Catholic nun claims pro-life isn't truly pro-life

So Sister Joan Chittister claims that the current state of being considered pro-life in this country does not necessarily qualify you as being truly pro-life. Now I'm sure that she and I disagree on whether or not women should have the right to abortion, but I definitely agree that we should be taking care of children in this world. Anyways do you guys think she is looking at this issue correctly?

Link

She has a point. At its root, abortion sucks, but its better than bringing a child into this world that isn't going to have much of a chance.

Another reason to be pro choice: not having to feed the kids of the world.

It is interesting that plenty of "pro-life" are so concerned with every featus being born, but will rarely support the notion of providing financial aid to mothers with very little in therms of money so they can make sure the infant is feed, in clothes and in good health.

Thus the infant was apparantly more important to keep alive when it was inside the woman rather then now that it's out of her.

She has a good point about pro-life, but that view is hardly new. I believe the best way to describe both ideologies would be pro/anti-abortion.

I think this is the stance taken by a lot of people who fall into the pro-abortion basket. Its a necessary evil and trying to outlaw abortion comes with a lot of problems.

She's right it's pointless having a kid then it starves to death because the mother can't take care of it.

I'm pro choice what a women decides is of no concern of mine. It does not affect my life or any one else besides those involved. Which is why the argument for pro life vs pro choice is silly when it has nothing to do with you or I.

Uhhh I think I disagree with her reasoning 100%

I'd say a good number of "pro-life" supporters don't care what happens to the child after it's born. They just think the "system" takes care of it and the child grows up to be a productive, functioning member of society that actually contributes to the betterment of it.

While here in reality, the vast majority of people who are put into the foster system face abuse (physical, emotional and sexual), poor living conditions (a lot of people who foster do so for the government stipend) and generally lower quality of life than those adopted or those living with parents that give a damn. And I'm not saying the foster care system is universally like this, but it's a stereotype for a reason, and criminally underfunded. If pro-life nutjobs spent even 10-15% of the money they put into fighting abortion, there probably could be tens of thousands more unwanted children given a proper life.

Personally, I abhor the idea of abortion, but I recognize it's necessity to keep unwanted children from being brought into a world that does not have the means to give them what they deserve.

That, and the world is already overpopulated. It would be much easier, and cheaper, to teach children about safe sex and avoiding pregnancy.

@alim298: It would be much appreciated by me if you explained your reasoning.

Reminds me of the Spanish government declaring fetus malformation is no longer a reason for having an abortion, as if they were actually going to do anything for the poor babies after their birth :/

I would have partially agreed with her if she was anything but a devote catholic. A devote catholic should be able to see beyond these materialistic viewpoints. For me it's really a religious matter and I don't expect you to understand as even I and my fellow religious folks are at each other's throats every time this subject is brought up.
And that subject is waiting for God, having hope in him and trusting him. But it's really complicated because it can be the cornerstone of monotheism as well as the cornerstone of hypocrisy and laziness.

I think that ideology assumes what other people believe. And as such the logic is faulty.

she's not wrong

That's fairly presumptuous of her.

@commonfate: I think that she is saying that if you don't want your tax dollars to go towards helping children then she believes that you are not truly pro-life. Not that if you are against abortion that you are automatically against those things.

This is old, but I agree with her. Not 100% though, because the logic for the right against social care isn't that they don't want those children to be fed or taken care of, but that job shouldn't be government managed due to inefficiency (or at least perceived inefficiency) of bureaucracy. The fact is Republicans contribute more to charities than Democrats.

Her ideas may be unique among other nuns but that doesn't automatically mean that it is an official view of Catholics in general. I see where she is coming from and I would prefer that people who are adamant in preventing abortions also have a plan to take care of the child after birth. Adoption isn't always an option.

While I am not a fan of it, my main reason for not wanting to ban abortion is because people that want it bad enough will just find another way to do it. Whether it is paying someone on the side or trying to force a miscarriage, they are going to figure something out. Or, if they try something to cause an abortion and botch it they may have introduced a disabled baby to the world.

