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

a reply to: solargeddon

I didn't really read the thing. Lots of pages came up for [signs ovulation] or whatever. Try a more specific type of query:
www.netdoctor.co.uk...

Quit being lazy (that goes for him and her). Quit being uptight. Know thyself. And know what you face otherwise:
www.youtube.com...
Or endure sadistically blissful ignorance.

Spermatozoa is not "potential life". This is getting ridiculous.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: solargeddon

I didn't really read the thing. Lots of pages came up for [signs ovulation] or whatever. Try a more specific type of query:
www.netdoctor.co.uk...

Quit being lazy (that goes for him and her). Quit being uptight. Know thyself. And know what you face otherwise:
www.youtube.com...
Or endure sadistically blissful ignorance.

Did you know that sexual arousal can bring on ovulation, AND, that it's possible for a woman to ovulate twice during a cycle?

a reply to: windword

That's why you need to read the discharge. As I said "know thyself".

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Who cares about the discharge after the fact? It's Plan B time, after the fact.

And speaking of after the fact..... Old lady here, and my "facts" left me quite some time ago, so I don't need to be checking for any discharge, thank you very much! LOL

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Amen, Sister

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Just because she is a nun does not make her right or even righteous. Christian Socialism and Marxism have invaded the churches. She is dripping with a wrong idea. She thinks, as Margaret Sanger did, that she is sensitive to the plight of poverty stricken women.... but there are also many affluent women who seek abortions for the convenience.
Also your argument personally is the old tainted spiel of calling a pre born child a fertilized egg(similar to calling it a bunch of tissue cells in the lining of the uterus) thereby depersonalizing it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So? Every month that a woman isn't inseminated is a lost opportunity for potential life.

Once the egg meets the sperm (conception) life begins. Its that simple. Being obtuse in the name of women's rights wont change that. Did you know that The Pill was known even by the most pro choice advocates to be an abortifacient? That is to terminate the life of a fertilized egg?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Does she own her eggs?

Yes, but an egg is not a child.

Is a fertilized egg a child?

It will be.

Is an egg part of a woman's body? Is a fertilized egg still part of a woman's body? Or, did a chemical reaction somehow magically make that egg separate and not part of her body?

Women are not born with fertilized eggs.

They are born with all their eggs. Do those eggs stop being part of their bodies when they're fertilized?

No, but the combination of DNA creates a new life separate from the Mother, yet still within the Mother's body. You and all women instinctively know this yet pro choice advocates deny it anyway.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

And all women know that not all pregnancies are welcome. Nor, do all women agree to an obligation or duty to bear every fertilized egg that passes through their uterus. Children should be conceived in joy and welcome in loving acceptance, and not considered to be consequences or punishment for unrequited love or momentary miscalculations of sensibility and lapses in judgement.

The Old Testament God condemned all three to death; the two lovers and their conceived offspring, if their love hadn't been pre-approved by fathers and priests. Don't get me started, but let me tell you a secret, the Old Testament God was NOT pro-life! We're doing to much better now!

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Once the egg meets the sperm (conception) life begins.

This is superstition. Egg and sperm were already alive. There is no such thing as a magical "Life Fairy" that endows life where there once was none.

Life isn't the issue. Autonomy and sovereignty is. You prefer the sovereignty of the fertilized egg over the autonomy of its owner and bearer, seeking to force procreative duties on women to bear children they don't want.

Pope Francis also said "Build bridges not walls" while the Vatican is surrounded by a wall. How's that for hypocrisy?

A decade or two ago, abortion rights were supposedly about choice. It was all "you can't tell a woman what to do with her body". That's how it started. Now, abortions are actually being recommended. I guess this was the next logical step in the agenda. And how do they justify pushing abortion on entire demographics of society? Claim that otherwise, the child and mother would live in misery; dirty, starving and not cared for by anyone. Therefore, if we become a society that doesn't let this happen, the atheists and satanists can no longer use their main excuse for wholesale abortions.

Isn't that what this nun is getting at?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Once the egg meets the sperm (conception) life begins.

This is superstition. Egg and sperm were already alive. There is no such thing as a magical "Life Fairy" that endows life where there once was none.

