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

page: 21
128
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvanB
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


It's cool, I see you're a proponent for denying logic. The fact that you know there is a special place in "hell" for abortionists proves that your entire belief is based on religion, which you've been brainwashed to believe is somehow real. You ever cut your hair? Because the old testament says you're burning in hell for it. You ever have sex out of wedlock? Well the bible says, you're going to burn in hell for it. You ever masturbate? Burning in hell. You ever have sex with a condom on? Burning in hell.


Genesis 38:9, "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother."


God was displeased and took Onan's life for spilling his seed upon the ground. It very literally says that thou shall not spill thy seed, which means you can't masturbate. So if you've ever jerked off, you're going to hell -- to the same place all of those abortionists have gone because you wasted the potential for life. I mean if you're gonna believe in the fairy tale, at least get the fairy tale right.

If you believe there is a special place in hell for people who eliminate a potential, then you must certainly believe there is a special place in hell for you -- since you've no doubt done many things in your life that the same book that you think taught you that abortion is murder has already labeled you a sinner and a heathen.

If you can't follow your own teachings, why do you get to selectively enforce which of those teachings you chose to follow, and then furthermore, try to dictate which of those beliefs non-believers must follow? You don't force religion, you don't force people to be good under threats of the law. If you're a man of god, you let god sort it out. If God is real, he will judge the abortionist -- so there is no reason to legislate it. The deep rooted secret is you know God doesn't exist, which is why you feel the need to force that belief on people through law -- it's a perversion of faith, you sir... don't have any.

If it's God's will for abortion to not exist -- than why does it? If it's God's will when a woman has a miscarriage then it must be God's will when they abort. If it wasn't God's will, then the abortion would be successful and a miracle baby would be born. That # doesn't happen because God isn't real. If God was real, do you think he wouldn't hold you in contempt for living in and supporting a nation that blows people up for oil? I mean -- seriously.

Tell me something, nay -- show me something, prove to me that your way of thinking is the right way. Enlighten me with a provable fact that your book is real.
edit on 5-2-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The O.P. makes a very good point. My views are on par with this nun for sure. I think we should help the poor and those who are struggling. Unborn children should also be respected. Good social programs and resources for women, both pregnant and those wanting to be sexually healthy, are still important even if they don't cover abortions. In fact, the more positive services that are available to women (maybe alternatives to abortion like adoption, or birth control, or protection, or education) the less likely they might be to have an abortion.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
The O.P. makes a very good point. My views are on par with this nun for sure. I think we should help the poor and those who are struggling. Unborn children should also be respected. Good social programs and resources for women, both pregnant and those wanting to be sexually healthy, are still important even if they don't cover abortions. In fact, the more positive services that are available to women (maybe alternatives to abortion like adoption, or birth control, or protection, or education) the less likely they might be to have an abortion.


The bottom line is education/protection/birth control and even adoption all still fail and everyone is worse off because of it. There is already so many kids that most do not get adopted and live in foster shelters and bunk with dozens of other kids and have no real role models but are basically treated like inmates in a state prison. How is expanding that program a benefit to society?

The alternative IS abortion. All of those other services have long been standing and just aren't enough.

What is the difference between a non-sentient parasitic growth and the sperm/egg that make that growth? Why is it okay to destroy one and not the other?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Save LIVING children.




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

How hard would it be to do a pregnancy test once a month?

And it's not just potential for life it is a life in formation and at some stage in its development it's right to life ought to be protected and preserved.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SmilingROB
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?


Heh, the same side taken many a time from those on the losing side of an argument, demanding abuse from mobs to silence dissenting opinions. There is a reason why this is a representative republic and not a democracy.

It is indeed disgusting for those in one's life to threaten either the livelihood of one, or one's physical well being with violence, which are the two possibilities I assume you consider acceptable responses to public discourse of such? Are these not? Is it not barbaric on your part?




originally posted by: Grambler

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.



For now a woman can't get pregnant without a man, if the government destroyed all sperm and the ability of men to produce sperm, she could not get pregnant even if she wanted to, yet her body would be untouched.

edit: note, that I'm not advocating for that, just putting an example of how it does not necessarily infringe on a woman's right over her own body.



edit on 5-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

For now a woman can't get pregnant without a man, if the government destroyed all sperm and the ability of men to produce sperm, she could not get pregnant even if she wanted to, yet her body would be untouched.

edit: note, that I'm not advocating for that, just putting an example of how it does not necessarily infringe on a woman's right over her own body.




But that was not annees scenario. She wants a world where we still do have controlled birth. Hence there would still have to be the ability to get pregnant, and by not allowing a woman that wanted to get pregnant, that is controlling the womans reproductive rights.

And I am not ripping on you, but come on, really? This is such a ridiculous statement.

