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

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Xenogears

You don't seem concerned at all that your views are pretty much the same ones the NAZIS, and progressive eugenicists have...

Nazis also took baths, put on clothing, and did and thought everyday things we still do to this day, just because they did some evil things does not mean all they did or thought was evil.

The problem is not making genetically superior beings, any nation that creates superior beings will outcompete and be able to conquer any that does not. That's the way the world is built, the way the cookie crumbles, the way of life, survival of the fittest.

[It is rumored that in china they are disentangling the genetics of the complex trait that is intelligence, once embryo selection starts taking place, and genetic modification occurs too, humans with intellects beyond any seen in history will be born. A million Newtons, a million Einsteins, a radically different society.]

The problem with nazis is abuse of innocents and in particular the mass extermination, mass killing, of innocents.

Saying hey if we know someone has neither the proper housing, financial resources, level of education, mental health, etc to raise a child, nor the disposition to avoid illicit drugs and malnutrition during pregnancy... Perhaps rather than allowing a child to be born, be abused, perhaps suffer from countless conditions, perhaps rather than that, these individuals should not be able to have children until they've improved their lot in life.

We don't allow people to drive without a license, yet we allow people to have the responsibility over a new born citizen without any evaluation?

If increasing intelligence and knowledge leads towards the optimal path, as one should hope so. The world will be transformed as fitter and more capable beings come into being, able to use superior power to reshape the world into the ideal.

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: Throes

Adoption often times is the worst case scenario any child can be in. Look past your moral ego and see that sometimes the best option is the hardest one to come to terms with morally.

I know plenty of people who were adopted and raised by good families. So because some others don't fair so well we should off babies in the womb? Nonsense.


How about we make adoptions more affordable and accessible to families?

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I support vaccinations.

Next.

Yeah, and it seems that you also support how progressives like the Gates have been found by several human right groups to have advocated, promoted and used funding from tax-payers to force abortions, force sterilizations on people in third world countries...

You also seem to be against parents making informed decisions on what vaccines to use.

Next...

Guess you'll have to provide links proving FORCED abortions and sterilizations.

Yes, I am pro forced vaccinations.

a reply to: Xenogears

I may be the only person starring you.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

Unless the woman was rape, its consensual sex, so how is it the man's fault might i ask?

originally posted by: Agartha

Contraception is approximately 98% safe, which means that for every 100 times people have sex, 2 babies are made.

...

Actually that's wrong. If contraception is approximately 98% safe it does not mean that for every 100 people who have sex that 2 babies are born. What it means is that every time people use contraceptives there is a 98% chance it is safe. Every time someone has sex and they use contraception it keeps meaning that it is 98% safe for every time someone has sex using contraception.

So what it actually means is that every time people have sex and use contraception there is a 2% chance they will get pregnant, every time people have sex using contraception.

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

Unless the woman was rape, its consensual sex, so how is it the man's fault might i ask?

Well, you know - - without that sperm the woman would not be pregnant.

There are other things a man can do.

(I suggest you check poster I was responding to)

originally posted by: Annee

Guess you'll have to provide links proving FORCED abortions and sterilizations.

Yes, I am pro forced vaccinations.

I actually have, several times, including in this thread...

Thursday, 12 July 2012
UN Slammed for Its Forced Abortions in China Using U.S. Funds

Written by Alex Newman

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is under heavy fire after an investigation by the Population Research Institute (PRI) showed yet again that the UN is working with the communist dictatorship ruling mainland China to enforce its barbaric “one-child” policy — complete with forced abortions, involuntary sterilization, kidnapping of “illegal” children, and other brutal tactics. The evidence of UN complicity in the atrocious human rights violations is undeniable, according to PRI President Steven Mosher (pictured above), who said U.S. taxpayers should permanently halt funding to the global anti-population agency.

Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Programs this week, Mosher and several other witnesses described the mass abuses being perpetrated by the UNFPA and its communist partners in Beijing. Also offering testimony was a victim of the Chinese regime’s “population control” who was kidnapped by the “family planning” officials before having her baby murdered in cold blood.
...

www.thenewamerican.com...