Life isn't the issue. Autonomy and sovereignty is. You prefer the sovereignty of the fertilized egg over the autonomy of its owner and bearer, seeking to force procreative duties on women to bear children they don't want.

NEW life begins. With a completely new DNA signature. A new life forms. It cannot be denied.
www.youtube.com...


And by the way, you have a lot of nerve calling science superstition
And "autonomy"? This is your definition of what kind of life has a right to live? That total bs dreamed up by people who know better but think you don't. Also I think you might actually mean "viability", because that is thee term used by pro choice activists meaning the pre born cannot survive outside the womb because it is not fully formed. This also is one heck of a diabolical argument and the people in this industry know it is a false argument.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

And all women know that not all pregnancies are welcome. Nor, do all women agree to an obligation or duty to bear every fertilized egg that passes through their uterus. Children should be conceived in joy and welcome in loving acceptance, and not considered to be consequences or punishment for unrequited love or momentary miscalculations of sensibility and lapses in judgement.

The Old Testament God condemned all three to death; the two lovers and their conceived offspring, if their love hadn't been pre-approved by fathers and priests. Don't get me started, but let me tell you a secret, the Old Testament God was NOT pro-life! We're doing to much better now!

Your entire arguument is made up of various should and shouldnts based on some Progressive ideology. Progressives tend to think that they are right and that their ideas should be adhered to no matter what. Your argument will never convince me that this pre born hasn't a right to life just because a woman had unrequited love, her boyfriend doesn't want it, she doesn't want it her parents don't want it, she going to be "punished with a baby" to use the FORMER President Obama, it was a moment of passion blah blah blah blah blah forever and ever.

originally posted by: Annee
Pro choice can be simply that you accept the right of an individual to make their own decision/choice. It is NOT pro abortion.

I've talked to many who are pro life for themselves, but don't believe they have the right to force that on others.

I am very pro LIVING CHILDREN.

I agree with the nun.

Exactly describes my own position.

Peace.

originally posted by: Annee
Pro choice can be simply that you accept the right of an individual to make their own decision/choice. It is NOT pro abortion.

I've talked to many who are pro life for themselves, but don't believe they have the right to force that on others.

I am very pro LIVING CHILDREN.

I agree with the nun.

A pre born is living, it just gets its nutrients through the placenta. It moves around, it sucks its thumbs, opens its eyes, its heart is beating

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Annee
Pro choice can be simply that you accept the right of an individual to make their own decision/choice. It is NOT pro abortion.

I've talked to many who are pro life for themselves, but don't believe they have the right to force that on others.

I am very pro LIVING CHILDREN.

I agree with the nun.

A pre born is living, it just gets its nutrients through the placenta. It moves around, it sucks its thumbs, opens its eyes, its heart is beating

You are entitled to your opinion.

However, that's where any discussion between you and I on this subject is going to stay.

We are too far to the extreme opposite ends on this subject to really have any meaningful discussion.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

And when do the "pro-choice crowd" intent to stop "abortion"?... After all, we already have several "progressive and pro-abortion" doctors, researchers, and philosophers arguing that because in the minds of the "pro-abortion crowd" human fetuses have no rights, then to them it is only logical that newborns also have no rights. Hence in the minds of these "progressives", it should be okay if the parents of newborns decide to murder them even if they are healthy.

...
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Heck, even Planned Parenthood employees/lobbyists believe that whether a newborn is allowed to live, or die is a decision of the mother, her family, and physician.

By Marc A. Thiessen April 8, 2013
...
Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Jaws in the committee room dropped. Asked again, she repeated her answer.
...
Only after a firestorm erupted in the conservative media did Planned Parenthood issued a statement that in the “extremely unlikely and highly unusual” event that a baby were born alive it would “provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.” That is debatable, since a Planned Parenthood counselor has been caught on tape admitting that the organization leaves infants born alive after an abortion to die. But if Planned Parenthood really does provide such care, why was it lobbying against a bill requiring such care in the first place?
...

Link

originally posted by: Annee

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Otherwise it's none of your business what one who chooses abortion does.

Isn't it ironic how you, alongside others in the "pro-abortion" crowd, believe that it is completely okay to force people to pay for the abortions of others, even if millions of those people think abortion is murder?...