@alim298: I do consider myself a christian so it's not as though I am incapable of understanding other religious individuals, but how is expecting others to help provide for the less fortunate being materialistic? Food, clothing, and shelter are more than simple materialistic needs.

What does her being Catholic have to do with anything? What does you being Muslim, other than having an irrational bias towards Christians, have to do with anything?

Being fed, housed and medically taken care of isn't materialistic. You being on the internet and having access to a computer is materialistic.

@Serraph105: I agree with what she's stated. The issue of abortion is painted in shades of gray, and it's very clearly tied to other issues. I think it warrants further discussion.

And she's 100% correct.

Oh, and one more thing. Just arm the fetuses. If they were armed, they wouldn't be victims. The only thing that stops a bad doctor with a manual vacuum aspirator is a good fetus with a gun!

I agree but I'm sure people would disagree with her on her thoughts of when abortion is appropriate.

Anti-overpopulation is the way to go.

Basically what she's advocating is that if we can't provide for a kid food, clothing and shelter then it's better to just kill the kid and put him/her out of his/her misery so to speak. That's a materialistic viewpoint because ultimately it's not you who is going to provide for the kid food, clothing and shelter. You are only of the many tools of God that he uses in order to provide for the kid food and shelter. Ultimately it is God who provides for the kid not you and he will be able to provide for him/her regardless of your shitty status as a parent if he wants to.

[Do not kill your children because you fear poverty. we will provide for you and them. killing them is a great sin.] 17:31

I realize abortion isn't exactly killing your child but the reasoning she uses to promote abortion shares similar flaws with the above reasoning.

That is the cornerstone of monotheism in Islam. Seeing God as the ultimate mastermind behind everything. And so realizing the fact that everything including men are merely his pawns. And the goal is to be a good pawn in this world. Of course it's a tough concept to grasp even for the so-called religious folks. Some may say they've understood it but in reality their understanding may be nothing more than a shell of hypocrisy.

Catholics are far better than dumb atheists. That's what's relevant to the discussion.

@alim298: I don't get the sense that this lady is advocating for abortion jf the right circumstances are met. I think she is only making the argument that a pro-life individual's duty towards children doesn't end at a child's birth, but extends to making sure they are well provided for.

Which would be totally irrelevant to abortion or being pro-life and whatnot since that's called being a decent human being not being "pro-life."

• Abortion is preventing the kid from being born in the first place. Not killing it, a zygote has no sentience, no self awareness.
• Maybe you can accuse us of being materialistic, but there is a reason we are materialistic, because materialism works. The viewpoint could also be deemed utilitarian. Why give birth to a child only to make him miserable?
• A problem with a lot of these pro-life proponents is that they believe in the self made man thing. Others believe there is enough room for adoptino for everyone, despite that clearly not being the case, far more children are orphaned. than couples are willing and capable of adopting.
• "dumb atheists", really?

Abortion is nothing more than a way out of personal responsibility for one actions.

@JimB: This doesn't seem to be particularly related to the topic honestly.

That being said how do you feel about this nun's view that to truly be pro-life your responsibility extends beyond making sure the child is born?

"I love abortions! Only live things go in and dead things come out."
"Let's have an abortion on live TV, with an accordion and a straw."
"Let's go pro-choice a baby out of a bitch."

- Quotes by my favourite transexual superstar junkie Jiz -

It's fairly hypocritical to call someone dumb when your entire belief system is based in faith and not fact.

It's a question of whether abortion (aborting a healthy fetus because you can't "afford" it) is a crime. And I say if the reasoning behind it is to spare the child the "misery" of living a poor life, then it's not enough justification. But of course I'm only against aborting healthy fetuses and fetuses with diagnosed defects should definitely be aborted. Because in the case of defected fetuses it's safe to assume the child's not going to have a standard living but in case of healthy fetuses, a green piece of paper isn't the only thing that warrants a standard and enjoyable life.