Why stop there? If we just killed all men that would solve the problem. Or better yet, how about nuclear annihilation? No government interfering with womens rights after that right?

I don't know what you are going for with your argument here.

Fact is saying that women should have to have the permission from the government to get pregnant is the ultimate government control over a womans body. You know this, so why even try to paint an outlandish genocidal scenario to try to justify this repugnant statement.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

But that was not annees scenario. She wants a world where we still do have controlled birth. Hence there would still have to be the ability to get pregnant, and by not allowing a woman that wanted to get pregnant, that is controlling the womans reproductive rights.


It still takes 2.

Both man and woman.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

I live in the present.

I support the Constitution as a framework of our government.

I am really not interested in the type argument you are trying to put forth.


Oh boy, I guess I must be living in the the dark ages because a liberal says so...

You don't support the Constitution when you are against the rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.










posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Grambler

But that was not annees scenario. She wants a world where we still do have controlled birth. Hence there would still have to be the ability to get pregnant, and by not allowing a woman that wanted to get pregnant, that is controlling the womans reproductive rights.


It still takes 2.

Both man and woman.


What????

Yes, it takes two to have a baby.

Nice fact.

How does that in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with the fact that your claim that the government should only let selected woman have the right to have children is the most government control a government could ever have over a womans reproductive choice?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

People think the only rights that matter are the rights of the parents, not the rights of the new citizen. A new citizen deserves a pregnancy without illicit drug consumption, without alcohol consumption, and with proper nutrition.


Agree with you on those at least partially. What if the "government" comes to claim that children should be vegans because in their minds vegans are more healthy?... That leads to compulsory nutrition as mandated by the "government".


originally posted by: Xenogears
A new citizen also deserves good genetics,


Wait what?... Good genetics?... That sounds like eugenics and what the NAZIS did in Germany...



originally posted by: Xenogears
and adequate housing, education, health care,


In part agree with you, but I don't believe it should be compulsory as you seem to believe.



originally posted by: Xenogears
mentally fit parents. In other words there are prerequisites that need be met before a new citizen is allowed into this world.


Here we go... First you claim "a new citizen deserves good genetics" in other words a eugenics program controlled by the government... I guess you are unaware on the history of the NAZIS who also believed "mankind deserves good genetics from the master race"...

Then you go and say "new citizens should have mentally fit parents"... Who would decide what is "mentally fit"?... So you seem to be "pro big government which would control what genetics children are born with, and the government should control all aspects of people's lives, including what they should think and teach their children...

Thanks but no thanks. Having the NAZIS almost succeed at this once was more than enough.


originally posted by: Xenogears
What needs be developed is safe reversible sterilization, and only those who're intent on having a baby, assuming they meet the basic requirements, only then can the procedure to reverse sterilization be carried out temporarily to allow for pregnancy.


And here we go again with "a progressive" thinking people should be sterilized...and of course under government control... Thanks but again, no thanks...



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Save LIVING children.



Is that why progressives like the Gates, the Rockefellers, George Soros under "progressives programs" have been forcing abortions and forcing sterilizations in third world countries and even in the U.S.?...

Naa, the real picture of a "progressive world is this"...




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I support vaccinations.

Next.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Exactly the point! To have an abortion so one can avoid responsibility for the next 18 years is wrong and a sin against that child. A person should not have sex if they want to guarantee no responsibility for the next 18 years.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruthJava
a reply to: Annee

Exactly the point! To have an abortion so one can avoid responsibility for the next 18 years is wrong and a sin against that child. A person should not have sex if they want to guarantee no responsibility for the next 18 years.



I'm an atheist.

Sin is your issue.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Xenogears

For now a woman can't get pregnant without a man, if the government destroyed all sperm and the ability of men to produce sperm, she could not get pregnant even if she wanted to, yet her body would be untouched.

edit: note, that I'm not advocating for that, just putting an example of how it does not necessarily infringe on a woman's right over her own body.




But that was not annees scenario. She wants a world where we still do have controlled birth. Hence there would still have to be the ability to get pregnant, and by not allowing a woman that wanted to get pregnant, that is controlling the womans reproductive rights.

And I am not ripping on you, but come on, really? This is such a ridiculous statement.

Why stop there? If we just killed all men that would solve the problem. Or better yet, how about nuclear annihilation? No government interfering with womens rights after that right?

I don't know what you are going for with your argument here.

Fact is saying that women should have to have the permission from the government to get pregnant is the ultimate government control over a womans body. You know this, so why even try to paint an outlandish genocidal scenario to try to justify this repugnant statement.


Perhaps I erred on my last search on the topic, was a while ago, but I seem to recall cases where child after child is born and has to be removed because the parents are unfit to raise them don't seem like they'll stop or can even reason about stopping having kids and won't ever be capable of being fit to raise them barring technological miracle.

