines bright in this one.

a reply to: ketsuko

there is no way that the average single mom can find a way to self sufficiency, not in an economy where many two parent families are having so much difficulty doing it.

the child support payments usually don't cover half of the cost to cover the expenses of the child, she's is doing both the job of the father and the mother or having to add to those expenses by hiring someone else to do some of the work, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to think that a family that is together that was barely making it when they were under one household can be self sufficient when they have the expenses of two households.

a reply to: Ettenurb
no but the same emotions that got half of the people on this forum pushing for a war with Iraq is what is behind many of these women's motivations to abort.

that is my point!!!
if a mother is working a job that she would have to give up that is providing a nice chuck of the family's income so her kids can have the medicine they need to be able to function, or have food on their table to eat, well maybe, just mayby, she can find just as much moral justification for ending the pregnancy as early as possible and holding onto that job just as much as you can find reason to find reason to condemn her for her acts!

maybe if carrying a pregnancy to term would hinder a mother from being able to care for her children too badly she could find the moral justification for it!

easy no, but dang it!! when you start expecting people to do things that are impossible in their eyes YOU ARE OUT OF LINE!
and you are most certainly expecting much more from the women than you are able to deliver yourselves!

a reply to: Ettenurb

oh and by the way, my mom did tell me once that if she had it all to do over again, she would have remained single and childless!

But it's ok for a woman to make this choice for a man with him having no ability to abort his responsibilities like she can? Who cares if a man's life is destroyed economically after the pregnancy. Who cares if he is a single father with other kids of his own, ect.

If you pro-choicers really believed the # you're spieling, you'd be for implementing the ability to within a reasonable time allow a man to give up all rights and responsibilities to the child. Same choice the woman has. As soon as the woman knows she's pregnant she should be required to within a certain amount of time tell the father, and the father has a certain amount of time to sign off all rights and responsibilities.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I don't think abortion is ever the right choice, I accept that it's a choice. I however disagree with inequality. If it's going to be a choice, it should be a choice equally. It's the woman's body I get that she ultimately decides whether the baby lives or dies. If, however, the man chooses otherwise, it's only fair he can wipe his hands of the responsibility, and if she chooses to carry the child to term it's her responsibility alone. At which points the only rights he has are what she deigns to give him.

I personally think the choice of the man to do so would be monstrous, but certainly no more monstrous than just killing the child outright.

If you're going to go the road of choice and the low road, then at least have the honor and integrity of doing so equally.

Also, stop pretending you aren't killing a unique human being, at least have integrity to admit a unique human has been killed by this choice. I'd have more respect for pro-choicers if they'd stop arguing that point.

Personally I find the idea of both abortion and dad's saying, take of the child yourself abhorrent, but would rather an equally depraved system than a sexist one.

originally posted by: krosnos
Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

"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."

I am not religious but this sums up exactly what I think of those supposed pro lifers. They want to fight for the fetus but when it is born, they want nothing to do with the child and will cry about having tax dollars going towards feeding, clothing or educating the child.

I agree with a part of what she is saying. Yes, children need to be cared for, but why does it have to be tax dollars? What about the ridiculously wealthy church that she represents. The wealth and privilege of the catholic church is appalling. A lot of what they do that looks like charity is actually financially backed by the government. Why not tone down the extravagence of the vatican a bit and spend some of that money on the poor children? The Catholic Church has a long, long history of robbing the poor, raping the children and taking advantage of the trusting and naive.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ettenurb

oh and by the way, my mom did tell me once that if she had it all to do over again, she would have remained single and childless!

What an awful thing to say to a child. I'm sorry that you had to hear that.

People can be cruel, but again, cruelty does not justify abortion.

a reply to: pointessa

Imagine the good that could be done with the Trillion dollars a year the US spends on the war machine.

a reply to: Puppylove

Well, when you can tell another human being what to do with their body, whatz that? Power over another equal human.

a reply to: Ettenurb

would you consider this to be justified??
jezebel.com...
or this:
rhrealitycheck.org... an-society/
how about this:
content.time.com...

what about this one:
abcnews.go.com...
oh and now, let's talk about the treatment of women who just happen to miscarry:
www.bbc.com...
feminist.org...
this is a good one not only was she found guilty of killling the unborn baby in her womb, but somehow she managed to kill it a second time, after it was born!!
www.wsws.org...

I have three sons, the age difference between the oldest and the youngest less than three years. by the time I became pregnant with my third son my uterus had dropped a great deal and well, at birth my youngest son was 9 lbs 10 ounces. and well, I was having trouble walking through most of my pregnancy. The doctors told me to not be lifting my two kids, but I was the only one around and well, there was no way I was just gonna sit there and watch as my little toddler toddled into trouble and got hurt! My husband chose to go on the road and drive truck (the economy was crap and it was one of the few ways he could earn enough to pay for us) and left me with a broken down car that wouldn't run and eventually caught fire. so well here I was pushing a toddler in a stoller, with a baby strapped onto my pregnant stomach, walking to the store every day, rain or shine, buying enough food for the day and balancing it on top of the stroller's canopy hoping like heck it held! All the while with my doctor telling me not to exert myself.
If I had lost my baby, in some states today, I would probably be put in jail for murder, if the canopy ever gave way, I probably would have been charged with reckless endangerment. and well, either way it went, I am sure there would have been plenty of people on this board willing to condemn me for my choices. but, well, I was only trying to make sure my kids had enough food, for one day!
so well don't tell me how life is hard, I know it is!! and after that experience, well, if I had become pregnant with a fourth child, ya, I would have aborted it and felt very much justified in that decision! The living should come before the possibilities!

a reply to: MOMof3

Bah we do that all the time. What do you think the war on drugs is? Or the criminalization of suicide. Or the criminalization of nudity, ect. Need I go on? There's a lot more examples.

By the way I'm pro-reasonable choice, and anti-hypocritical choice.

I'm not actually pro-strict life, I am however, anti-abortion being used as birth control for less than severe scenarios.

Like the person above who has very good health and life reasons to abort at this point. That said, honestly if you're done having kids period, you have options, you should probably use them if you honestly think you might get pregnant otherwise, and know for certain you want no more kids. Is certainly a better option than abortion.

a reply to: Puppylove

Drugs are a choice, so I don't get the comparison.

The only person punished with suicide crime is an assistant, don't see the comparison.

There are places where nudists can go, not every place outlaws nudity, still dont see the comparison.

Personally, I believe for every abortion, every sperm donor should be euthanized.

a reply to: MOMof3

Is telling people what they can do with their own body.

And discounting rape, pregnancy is a choice just as much as drugs are.

You choose to have sex for recreational reasons, and get pregnant as a result, it was a choice.

You choose to take drugs for recreational reasons, is the same thing a choice.

I'm not saying people need to be celibate, personally I'm also anti the war on drugs.

I believe people have the right to make choices whether I disagree with them or not.

I don't actually want to control what a woman can do with her body. Personally I'd give anything to be able to be pregnant myself, but whatever.

In all honesty I want things to be done with honesty, integrity, and equality. The second the pro-choice movement becomes honest with itself AND makes fair and equitable laws I'll just accept some people make the choice they do.

Right now pro-choice laws are hypocritical and unbalanced. Though I will admit I've seen less pro-choicers arguing that the fetus is not a unique human life than I used to. Progress maybe?