And big surprise. There are dumb people among atheists also.

That's one of the fundamental challenges that atheists face when discussing Islam. Almost always they are unable differentiate between Islam and Christianity. The concept of belief based on "faith" belongs to Christianity not Islam you dumb.

@alim298: You seem to be the only one in this thread directly insulting other people. Do you expect people to continue to listen to you when you do so?

Sure,

If you are willing to find some way that these non aborted fetuses will develop into children who actually live under some standard. Make sure they live a childhood free from abuse, starvation and all other sorts of problems.

Abortion is a lesser evil. If you are willing to try to force a woman to give birth to her child, the pro-lifers should also be willing to ensure that child grows up decently. But as currently the case, a lot of these self proclaimed pro lifers, dont give a crap what happens after birth.

And while I am at it, faith is belief without evidence. Faith exists in all religions, and even goes outside religion too.

I agree with you on these points.

And when did I insult people? Saying a certain group are better than the dumb portion of another group isn't an insult.

You can say anything you want about being pro-life or pro-choice, but it's a very different matter when you are presented with a situation when an abortion may be necessary for medical reasons. Just look up ectopic pregnancy and you'll know what we had to deal with once.

I don't think that abortion should be used at contraception, but there are legitimate reasons (incest, fetus threatens the mother's safety, rape, etc) where abortion is a real option. That makes me pro choice.

In addition, how many of those who are vehemently "pro-life" are "pro-capital punishment"?

Belief in a higher power that you can't prove to exist is faith. That goes for Islam and Christianity. It's not debatable.

Second, stop with the insults. I didn't call you dumb, so act like a proper human being and refrain from doing the same to me.

Not to mention most people that support the right to abortion, really aren't for late term abortions in less of health reasons etc etc.. Make matters even more infuriating is the pro life crowd are anti-contraception and anti-sex/safe sex education.. Supporting the failed programs of abstinence... I mean if your against abortion, fine I can understand that, but don't fucking come around and be against teachings of sexual education including contraceptives.

Bahahahaha.. Ah yes because Islam, the youngest of the three Abrahamic religions, is grounded upon fact and not faith..

lol religion.

quoted for emphasis. I personally am religious but I would never call someone dumb because they are either not religious or of a different religion. That kind of name calling goes against everything that religious people should believe in the first place.

I agree that all religions are based on faith, nobody can ever prove that God exists or does not exist, so we believe in a higher power because of faith. Those of us who are not religious simply lack faith that something as great as God can exist, I think the only real fallacy in thought are those who believe that either there is no possibility of a higher power or those who believe that science holds all the answers.

the only absolute truth in this world, and this goes for all people of all faith and people of no faith, is that as a speices we know absolutely nothing about the universe. We try to make sense of it anyway we can because that is what humans do but at the end of the day noone knows anything, noone has ever known anything, and most likely noone will ever know anything.

I used to respect your opinions, but now you are just a joke.

That is bullshit. So nobody knows anything but you know about this "only absolute truth" in this world; so how do you came to know that?

If you want to say that there is difficulty regarding research about the beginning or "creation" of the Universe, that's one thing; this other bullcrap about we don't know anything or nobody "has ever known anything" is just nonsense. GTFO.

a very intellectual and thoughtful reply, clearly taken too literally.

But I am right, as angry as it seems to get you for reasons that I cannot comprehend. When I say that we know nothing, I don't mean it in the most literal sense of the expression, which really should have been pretty obvious based on the context of the discussion. What I did mean, and I will stand by it, is that in the grand scheme of the universe we know as close to nothing as possible.

Our solar system is but a speck in the grand scheme of the universe, and we know very little about what is in our own solar system, next to nothing about our own galaxy and even less about neighboring galaxies. There are loads of mysteries about our planet we do not understand, about history, and so much more. In the grand scheme of things we know nothing, and it does not matter whether you are Stephen Hawking or the Pope, that is true for all people.

