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

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Big words? I haven't been accused of using big words since high school.


Maybe some real big words in this PDF on Marxism in the Catholic Church but I'm sure you will make your way through it.
www.usasurvival.org...

a reply to: krosnos

I agree with the Catholic nun. Although I am pro-life as she describes it and pro-birth. I'm surprised Republicans aren't the ones vying for abortions in order to help get ahead in life without being held back, and I'm surprised that the liberals aren't trying to protect the unborn children.

Backing off a bit and just looking at the hypocrisy of the Republicans - why do they care about unborn children but not ones that are already born? Good question.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not that hard to stay on topic, and thAt high school bit was it really needed

I'm not particularly against abortion, its a case by case scenario, but I am against the Liberal Media promoting it and painting the idea that getting an abortion is trendy, necessary and just the norm. Also the fact that Margaret Sanger created the Planned Parenthood program and posed as a Liberal to serve her own racist population reduction agenda raises some questions.

Here are a few quotes from the founder of Planned Parenthood that should turn your stomach.

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."
"The purpose in promoting birth control was 'to create a race of thoroughbreds'"

Then when you see hard statistics like this, it makes you wonder if we've just gone too far... More Black Babies Aborted Then Born in NY in 2012.

Bunch of hypocrites those people.

Sure are a bunch of hypocrites.

First they scream SEPARATION of Church, and STATE !

Then turn around, and says here listen to what this religious person says!

Which way is it ?

For the record.

Never once had to use religion to justify the argument AGAINST abortion.

One really doesn't need to.

originally posted by: dawnstar
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!

👍👍 Double hitchiker's thumbs up and 🌟 infinitum

You brought me to my feet with a hoot and a fist pump. Had to walk it off. 😄 lol

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

Her own life you mean? Yes she does, but not to the detriment of life aborning in the womb, which by nature she would have wanted to protect and defend at all costs, but somehow society has ruled that that life is not worthy of defense until it is outside the womb. Is not woman called on by natural instinct to defend her young? We see this even reflected in the animal kingdom when a bear or dog will lash out against intruders trying to hurt their young.

I seem to remember where some animals would abandon one of their young to save the rest also..
but well whatever, if you ever find yourself in the unfortunately situation where carrying your unborn child may leave you born children orphans, hey be my guest.
but you have no business making that choice for anyone else! like I said, all it seems to take is for a media blitz about this country or that country preparing to "take our way of life away" and probably half the population starts screaming how we need to start bombing cites to oblivion, who cares how many pregnant women, mothers, children, old men, old ladies, and fathers we kill.... just start bombing!! I need to preserve my 401k, I need to preserve my freedoms, I need to live!!!

don't expect more from the person next to you than you are willing to give yourself!

a reply to: neo96

You can't be serious...

Saying that a nun has a good point has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

So for the record, separation of church and state is a good thing.

And this has nothing to do with it.

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

That nun is absolutely correct.

The Republicans, in general, are hypocrites. Texas is a Republicsn state, and we have one of the worst child poverty
Conditions in the Nation!!!

"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.

This shill's thread and the supposed nun are wrong or misleading on 2 major accounts.

1) The Catholic church condemns abortion and finds it relegated to the realm of great evil and sin.
www.catholic.com...
So her being a "nun" or "Catholic" is irrelevant. She is not speaking for the church. This is her unprofessional opinion only; making OP's title misleading at the least.

2) According to her statement it's assumed that people are classified as "living", or gain souls, only after they are born (which is in opposition to Catholicism but I digress).... So one unproven side of the argument that surrounds abortion (does life begin at conception or after birth) is taken as a truth (after birth) that forms the premise of her ethical argument.... She's committing logical fallacy.

Now let's look at her argument with plugging in the other side of the abortion argument as truth (that life begins at conception instead of after birth). Her statement now reads like this; unborn babies should be killed if they might be a strain on our collective resources. That is how a pro-life person translates her statement and justly so.
--------

Such a statement sounds quite communistic. It's in line with Pope Francis when he said the masses should not use air-conditioners, and capitalism is bad. It's quite easy to manipulate people with a few keywords and misleading arguments. More here need to study PSYOPS if they got caught or persuaded by this.

