It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

So, if a drug addicted woman chooses to have an abortion because her kid will be born into a hellish world of poverty, neglect and abuse...it's a darn good thing.

Does that mean, If a formerly straight woman with a wonderful life becomes a drug addict, turning her world upside down, making her kids destitute, neglected and possibly abused...does this mean she can then kill her kids?

It's a serious question. Give it some thought. If she can choose to kill her kid before its born, why can't she choose to kill it after it's born? What's the difference?
edit on 2-8-2015 by Ignatian because: Clarity/grammar




posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

In one scenario it's a sentient human being, in the other it isn't. Also, in one scenario the children can be put up for adoption, but as you see when the idea of adoption opposed to abortion is brought up in this thread the same pro life crowd vehemently opposes that suggestion.
edit on 2-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian



What's the difference?

When the abortion is done for me.

I don't think it is life from conception.
Potential for life yes, but not necessarily a life child yet.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

"A sentient human being". What is that? A human being is someone who is sentient?

I didn't understand your second statement. Pro-life folks are opposed to adoption?



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

You don't THINK it's life? What if you are wrong? Are you God?

What do you mean by "life"? Are two cells that join to form an individual set of chromosomes with a unique DNA, not living cells? Is that not life? Of course they're living cells, right? Do we agree?

We must not agree, when you say "potential for life". Again, define your terms. What is life? As the poster above said, is "life" defined as something that is simply sentient?



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: krosnos

I agree with the nun 100%

I'm pro choice but at a certain time during a pregnancy its murder

IF we could just compromise in this country we could maybe get some of the issues resolved. Like making abortion illigal after a certain stage in pregnancy, making condoms free etc.

its 2015 people get with the program



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I sometimes wish I were aborted.

Anyone willing to do one? Late term.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Aazadan

"A sentient human being". What is that? A human being is someone who is sentient?

I didn't understand your second statement. Pro-life folks are opposed to adoption?


A human that is aware it's alive. Humans aren't sentient until around two years old. That doesn't mean we should run around killing infants, but it means killing a fetus is about on par with chopping down a tree.

As far as pro life folks being opposed to adoption goes, they're not running out and personally doing it to prevent abortions are they? Adoption lists are long, they could make a difference if they cared about those types of things.

Just look a few posts up, one persons response was "I can't afford it". Doesn't sound much different from the person getting the abortion does it? Atleast one person doesn't condemn the person to years of misery.
edit on 2-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: krosnos

I agree with the nun 100%

I'm pro choice but at a certain time during a pregnancy its murder

IF we could just compromise in this country we could maybe get some of the issues resolved. Like making abortion illigal after a certain stage in pregnancy, making condoms free etc.

its 2015 people get with the program



In my opinion, it's not murder, or at least in many cases it is not.
the life of the child is dependent on the mother giving of herself to it, and for most of the pregnancy only she can give what is required. what is required can vary greatly from one women to another and not only involves health issues but could also involve, her financial situation, what kind of responsibilities is being demanded of her in her day to day life, and weather or not there is enough support surround her to take over those responsibilities if need be. and, I don't see how it can be justified to expect her to sacrifice more for an unborn fetus than we would expect someone to sacrifice in any other situation.

for example, legally we cannot force anyone to donate an organ to save another's life, so well, if a pregnancy is causing damage to organs, we shouldn't be expecting the mother to willingly give up her sight for the sake of the unborn child.

or, no one on these boards would donate their job for the unemployed parent so they could feed and clothe their children, so maybe if the job that the women is doing is too toxic for a developing baby, we shouldn't be expecting her to give up her job when the earnings she is bringing home is putting food on the table for her kids or providing them with the healthcare they need.

any compromise would have to come with something like an undue burden test that would have to exceed the "health and life of the mother, and rape" bit that now seems to be the norm and would have to be judged fairly, couldn't be too intrusive on the mother and her family, and well, I just don't see that happening.
Not when the pro-life crowd seems to have the idea that it's "nature's law" that a women would want to do anything to protect the fetus and if she is not willing, well there's just something wrong with her. not when they are proclaiming that doctors and nurses are lying, even when the doctors and nurses are saying that the nine year old rape victim cannot deliver twins without damage to her own developing body! and not when every danged hot button story that pops up ends up being the centerpieces for talk shows and discussion forums like this one.

so well, my suggestion to people would be to work on coming up with a system that will not force women to sacrifice more than you yourself would for your neighbors, your friends. because well... if you are willing to beat war drums eager to send our military out to bomb cities and villages to protect your "way of life" you have no business expecting any women to give up her life, her health, possibly her living children if the pregnancy causes a debilitating problem that prohibits her from caring for them properly, or even causes her to ration the food to feed her children.... if you are not willing to risk losing you way of life when the bs starts painting a picture of a iran's nuclear bomb, then well, who are you to talk.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
She's laid out the core problem so well.

