Pro-life V's Pro-Choice, What Is It Really All about?

I thought I was the one who made the joking crack about abstention that everyone took seriously.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion." Mother Teresa

You don't have to be religious to understand the veritability of that.

 

“I cannot understand anti-abortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species we've fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don't believe in the sanctity of life. The shrugging acceptance of war, famine, epidemic, pain and life-long poverty shows us that, whatever we tell ourselves, we've made only the most feeble of efforts to really treat human life as sacred.” ― Caitlin Moran

“if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”
― Florynce R. Kennedy

“In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children...The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth.”
― Thomas L. Friedman

Nor do you have to be religious to understand the above either.

 

What I'm struggling to understand is why you are telling me that. The only one of those things that I am against is common nonsense gun control and, if you had the slightest concept of the problem, you would be too. The truth is that guns have nothing to do with the segment of the latest generation we have raised in moral relativism (read: in the atmosphere of convenience based, hypocritical values). You know what the expression is--(*)(*)(*)(*), in (*)(*)(*)(*) out. It is not surprising that we have produced so many nuts. The miracle is that we have so many we'll-adjusted children. Resilience and enough parents who don't impart the convenient values that allow people to kill their babies are responsible for that, despite your best efforts.

Have I left anything out? Oh yes, your persecution complex rears its ugly head again

 

Taxes, finances. For reasons we are all aware of.

 

Gun control declines gun deaths . .simple really

I fear you may have me mixed up with someone else, not even being American I have no persecution complex, but of course you are perfectly entitled to believe your delusions.

 

Let's see if I understand this. I quote Mother Teresa and you counter with...Caitlin Moran??? A giant among---what?!? Moranthologists?!? Egotists?!? Then you refute a woman who advocated her entire life for everyone else and eschewed her own interests in favor of the interests of others by quoting a black woman who advocated her entire life for, let me guess, blacks and women? Damn, what can I say to that? Better question is "what need I say to that". But, then that is precisely what you do, advocate for yourself and those like you in the most self-serving of all causes. Kill babies on the altar of women's empowerment. Yeah, I think I do understand it. Let's see, were you born during the "me generation"? Just a wild guess.

 

How about a quote from another nun, then?

 

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. What does being a nun have to do with anything? Mother Teresa is an exemplary person, not in any way because she is a nun, but because she champions those who are in need, and they are not HER. She championed causes from which she did not benefit. All of your role models, or at least those quoted by Fugazi, are people who champion her/your own causes.

2. Would it help you if I were a Tea Party radical conservative? Sorry, I cannot stomach that. I am not a proponent of those draconian cuts and do not believe that those who have discovered a niche in which they can skin consumers to make them selves ludicrously wealthy are enormously brilliant and should be allowed to do the touchdown dance on the backs of those who either cannot or aspire not to do so. On the other hand, I do hold that both parents are obliged to support their own children before the rest of us are called upon, whether you intended them or not. And I am very sorry if biology slows your ascent up the corporate ladder. I did not invent biology and, likewise, do not apologize for it. Neither does your baby!

 

Mother Teresa was not an exemplary person. She was merely human and successful at raising money. Whether she spent that money properly is in question.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

Biology need not slow one's ascent up the corporate ladder. Biology can largely be managed. It's the refusal of some to allow management that causes the problem.

 

The problem is that it isn't accurate. What we have are those that support the inalienable Rights of the Person and those that oppose the inalienable Rights of a Person.

If the anti-abortionists were supporters of the inalienable Rights of the Person then they would be proposing and fighting for a US Constitutional Amendment to impart "personhood" to the "preborn" as there currently isn't any legal precedent for the "personhood" of the preborn based upon human history. Instead the "anti-abortionist" is trying to circumvent the fact that the "preborn" are not "persons" where a woman, as a person, has a fundamental right to an abortion by passing State laws designed to deny the woman the Freedom to Exercise her Right of Choice by closing clinics that provide abortions. This is a nefarious tactic that violates the established Right of Choice for the Woman based upon the legal precedent established in Roe v Wade.

There are no "anti abortion rights" as they aren't supported by either history or legal precedent.

 

Total strawman. I have not suggested that there is. I'm describing the positions held by those who are debating. The description is dead on accurate.