If you don't trust the source I posted above, here is popular mechanics with a more recent article on this.

Jonathan Abbamonte
2016 Jul 25

The U.S. Government wastes billions on programs and initiatives that American taxpayers don’t want and certainly don’t need. But no example of government waste is more disgraceful than the tens of millions of dollars handed over each year to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)—an organization that for decades has been working hand-in-glove with China’s brutal and repressive population control policy.

With the exception of the Obama administration, every other administration since the Reagan administration has at some point barred the UNFPA from receiving federal funding on account of the U.N. agency’s involvement with China’s planned birth policies. UNFPA, to this day, continues to operate in China in collaboration with the state-run family planning program. UNFPA has never condemned or even apologized for its activities in China.

UNFPA’s involvement with China’s brutal policy goes back to the beginning.

Since 1979, when the Chinese Government put the one-child policy in place, UNFPA supported the Communist Party’s efforts to limit the number of births women are allowed to have. UNFPA’s executive director, Rafael Salas, even publicly praised the program saying "China provides a superb example of integrating population programs with the goals of national development."
...

Get the U.S. Out of the United Nations Population Fund

...
PRI has numerous documents which demonstrate unambiguously that America's foreign aid agency USAID has underwritten such camps in India for decades. They also establish that the agency – in concert with a host of American charity groups, India's biggest bank and private funders like Bill and Melinda Gates – has been the primary architect and a major overseer of the country’s state-run population control.
...

www.pop.org...

The Gates, the Rockefellers, and other globalists, including the Obama administration, have been funding programs that force women to abort, even without their knowledge, or consent, and have also sterilized many people all around the world without their knowledge, and or consent. BTW, it has also been proven many times that they have done this through vaccinations.

If you don't want to believe other sources, hear it from Bill Gates' mouth stating that vaccinating children helps with population growth.



At 30 seconds, after saying "the benefits is reducing sickness, " then he says "reducing the population growth", and he is talking about vaccines for children.



This concept didn't start with the Gates, the Rokefellers in the 40s were already funding research to use vaccines to sterilize millions of people, and children.

You should also look at who has been doing the same thing to women in the U.S. but to a lesser extend. ( I am talking about forcing sterilizations of women even in the U.S.) It is part of the "progressive agenda", and will always be a part of it.

Notice how this sounds similar to what some people here are stating.

...
Lombardo is an expert on eugenics, a school of thought popular around the turn of the 20th century. Eugenicists thought they could improve the human species through selective breeding, which meant preventing habitual criminals, inmates of insane asylums and sexual deviants from having kids.
...

State's little-known history of shameful science / California's role in Nazis' goal of 'purification'

That's how it starts, with claims that "it is the future and we must do it, because you know, the most humane nations in the world like China is doing it"... "Just because the NAZIs did it, it doesn't mean is bad"...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

Unless the woman was rape, its consensual sex, so how is it the man's fault might i ask?

Well, you know - - without that sperm the woman would not be pregnant.

There are other things a man can do.

(I suggest you check poster I was responding to)

I did check the post and it specifically mention that 'Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina' ...she consented knowing that she can get pregnant,...so if there is any 'fault' in such a scenario...wouldn't it be on both IMHO?

I think if you carry a fetus to viability (apparently 6 months?) that should count as a sort of "implied consent" that you're not going to have an elective abortion. Exceptions for medical reasons should maybe be have to be agreed to by doctors.

Up to that point, I think it's an issue of personal freedom. If the fetus COULD NOT survive without the mother yet, then my opinion on the legality of the thing is that it should be up to her.

I personally wouldn't advocate for anyone to have an abortion, but I also think currently it's going to keep happening, and I think letting people have their freedom even if you don't agree with them is kind of the American way.

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger
...
I personally wouldn't advocate for anyone to have an abortion, but I also think currently it's going to keep happening, and I think letting people have their freedom even if you don't agree with them is kind of the American way.