Pro-birth or Pro-Life?



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
That a nun says this is nothing spectacular.

Abortions were developed in the nunneries.
It is a fact that 40% of the nuns of today report of having been sexually abused in some way. This was probably a higher percentage in the past when there was no one really to report to.
Priests basically came to the nunneries to "see the face of God". Abortions were simply a way to get rid of the evidence of this "meeting with God".
You do not like what I say but you know it is true. Nuns got screwed, not all of them but quite a lot. End of story.

Most in this thread and whole forum are so gullible. That you just swallow this obvious clever propaganda without guarding your intellect is disturbing. You take stuff at face value every time. Rome has hated Christianity since day one and cannot wait to get rid of its morality and go full on old school Saturnalia style culture. Rome is and has always been about Empire, and could not care less about humanity. Child sacrifice ftw...

With this Jesuit Pope we will see all typical left wing agendas be mainstream religious dogma. Just wait.

Read some history and you will know who faught and died for you so that you can even have religious freedom at the first place (including atheism). Where does seperation of Church and State come from? (Spoiler: it was NOT Karl Marx) Instead you are looking like a proud puppy that just ate its dinner when you just swallow this nun's propaganda (which is a Papal word btw).

Remember that you are your own worst enemy. Especially when you are this easy to manipulate.
edit on 3-8-2015 by JohnBaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: krosnos

I agree with the nun 100%

I'm pro choice but at a certain time during a pregnancy its murder

IF we could just compromise in this country we could maybe get some of the issues resolved. Like making abortion illigal after a certain stage in pregnancy, making condoms free etc.

its 2015 people get with the program



I suggested this same thing to another user. The two sides are never going to agree on abortion, this debate in it's current form is over 100 years old. So how about reducing the number of times we have to disagree and prevent the need for abortions in the first place such as by making birth control from condoms, to pills, to morning after pills (because accidents sometimes happen and it's preferable to a later term abortion), to everything else, readily available and free?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

You may want to change the wording a little bit on what you think a human is; because that is not at all what the word "sentient" means. But if it soothes your conscience to use that word, we'll run with it.

But again, to use your own definition, why can't we then kill a kid up to 2 yrs old? A drug addict woman walks into planned parenthood, dragging along her little bundle of cells that is now a year and half old...non-sentient....her plan has changed, she wants to kill her kid. Why can't she?

Since I don't think you see your inherent fallacy of reason, I'll explain it to you.

A woman's "choice" CAN be controlled by the state. The state says killing a 2 yr old is murder. But, the woman's choice is to abort her kid's life. It's her choice! Why can't she?

(Btw, a baby in the womb, recoiling in pain, and trying to get away from the knife that is slicing into it, is sentient...look up the definition)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

Good description and touched me. I wonder what makes a woman make a choice like that? Are they all serial killers and psychotics that they would make such a cruel choice? Same way with war, warhawks are right up there with abortionists, which pretty makes all americans murderers. Such bad choices.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Most of these poor women are not given ALL the facts, they're simply ignorant of the truth. It's sad. Pro-death folks think we just want to control women, that's a farce. We're looking out for their long term welfare. It's the charitable thing to do. Oh yeah, and speaking out for the little bundle of cells that have no choice.

Take a look at "Just War Theory". You may change your mind. Not all war is murder.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

No. I will never change my mind about war on foreign soil. Right now, there is one nephew who committed suicide, one is suffering from PTSD and suicidal, both served in Afghanistan. My dad, a WW2 battle survivor committed suicide when I was 16. It is all murder. Your thought process justifies your murder, same with abortionists.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

if a women aborts a baby because she sees it as threatening her life, or health, her way of life....and is considered a murderer, they well,
why can't we use the same standard when it comes to countries attacking people in far away lands, for fear that they will attack first, for fear that they will endanger their way of life?

it's the same thought process behind both....



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Nah, I think if you looked at some wars, they are fully righteous. There can be good reasons to stop an aggressor, ie, who is threatening your women and children; we have to protect the innocent. Just War principles go back centuries and centuries, I'm not just making it up, you'd have to spend some time looking at it, and try and take your personal emotions out of it.

Yes there have been some very very stupid reasons that some countries have gone to war. Millions of innocents have been killed, and good men and women are killed and maimed in the horrible process. As a species though, I'd like to think, in the big picture, that all those terrible, personal examples you provided are outweighed by the justice and good that a just war Brings about. Again, I make the assumption that it's a just war. And I will readily admit, many wars have not been just.

If you come attacking my innocent wife and kids, trust me, you will have a just war on your hands.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Just War theory does not apply to innocent life. A completely innocent, defenseless child, (or country) that is not an aggressor in any shape or form, can not be attacked. That is completely unjust. NO justice, in fact. That is a horrible comparison.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

I am all for defense. There are innocent children and pregnant women who have been murdered because of our invasion of Iraq. Amazing how lives "over there" are less important than yours.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join