Ultimately the article proves nothing, and adds nothing to the abortion debate.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not that hard to stay on topic, and thAt high school bit was it really needed

You were the one all worried about Big Words, were you not? I finished my post on topic with discussion about the Catholic Church and how Marxism has infiltrated it. My point being that however well intentioned the nun is, she still may be promoting a Marxist concept that it is society's collective job to make sure all children and people are well fed clothed and educated etc through state sponsored social programs.

a reply to: dawnstar

I seem to remember where some animals would abandon one of their young to save the rest also.. but well whatever, if you ever find yourself in the unfortunately situation where carrying your unborn child may leave you born children orphans, hey be my guest.

Strangely I knew instinctively that you might retort with some highly emotionally charged stuff. Soooo first, I do not condemn women who find themselves in this situation and your response was pretty much an ordinary but classic cheap shot and Progressive attack. Second, of course I am aware that not all animals have the same behavior, and some even eat their young. But what I did say was that the maternal instinct of protecting their young is also reflected in the animal kingdom(since so many Progressives imagine that animals are superior to humans).
Third it would be somewhat of a scientific miracle if I found myself in such condition....but if you must project black magic upon me in a hateful spiteful desire to make me suffer to learn some kind of lesson in compassion, then let your own energy be returned to you for your own soul's edification. A truly loving and wise and compassionate person would not be wishing such disaster on others out of a selfish need to elevate themselves and put a guilt trip on the other person. If you truly cared about a woman in this condition, you would not want her soul to be imperiled by a decision which be outside the cosmic law of Divine Love.

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!

I certainly would not condemn any woman who found herself in such a situation. I would pray that better solutions can be found. Your premise is based on secular humanistic justification and not Divine Love.

a reply to: TheLegend

The way I read it, it sounded like she said those in the US who claim pro life are nothing but. They are at best pro death and pro suffering. Pro life means not just taking the baby to term, but feeding it, housing it, giving it a family, seeing that it does well in school, and caring for it until it's an adult.

What it says to me is that if you're pro life, and you haven't adopted one of these children to save it from an abortion, you're just as bad as the doctor who dismembers the baby. Even worse really, because that doctor atleast preserves organs so some medical knowledge can be gained, while you on the other hand just talk and do nothing.

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.

What is the difference between the two in your mind?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes, yes, I know. If only the government ran it all like they do our education system, everything would work out fine.

By the way, you totally forgot to address the education issue, but hey, let's make our health care system operate JUST like our education system. I'm completely sure things would totally work out OK.

After all, it's not like we don't have the very best and most educated populace in the entire world. /sarcasm

I guess you also want us to have most healthy one too.

Of course, we do have public options in health care. They are called Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. We also have the wonderful VA system.

This thread is not about education nor the ACA for that matter.

Regarding education I believe it key - but I am certain you and I disagree on what makes for a good education. I prefer a classical education myself - trvium & quadrivium at all that - with lots of art and music and sport. An all around education where students are exposed to as much of the world and history as possible in 12 short years.

Happy now. - Can we respect the OP and get back to the hypocricy of anti-abortion crucaders.

And I love the deliberate misunderstanding of what a single payer universal (sorry for overestimating the audience) system is. The health systems you are refering to are government funded true but only federal employees and retirees.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: krosnos

I agree with the Catholic nun. Although I am pro-life as she describes it and pro-birth. I'm surprised Republicans aren't the ones vying for abortions in order to help get ahead in life without being held back, and I'm surprised that the liberals aren't trying to protect the unborn children.

Backing off a bit and just looking at the hypocrisy of the Republicans - why do they care about unborn children but not ones that are already born? Good question.

And how many crack babies are you planning on adopting and raising?