The problem is, the "abortion issue" will never stop. Even if, and when abortions are allowed even beyond viability the "abortion movement" will continue demanding more, including after birth abortions which many people, including planned parenthood have advocated in favor of "even if a child survives an abortion the women, family and physicians should decide whether that child lives or dies".

There is already research that has been published by progressives in which they are already saying "there is no difference between a fetus and a newborn, and neither is a person" in the minds of many progressive doctors, scholars, and philosophers, and thus in their mind women should be able to decide whether a newborn lives or dies, even if it is a healthy child.

J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

Law, ethics and medicine

Paper

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2, Francesca Minerva3

-
Author Affiliations

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; [email protected]

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012

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.
...

jme.bmj.com...

Other progressive philosophers who would even claim refusing to kill/euthanise should be regarded with horror, and not the fact that this slippery road the pro-choice crowd is taking us can in fact lead us down to genocide.

Taking Life: Humans
Peter Singer
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217
In dealing with an objection to the view of abortion presented in Chapter 6, we have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer - and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. It has, they point out, been rejected by doctors since the fifth century B.C., when physicians first took the Oath of Hippocrates and swore 'to give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel'. Moreover, they argue, the Nazi extermination programme is a recent and terrible example of what can happen once we give the state the power to MI innocent human beings.

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that - as we saw in Chapter 4 - collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.
...

www.utilitarian.net...

The "pro abortion" crowd, and it is a pro-abortion crowd as they only defend abortion itself, won in Roe vs Wade, but after winning that, they wanted more. Roe vs Wade puts restrictions, and on the third trimester Roe vs Wade states the life of the child is of importance because it is viable, and the state can intercede and decide as long as the life of the mother is not at threat.

...
Trimester framework

The Court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion and the government cannot interfere with that right. In the second trimester, the woman still has a right to an abortion, but the state has an interest in protecting the woman’s health. Therefore, while states cannot ban abortion in the second trimester, they can protect the woman’s health by requiring physicians and clinics to meet certain standards (e.g., cleanliness requirements) in order to perform abortions. States can pass laws concerning abortion in the second trimester only so long as they intend to protect the woman’s health. In the third trimester of pregnancy, the Court decided that the state has a right to protect the life of the unborn if it so chooses. Because the unborn child is viable—she is capable of surviving outside the womb—the state’s right to protect the unborn is now more important than the woman’s right to have an abortion. Thus, in the third trimester, states may pass laws that significantly restrict or even prohibit abortions, as long as there are exceptions for when abortion is necessary to preserve a woman’s life or "health."
...

www.mccl.org...

But then, they introduced and won another case which redefines "what a threat to a mother's health is".

Doe v. Bolton made it so that "risk to the mother's health" could be ANY reason the woman, and doctor decided. Originally the law in Georgia made abortion only legal in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother. But Doe v. Bolton changed that. In fact, the case Doe v. Bolton states:

...
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
...

www.usccb.org...

So because of Doe vs Bolton, an expectant mother can say "she is psychologically not ready for this" or make any other argument, and it would still be under the new definition of what is a threat to "women's health".

But as i have proven, the "pro-abortion crowd" won't stop there. Next will come the argument of "after birth abortions".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am not trying to fear monger here, but this thread proves that some people are this radical. I hope its only a fringe amount of people though.

We have a member suggesting that there should be no laws whatsoever to abort a baby no matter what the term, and simultaneously advocating that the government should control who is allowed to get pregnant.

This is a stance that hard core racist eugenicists could only dream of! With beliefs like this, hope for the "master race" might no longer be fiction.

But its all for the greater good of the world, so no worries!

a reply to: Grambler

That's what I fear. The dehumanization of "human fetuses" can, and does lead to an argument which can be used to implement after birth abortions, and even the culling of people "to get rid of undesirable traits, and genes".

The NAZIs already did this, and many in the pro-choice movement can't see where this is leading to. I am not saying everyone in the pro-choice crowd agrees with "after birth abortions". But once the abortion crowd win their latest argument to allow abortions even up to the day the human fetus is to be born, this leads to the next phase, which is after birth abortions, and then "getting rid of undesirables".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Hysteria on your part is what I'm seeing.

