Mother Teresa: "The Greatest Destroyer of Love and Peace..."?

[LuisDantas]

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?

I take it you mean voluntary abortion. No, I do not agree. Teresa was either unaware or neglectful of the very serious consequences of unwanted births. There are few things that destroy love and peace any more fiercely than having to put up with a being whose very existence one resents - or being that person rejected.

2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

Probably not, although I don't doubt she means it. The often unspoken premise that often comes with such statements is that people will learn to deal with adversity if they are just put through enough suffering to "mold their character".

In a nutshell, Terese does not care about the hardships and nocive effects of an unwanted birth, and that makes her judgment callous and jaundiced. I suspect she developed a mean, even cruel streak.

For some people it is too much of a temptation to point fingers and tell people that they ought to feel ashamed for not behaving better, circunstances and limitations be darned.

 

[Revoltingest]

Abortion does not cause or even exacerbate the claimed problems.

 

[Ingledsva]

“By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” -- Mother Teresa.

Personally, the shallowness of the notion that abortion is the greatest destroyer of love and peace grates on me like nails screeching across a chalkboard grate on some folks. I wince at it.

But I have two questions:

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?

2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

This thread is about those two questions and only those two questions. Please stay on topic.

No to both questions.

Just look to the countries that can't get contraceptives and abortions, - and are thus in abject poverty. It is estimated that around 3.1 million children die each year from malnutrition alone.

They live miserable short lives. How much better it would be if all women had access to contraceptives and abortion.

How much better to abort a few cells early, rather then birth an infant to the horrors of abuse and a starvation death.

Not having children until you can provide for them, - is not violence to get what you want. It is in fact real love to wait until you can provide for a child.

*

 

[Covellite]

As you said: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

They live miserable short lives.

Do we all live miserable short lives?

How much better to abort a few cells early

How many cells? What is the difference between an adult and a fetus?

the horrors of abuse

Many people go through the horror of abuse, or I'm wrong?

It is in fact real love to wait until you can provide for a child.

Is it realistic to expect there would be such moment?

Actually, I agree with you, but I would like to hear your thoughts. Most of all, all women should have access to contraceptives and abortion.

 

[BSM1]

Birth control is a form of preventing very painful situation.
We are not talking about preventing child from entering this world.
Birth control in a normal thing. There are many purposes for a birth control, some of them could be health issues...

If birth control is not about preventing a child from entering the world then why use it? And what "...very painful situation..." are you talking about?

 

[Covellite]

If birth control is not about preventing a child from entering the world then why use it?

In a way, yes. But, that's not the point here. Preventing a child from entering the world is something different, IMO.

And what "...very painful situation..." are you talking about?

I am talking about woman who should decide to kill here loving unborn child.... and live with that all here life.

 

[Ingledsva]

As you said: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

Will be Misquoted? What?

Do we all live miserable short lives?

Of course not. However around 3.1 million children die each year from malnutrition alone, and then there is abuse, rape, etc.

How many cells? What is the difference between an adult and a fetus?

Separation, being autonomous - no longer being in a symbiotic relationship with the mother's body, = personhood, and sentience.

Many people go through the horror of abuse, or I'm wrong?

Again, - of course, - however that has nothing to do with the fact that we could stop millions of horrific starvation deaths of children, by not having them in the first place.

Is it realistic to expect there would be such moment?

Actually, I agree with you, but I would like to hear your thoughts. Most of all, all women should have access to contraceptives and abortion.

"Is it realistic to expect there would be such moment?" - when a person has a child they actually want, - when they want to have them? Yes.

Just as a for-instance, - women in Africa TODAY, under patriarchy, are being forced into sex (raped) by their AIDS positive husbands, - resulting in the women and the babies they have, dying from AIDS.

How much better would it be for them if they had access to contraceptives and abortion?

*

 

[Pudding]

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?

On some situation, abortion may cause someone to feel guilty and unpeaceful.
But to say abortion is the greatest destroyer of love and peace is incorrect. Nuclear and many other weapon are better at destroy peace than abortion; while selfishness, greed, prejudice, promiscuity and love affair can also destroy love, how does she measure whether abortion is the greatest destroyer but not others?

2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

No.
Does abortion teaches people to use "nuclear" violence to get what they want?

 

[Sunstone]

I personally am opposed to abortion unless the pregnancy is too risky, but I'll be darned of I'm going to tell a woman what she must do with her body and what's in it. Also, if abortions are outlawed, only poor women will not get them because the others can go to other states or countries.

Finally, do we really want to return to back-alley abortions or young girls using coat-hangers? I remember those "good old days", and they really weren't that good, at least in this regard.

Did you read the OP? If not, please do so. There were two questions there, along with a polite request to stick to them.

 

[icehorse]

“By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” -- Mother Teresa.

Personally, the shallowness of the notion that abortion is the greatest destroyer of love and peace grates on me like nails screeching across a chalkboard grate on some folks. I wince at it.

But I have two questions:

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?

2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

This thread is about those two questions and only those two questions. Please stay on topic.

#1 - no
#2 - no

I don't think anyone should use "Mother Teresa"'s life, beliefs, or actions as a role model.

 

[bobhikes]

“By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” -- Mother Teresa.

Personally, the shallowness of the notion that abortion is the greatest destroyer of love and peace grates on me like nails screeching across a chalkboard grate on some folks. I wince at it.

But I have two questions:

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?

2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

This thread is about those two questions and only those two questions. Please stay on topic.

1) Yes any killing removes a bit of a persons ability to love and find peace. Not only a human baby but the killing of any living thing. Is it the greatest not in my mind but I can see she truly believed it was in her mind and stood by her convictions.