Seems to me like if that is true such cases should not happen, a child should be guaranteed a loving home not some dangerous inhumane time in unacceptable conditions to be transferred into the foster care system.

If a person is a homeless drug addict doing illicit drugs constantly and having unprotected sex constantly. We can see this is going to cause a problem to a potential new born. Illicit drugs + malnutrition during pregnancy will result in horrible side effects for any potential new born citizen.

Clearly these are the most extreme cases, but we can see that the idea of upholding the rights of new citizens, conflicts with the tenets of free unrestrained unvetted reproduction.

You can imagine a wealthy enough individual with an accomplice wife, could have her stay at home while pregnant give birth at home, and do as they please with their new born child. Anything from sexual abuse to cannibalism, and none would be the wiser. There's nothing stopping such abuses, and they likely take place. Regulation of reproduction would largely curtail such potential abuses.
edit on 6-2-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Agree with you on those at least partially. What if the "government" comes to claim that children should be vegans because in their minds vegans are more healthy?... That leads to compulsory nutrition as mandated by the "government".

The government does dictate to an extent and removes children from homes if need be. If a family wants to feed their children ice cream and donuts unfettered, and gets them morbidly obese, expect the government to intervene.

There are also dictates regarding education, iirc.




Wait what?... Good genetics?... That sounds like eugenics and what the NAZIS did in Germany...

We will have a better world, where everyone is healthier, faster, stronger, smarter, wittier, better in every way.

Just as with vaccines, the right genes and biological machines can do wondrous things.

You don't want your child to appear to be from an inferior in every category species as compared to the children of those with greater resources, do you? Everyone deserves a right to genetic modification of the highest standard.



In part agree with you, but I don't believe it should be compulsory as you seem to believe.


Children do not ask to come into this world. Society allows them to please parents and to allow for self perpetuation of society, without children society ceases to exist. Society owes new citizens certain basic rights. To provide the full set of rights high levels of automation are needed, but we're getting there.




Here we go... First you claim "a new citizen deserves good genetics" in other words a eugenics program controlled by the government... I guess you are unaware on the history of the NAZIS who also believed "mankind deserves good genetics from the master race"...

Then you go and say "new citizens should have mentally fit parents"... Who would decide what is "mentally fit"?... So you seem to be "pro big government which would control what genetics children are born with, and the government should control all aspects of people's lives, including what they should think and teach their children...

IF a parent right now shows signs of sexually abusing children or physically abusing children or any other signs of severe mental illness... I'm pretty sure that's just cause for having the children removed, but they can always have more children, and keep having children indefinitely. IF they've not improved, they'll keep being removed, after abuses take place.




And here we go again with "a progressive" thinking people should be sterilized...and of course under government control... Thanks but again, no thanks...



We have limited resources, only a ridiculously high death rate allows for unregulated reproduction. No one can claim people should die so they can pop babies with abaddon. Expect technology to eventually solve the death rate issue, though how long that'll take is up for debate, once death rate collapses birth rate must eventually by obligation collapse due to the laws of physics.

Besides this, as I said, there are basic rights that are owed a new citizen, like the right not to be put in an environment of almost certain abuse. Like if you know a certain set of potential parents have a history of abuse and show no signs of having changed, perhaps they shouldn't be having children until they've been evaluated as fit?

Also, tell me again why exactly a teenager should be able to get pregnant? Nature had no problem with immature parents, but we humans do. Teenagers engage in sex with each other, and at the least reversible sterilization should be provided free of cost as an option.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian


Look, it's a "glob of cells"

I say we continue allowing abortion to be legal, on the stipulation that every expecting mother has to get an ultrasound so that she can see exactly what they are choosing.

People choose to get knocked up. They choose not to use protection, which can be obtained for free, or the pill, which can be obtained for free.

Instead of doing that, they get pregnant and expect the taxpayer to pay for their murder.

It makes me sick that people act so cavalier about abortion. Glob of cells. Medical procedure. Healthcare. Reproductive care. Women's rights. All the buzzwords. All the propaganda. All part of the same propaganda tactics to dehumanize the victims of war, are applied to abortion victims as well.

I think it's funny how hard people on the left embrace planned parenthood when it was created strictly for the purpose of killing off the black race.

HOW PROGRESSIVE!





posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears
Expect technology to eventually solve the death rate issue, though how long that'll take is up for debate, once death rate collapses birth rate must eventually by obligation collapse due to the laws of physics.


Come again?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Southern Guardian


Look, it's a "glob of cells"

I say we continue allowing abortion to be legal, on the stipulation that every expecting mother has to get an ultrasound so that she can see exactly what they are choosing.


NO!

Who the hell thinks they have a right to force something like that?



new topics

top topics



 
128
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join