 

I'd be a little careful raising MT up to such a high standard, if you are not so blinded as to look a little beneath the facade you may well find that MT was not the "angel" portrayed.

MT Quote - “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”

Robin Fox of the Lancet, wrote with shock of what they found in Teresa’s clinics. No tests were performed to determine the patients’ ailments. No modern medical equipment was available. Even people dying of cancer, suffering terrible agony, were given no painkillers other than aspirin. Needles were rinsed and reused, without proper sterilization. No one was ever sent to the hospital, even people in clear need of emergency surgery or other treatment.
These conditions were not the unavoidable result of triage. Teresa’s organization routinely received multimillion-dollar donations which were squirreled away in bank accounts, while volunteers were told to beg donors for more money and plead extreme poverty and desperate need. The money she received could easily have built half a dozen fully equipped modern hospitals and clinics, but was never used for that purpose. No, this negligent and rudimentary care was deliberate. However, despite her praise for poverty, Teresa hypocritically sought out the most advanced care possible in the Western world when she herself was in need of it.
Teresa told a terminal cancer patient, who was dying in extreme pain, that he should consider himself fortunate: “You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.” (She freely related his reply, which she seemed not to realize was meant as a putdown: “Then please tell him to stop kissing me.”)

This "angel" was more concerned with "converting" people than actually caring for them, there are reports of her telling her followers to baptize dying people without their consent - As ex-volunteer Susan Shields wrote, “Material aid was a means of reaching their souls, of showing the poor that God loved them… Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa’s sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems”.

and you want me to exalt her, sorry no can do.

 

Alright, we're done! You win. Find someone else to nurse your fanatics. As I said before (and now, I mean it), I haven't the time nor the inclination to beat my head against the wall of your fanaticism. If you check Craig's list, I think that they have a category for mountain cabins, complete with wooden desks and writing materials for preparing manifestos. I'm sure you could find a deal.

 

Thank you for posting that....I didn't know all that ...just when I think no religion can shock me with their vile evilness...they top themselves...

 

Pro Life vs Anti Life
Pro Choice vs Anti Choice

Those are the only logical sides of the issue.

Those against Pro Life are Pro Death and choose to value choice or convenience over life.

 

I'm sure you know the way there by heart now, and they probably have a room set aside just for you.

 

Interesting quote in your sig. Problem is I have lived through a right-wing government lead by a certain Lady Thatcher, she did more damage to this country than any other person has ever done .. in fact her "legacy" is still being felt now.
The policies of her government caused more hardship and destitution on more people than even WW2 did, that is what the fanatical right wing achieve .. the rich become richer the poor become slaves.

 

There is much debate about that. For some like you the role of government is ownership of industry, for most others and has proven to be true here is that freedom to produce free of most (not all) government constraints is the economic engine that drives an economy.

 

That's all you can say? When you start quoting the biggest idiots (gadflies, in the words of the L. A. Times, are not serious philosophers, just irritants) in the free (or not) world to impugn the word of a founder of orphanages on the ground that she is only helping orphans so that she can preach about God to them, you are not worthy of the discourse of reasonable people.

And no, you have not turned the tables. The cabin is exclusively yours.

 

and you would discredit the words of people who were there, saw and heard what was said and done, simply because it doesn't fit with your delusions.
you only speak against one item of evidence, how would you go about discrediting all of these;

http://sparrowsandsandcastles.wordpress.com/tag/dr-robin-fox/

These are ALL comments from people who worked there, and yet I bet you come back here and just call them gadflies. Dr. Robin Fox writes for the most peer revered medical journal in the world, would you, a layman at best, call this man an idiot and a liar . .have you ever worked in this place, these people have .. what makes you think I would believe your views above those of people who were actually there?

Which is why you replied to me, you are obviously not one of the "reasonable people", and if the truth offends you so much then please feel free to not respond to me .. I cannot stand people who merely follow the crowd and have no real thinking for themselves.

 

Is there much debate .. not really. I am an active member of UKIP, and yet even with my views I find what she did to this country distasteful.
I do not believe in state ownership of industry, I do not believe in freedom of movement between countries .. I want the UK out of Europe. All politicians lie through their back teeth to achieve what they want regardless of the party they pay lip service to. The Republicans are no different, neither are the Democrats .. anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.