Your premise is based on secular humanistic justification and not Divine Love.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
I posted a whole mess of links a few pages back to stories of women who died, or were permanently harmed after being denied abortions in countries with abortion bans. Mothers, with children that were depending on them, children, with mothers who were fighting the legal system for their child's lives!
And then, just to add a bit of flair I included a few articles where pregnant women in this country are now being jailed for having miscarriages, and well, I am sorry, but one cannot kill an unborn child while it's in the womb and kill it again after it's born! But well, one women is in jail for just that!
classic cheap shot?? really, no, I am looking at reality, both here and around the world at countries that have abortions banned. and well, when one comes on saying there is never any reason to have an abortion, I am sorry, but I can find many instances where really, it was the most humane, logical thing to do and the results of it being denied the women were tragic!
I think you "It's natural law that a mother would protect here baby at all costs" is just your attempt to portray women as being somehow emotionally different, and not prone to the same self preservation instincts that ALL of humanity shows everyday on this planet.
I started participating in the thread claiming that although I couldn't tell you why any one particular women might have chosen to have an abortion (which hey , many of the pro-life crown seems to think they know- they're all irresponsible, selfish little creatures who just want to sleep around and don't worry about the consequences till their stomachs are twice a large as they were and it feels like there's a giant worm inside them pushing to break out, right), I think that many of them may very well be displaying that same self preservation instinct that causes the masses to beat their war drums when the politicians begin lying about wmds, when that happens, hey, it's perfectly find to bomb cities full of children into oblivion, after all you are PROTECTING YOUR WAY OF LIFE!
or the shopkeeping who hides a gun in his shop and is forced to use it when the robber comes in to rob and gives the impression that he will harm the shopkeeping, after all he was just PROTECTING HIS LIFE!
To think that a pregnant women would not act in like manner if she saw a fetus developing in her womb threatening her way of life or her life because you can occasionally see instances where mothers in the wild kingdom risking their lives to protect their young, is just plain dehumanizing women, no women should be left laying in agonizing labor for days getting sicker and sicker knowing danged well that the baby she is carrying is dead, and having the medical professionals deny her the lifesaving treatment that will save her live. nor should she be force to lay there getting sicker and sicker while people bring her cute little baby bonnets for the little tyke that she knows will die within hours of birth,......
all because...
LIFE IS SACRED!!

unless of course you happen to be a pregnant women, then you aren't even human I guess.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Soooo.... YOU deem them "crack babies" ergo it's just fine and dandy to MURDER them.

There are CONFUSED bunch of people on this forum. You all have it muddled in your heads.

Yes, indeed, you are all correct, there are in fact a lot of poor and disadvantaged children out there. There are such things as unexpected, crisis pregnancies and they can be pretty devastating.
But how in the world do you think that makes it even remotely OK to start killing people?????
We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS, not stray cats at the pound.
The fact that there is unnecessary suffering in the world and the question about whether or not it is OK to murder children ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

a reply to: olddognewtricks

And there is a huge difference between a crack baby who suffers day after day, week after week, month after month - and the merciful ending of a fetus (who hasn't even been born yet) in a few minutes.

I am much more concerned for the constant and ongoing suffering of the child born in poverty than I am for the fetus who hasn't even finished gestating yet. I am amazed that you (and others like you) seem to feel just the opposite.

a reply to: kaylaluv

ahh but life is sacred, and women are just all programmed to be murderers, since life begins at conception and well probably half the time the women has somehow magically managed to make her womb inhospitable for it to embed itself in and they are murdered only experiencing life for maybe two days if they are lucky. That is so sad, isn't it???


A child:
is born....
has opened it's eyes and seen the world...
it can recognize it's mommy's and daddy's face, it can feel their touch and respond in like manner to the smile on their faces.
mommy and daddy has also see the child's face, have found joy in that smile, have stood by the child's crib for hours watching it sleep adoring it.
there's a strong attachment between the parents and the child.

A "child" alive at conception.....
doesn't even know what "alive" is
it has no idea what his current environment is, let alone the world.
has no idea that there is a mommy or a daddy
and well, has a very good chance of being flushed out of his current environment without anyone ever noticing. let alone feeling the grief and pain that the first parents I described would endure if their child was to suffer extreme pain for a long period of time, or even short period, or to watch it fight a battle for life that they knew it couldn't win.

to equate the two as being equal in any way is not valid reasoning!