POP for one is affiliated with Pro Life/religion.

Forced abortion is illegal in China. However, some remote villages tend to do their own thing.

I support GMO and efforts to increase crop production to feed the world.

Basically you posted random stuff and want to attach it to Gates and others who work with the UN.

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

Unless the woman was rape, its consensual sex, so how is it the man's fault might i ask?

Well, you know - - without that sperm the woman would not be pregnant.

There are other things a man can do.

(I suggest you check poster I was responding to)

I did check the post and it specifically mention that 'Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina' ...she consented knowing that she can get pregnant,...so if there is any 'fault' in such a scenario...wouldn't it be on both IMHO?

We'll try the post above that one.

The Right has given up the rational argument of pro-life, they don't care how much life is destroyed in their goal of pro-birth. Only God knows why, probably to escalate Armageddon.

They think illicit sex is the issue? How past-thinking. Who cares about the deed of creating a life you're responsible for. The woman should do such work. If you gave any nuts about the Bible, you wouldn't even 'spill your seed'.

The truth is the reason women need their own Rights over their bodies, despite that being obvious, is that the lack of rights is being directly used as a sexist weapon for irresponsible males. IMO, when a man is expected to go to 'the 10 yards' just to get the sex act in, that is foreshadowing commitment to the child, not 'respect for women'.

I'm all for making women suffer and being forced to endure pregnancy under any conditions. Fascism seems to be the new 'in' thing. But it needs to be equal. The man that made that child, who will likely be an orphan equivalent and suffer in life, needs to have a vasectomy. Why punish the woman for something that is equal blame? Because as soon as that conversation is started and men realize they can be held partially accountable, it goes back to the deflection 'Why blame at all! Sex is natural!', but that's a much more local conversation than the internet.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

Unless the woman was rape, its consensual sex, so how is it the man's fault might i ask?

Well, you know - - without that sperm the woman would not be pregnant.

There are other things a man can do.

(I suggest you check poster I was responding to)

I did check the post and it specifically mention that 'Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina' ...she consented knowing that she can get pregnant,...so if there is any 'fault' in such a scenario...wouldn't it be on both IMHO?

We'll try the post above that one.

Couples are free to try every position of the karma sutra if they choose to do so,....I still fail to see how its only the man's fault when the the woman consented to regular penis in vagina sex resulting in pregnancy,.....which is what I asked you in the first place

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

Unless the woman was rape, its consensual sex, so how is it the man's fault might i ask?

Well, you know - - without that sperm the woman would not be pregnant.

There are other things a man can do.

(I suggest you check poster I was responding to)

I did check the post and it specifically mention that 'Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina' ...she consented knowing that she can get pregnant,...so if there is any 'fault' in such a scenario...wouldn't it be on both IMHO?

We'll try the post above that one.

Couples are free to try every position of the karma sutra if they choose to do so,....I still fail to see how its only the man's fault when the the woman consented to regular penis in vagina sex resulting in pregnancy,.....which is what I asked you in the first place

You're not getting the humor, obviously.

Or by choice you choose not to.

Moving on . . . .

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JD163

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Farlander
Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina is the number one cause of pregnancy in America today.

It's the man's fault.

Unless the woman was rape, its consensual sex, so how is it the man's fault might i ask?

Well, you know - - without that sperm the woman would not be pregnant.

There are other things a man can do.

(I suggest you check poster I was responding to)

I did check the post and it specifically mention that 'Allowing a man to insert his penis in a vagina' ...she consented knowing that she can get pregnant,...so if there is any 'fault' in such a scenario...wouldn't it be on both IMHO?

We'll try the post above that one.

Couples are free to try every position of the karma sutra if they choose to do so,....I still fail to see how its only the man's fault when the the woman consented to regular penis in vagina sex resulting in pregnancy,.....which is what I asked you in the first place

You're not getting the humor, obviously.

Or by choice you choose not to.

Moving on . . . .

ohh its a joke,..ok haha