2) Yes because killing a human living thing is OK because _________, Whatever you put in the blank will apply to other human living things and people will interpret that it is OK to kill a 10, 20, 30 .... year old because of __________ . Then you have others that want to take it down the slippery slope for example if its OK to kill a fetus, I didn't know I was pregnant and the baby was born, why can't I kill the baby, its to hard for me to take care of my 5 year old why can't I kill it. People will push for more than what you give.

In my opinion Mother Teresa is right in her statements and they can and should be taught but no government should enforce a ban on abortion. Until the baby is born the mother is the only one with rights.

 

[Erebus]

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?

2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

1. I imagine abortion could well cause people heartache, but to describe it as "a destroyer of love and peace" is pure hyperbole. Furthermore, her reasons for describing it as such betray both a remarkable ignorance as to what abortion is, as well as a distinct lack of empathy for those who may be considering it.

2. I don't believe so, but then I don't view abortion as a form of violence. I'd say there are plenty of more valid cases of people being taught to use violence to get what they want, but that's probably not for this particular thread.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

“By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” -- Mother


But I have two questions:

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?


2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

This thread is about those two questions and only those two questions. Please stay on topic.

No and no.
Women can be non violent without aiming for motherhood and with having an abortion.
Since the foetus is living parasitically on her body she has a right to stop that for any reason just like with any other organism that is living parasitically on anyone's body. I don't understand why there should be an exception because it's human DNA?
Centering love and peace on women sacrificing their bodies and time and money to carry a pregancy to full term is misogyny and it's also misogynistic to make a woman solely responsible for a man chosing to ejaculate inside her when his sperm can survive for up to 7 days, because condoms don't feel as good for him and she is supposedly meant to deal with all the consequences of his choice, which can lead to trauma for her, as a way to supposedly uphold peace. Peace for whom?
It also isn't based in reality since it's men that commit the most violent crimes that actually affect others.
Abortion only affects the woman who is having it.
Expecting all women to bear the burdens that come with motherhood and the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth is not loving or peaceful.

 

[atanu]

“By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” -- Mother Teresa.

Personally, the shallowness of the notion that abortion is the greatest destroyer of love and peace grates on me like nails screeching across a chalkboard grate on some folks. I wince at it.

But I have two questions:

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?
2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?
This thread is about those two questions and only those two questions. Please stay on topic.

I will first note down a couple of points, before commenting.

1. Why folks go for abortion? In India there was a time when people selectively killed female foetus. Or people may be afraid or ashamed of facing an unwanted pregnancy. IMO, both these situations are selfish situations.
2. Mother Teresa is talking of country and not any individual.

Given the above premise, I will say YES (with certain conditions) to both of Sunstone's queries.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I will first note down a couple of points, before commenting.

1. Why folks go for abortion? In India there was a time when people selectively killed female foetus. Or people may be afraid or ashamed of facing an unwanted pregnancy. I am experienced with the latter in respect of my wife from before marriage and I have guilt and pain. Both these situations are selfish situations.
2. Mother Teresa is talking of country and not any individual.

Given the above premise, I will say YES (with certain conditions) to both of Sunstone's queries.

Those are valid points in regards to both misogyny (selectively killing female foetus)
And stigma towards women who have sex outside marriage and single mothers. However that's not what mother Teresa was getting at.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

“By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” -- Mother Teresa.

Personally, the shallowness of the notion that abortion is the greatest destroyer of love and peace grates on me like nails screeching across a chalkboard grate on some folks. I wince at it.

But I have two questions:

1) Do you think there's any merit to the notion that abortion is a destroyer of love and peace -- let alone the greatest?

2) Is there any truth to Teresa's statement that abortion teaches people to use "any violence to get what they want"?

This thread is about those two questions and only those two questions. Please stay on topic.

1. It definitely can be, and often is, for many women and those close to them. But the "greatest", in general? I would not say that. That's hyperbole.

2. It could, for someone who is very irresponsible and uses it as a form of birth control because they're too stupid and uncaring not to get pregnant in the first place (by not using condoms or other forms of preventing conception). But that would be a very trashy person and I prefer to believe that such people are exceedingly rare. I hope, anyway. (Actually, they're not that rare otherwise the Maury show would've been cancelled years ago.)

 

[atanu]

Those are valid points in regards to both misogyny (selectively killing female foetus)
And stigma towards women who have sex outside marriage and single mothers. However that's not what mother Teresa was getting at.

Well. I do not know of many other reasons that may lead to abortion. YMMV.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Well. I do not know of many others reasons that may lead to abortion. YMMV.

From that quote it doesn't seem like she cared about the reasons why women have abortions. She felt it promoted violence.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

1. It definitely can be, and often is, for many women and those close to them. But the "greatest", in general? I would not say that. That's hyperbole.

I don't see that. There are women who have had an abortion and go on to have children later on, and are able to love those children.
It doesn't destroy love and peace in a broad sense like mother Teresa was making out that it does.

2. It could, for someone who is very irresponsible and uses it as a form of birth control because they're too stupid and uncaring not to get pregnant in the first place (by not using condoms or other forms of preventing conception). But that would be a very trashy person and I prefer to believe that such people are exceedingly rare. I hope, anyway. (Actually, they're not that rare otherwise the Maury show would've been cancelled years ago.)

How does that promote using any form of violence to get what you want?
Has legal abortion increased the rates of violent crimes or something?

 

[Sleeppy]

Abortion is only a symptom- an effect- of the destruction of love and peace.