I do not know why this makes you angry, any good scientist will accept it, which is why they are scientists in the first place, they accept how little they know and seek to further their knowledge, but ask any good scientist and they will tell you the same thing. Each answer they find, leads to hundreds of more questions, that is a simple scientific fact. So yes, we know as close to nothing about the universe as possible, and any good scientist as well as any good religious figure would agree with me.

Well, there are people who truly subscribe to "we don't know anything about anything" bullshit, literally. And since we are in the internet you can never be sure before hand. But since you say you are not, I will throw you a kiss instead:

@Master_Live said:

@pook99 said:

@Master_Live said:

@pook99 said:

quoted for emphasis. I personally am religious but I would never call someone dumb because they are either not religious or of a different religion. That kind of name calling goes against everything that religious people should believe in the first place.

I agree that all religions are based on faith, nobody can ever prove that God exists or does not exist, so we believe in a higher power because of faith. Those of us who are not religious simply lack faith that something as great as God can exist, I think the only real fallacy in thought are those who believe that either there is no possibility of a higher power or those who believe that science holds all the answers.

the only absolute truth in this world, and this goes for all people of all faith and people of no faith, is that as a speices we know absolutely nothing about the universe. We try to make sense of it anyway we can because that is what humans do but at the end of the day noone knows anything, noone has ever known anything, and most likely noone will ever know anything.

That is bullshit. So nobody knows anything but you know about this "only absolute truth" in this world; so how do you came to know that?

If you want to say that there is difficulty regarding research about the beginning or "creation" of the Universe, that's one thing; this other bullcrap about we don't know anything or nobody "has ever known anything" is just nonsense. GTFO.

a very intellectual and thoughtful reply, clearly taken too literally.

But I am right, as angry as it seems to get you for reasons that I cannot comprehend. When I say that we know nothing, I don't mean it in the most literal sense of the expression, which really should have been pretty obvious based on the context of the discussion. What I did mean, and I will stand by it, is that in the grand scheme of the universe we know as close to nothing as possible.

Our solar system is but a speck in the grand scheme of the universe, and we know very little about what is in our own solar system, next to nothing about our own galaxy and even less about neighboring galaxies. There are loads of mysteries about our planet we do not understand, about history, and so much more. In the grand scheme of things we know nothing, and it does not matter whether you are Stephen Hawking or the Pope, that is true for all people.

I do not know why this makes you angry, any good scientist will accept it, which is why they are scientists in the first place, they accept how little they know and seek to further their knowledge, but ask any good scientist and they will tell you the same thing. Each answer they find, leads to hundreds of more questions, that is a simple scientific fact. So yes, we know as close to nothing about the universe as possible, and any good scientist as well as any good religious figure would agree with me.

Well, there are people who truly subscribe to "we don't know anything about anything" bullshit, literally. And since we are in the internet you can never be sure before hand. But since you say you are not, I will throw you a kiss instead:

much appreciated : )

No not really. Judaism is also more or less based upon facts. It's only in Christianity that faith without knowledge (or at least self-enlightenment) is greatly encouraged.

"He who knows himself, knows God" is a famous narration in this regard.

And is it because I implied that Catholics are worse than intelligent atheists?

Seriously I think you and others didn't quite understand why I used the word "dumb" next to "atheist." I was really referring to only dumb atheists. See, this is how it started:

What does her being Catholic have to do with anything? What does you being Muslim, other than having an irrational bias towards Christians, have to do with anything?

Only a dumb atheist would understand from what I said prior (which was actually sort of a compliment) that I have a "bias" toward Christians. That makes one a dumb atheist because Intelligent atheists don't have such poor comprehension skills.

Yeah...those pro-life folk seem to only care about the child while it's unborn. After that..let it die or starve..who cares.