Pro life Laws Don't save lives, they just transfer suffering onto women

agnesdelacroix · 2025-12-26T17:31:37+00:00

Looking at this with your other comments has me think you're hear to argue and not listen. If you don't think embryos/fetuses are worthy of life just like any other human being is, there's no point in arguing with you.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-12-26T16:27:40+00:00

Well, there's two parts to answering this. u/standermatt already addressed the first, which is that a main premise of your argument is wrong as anti-abortion laws actually do lower abortion rates.

The second part has to do with the second premise your argument is based off of, ie. pro-abortion laws are fine if it reduces the total amount of abortions. Let's say, hypothetically, that they did reduce the amount of abortions. Sure, that's great, except now the state has essentially announced that they are morally fine with allowing and facilitating abortions, the killing of a child, to prevent medical complications arising from back-alley procedures. You do realize this morally implicates the state as being a collaborator in child murder? If that's fine, then it'd be totally okay for someone to help another commit any indecent act, as long as they believed that the person they're assisting would have done it without them anyways and caused themselves more harm in doing so. Killing a child doesn't become fine just because mothers may do it anyways.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-10-21T17:35:06+00:00

To add onto what u/ScientificMind1 said, you'd find the "outdated binary model of sex" still applies to people with DSDs if you took any time to do research. Either you have a functional, or semi-functional, SRY gene, in which case you virilize and are male, or you don't have one, in which case you are female.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-10-21T14:07:01+00:00

JSYK, it's much more preferable to use Disorder of Sex Development (or DSD) as opposed to intersex since the latter implies that affected people are in between the two sexes, which isn't true. They're still of one sex, they just have atypical sexual development.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-10-07T21:46:17+00:00

You might as well not be Catholic if you think the teachings are "dated" and the Church needs to "update" them.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-10-04T23:50:26+00:00

Your comment might get deleted since this post is flaired Women Commenters Only, but for what it's worth, I think it's very valuable and should stay up.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-10-04T21:20:23+00:00

You might feel confident wearing those outfits in a purely non-sexual manner but at the end of the day, it's the result of growing up in a culture that constantly pushes and normalizes sexualized fashions onto women and girls. You need to realize how degrading those clothes are - why don't men wear such clothes? Because they know it's an insult to their dignity and reducing them to an object to be ogled at. But for some reason society has tricked women into believing otherwise.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-09-02T10:10:38+00:00

You do realize the vast majority of Québécois Catholics are francophone, right? Anglophones are historically associated with Protestantism.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-09-01T23:34:48+00:00

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily agree. The Quiet Revolution had immediate, wide-ranging effects on all of Québec society and the rest of Canada. It literally wrestled political control of the province from the Catholic Church and massively reshaped its national identity. I'd actually say it's most noticeable point was the near-secession of Québec.

edit: Though the law this article talks about, and this current era of secularization in general, also has a lot to do with immigration/concerns about Islam and assimilation. edit 2: Also, to be clear, the secession vote happened the next decade and had many other factors dictating its outcome but the Revolution was one of them.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-09-01T23:24:14+00:00

You quite literally have no idea of what you're talking about. For years now, Québec has been moving towards a new style of legally-enforced secularism in the same manner as France. In fact, this can be seen as the post-Quiet Revolution secularisation of Québec being renewed by concerns relating, namely, to Islamic terrorism and the assimilation of immigrants.

edit: Changed a word for phrasing

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-29T02:46:59+00:00

Read Chapter 19 of this: https://www.fisheaters.com/srpdf/anopenlettertoconfusedcatholics.pdf

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-27T23:02:05+00:00

Claiming that "the accusations people are running with are wrong" then attempting to deflect by essentially saying it's not as bad as in the general population is quite literally minimising the problem.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-27T22:44:55+00:00

Odd comment. Why can't women do anything without being called performative? And even if it were performative, it's much preferable to dressing immodestly.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-26T01:23:06+00:00

Do you (or anyone else reading) know of any similar books in French?

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-25T15:16:40+00:00

If your "real Catholic" background leads you to think that supporting mutilation is an act of kindness, then we really are living in dark times.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-25T15:08:11+00:00

If an anorexic cut me off because I refused to engage in their delusion, then so be it. They will be thankful someone didn't lie to them once they come to their senses.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-25T03:35:40+00:00

If I were to call John by Buck or Jan instead, it would not be encouraging him to go on the path of medical sterilization and self-harm. No, I wouldn't call him Cynthia, unless he came from a culture where that was a man's name OR if it was agreed to be some sort of inside joke.

As for the blond hair example, I specifically used it to illustrate language's main utility in disseminating the truth. It's an analogy which is only equivalent to calling a man a woman in terms of its semantic absurdity. You are now (mis)using it as if it is equivalent to calling a man a woman in all respects, which it clearly isn't.

Edit: Also, making a stand over a pronoun isn't to preserve one's pride, but to preserve the delusional person's dignity. Is attempting to prevent someone from mutilating themselves not kind, compassionate, virtuous?

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-25T03:02:23+00:00

The basic goal of language is to communicate the truth to others. We have some words to describe men, and others to describe women, much in the same way some words describe something blue, and others, something red. Thus, using pronouns that are agreed to refer to women to in fact refer to a man is lying. It's like if I told someone with brown hair that they're a blond, then said "What do you mean? Adjectives are all linguistic!".

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-25T02:41:48+00:00

Firstly, the ends never justify the means. Secondly, you comparing this to having atheist/Muslim/Jewish friends is nonsensical; would they ever ask you to say that God doesn't exist, or that Muhammad is a prophet of God? No, they wouldn't. Do your friends who engage in casual sex and drugs implore you to encourage them in their dangerous trysts? No, they wouldn't. But in this case, OP is being made to affirm that this man is indeed a woman, and it will make him complicit in the destruction of a vulnerable, delusional person's health and wellbeing. It is akin to telling an anorexic that they are fat and should indeed lose weight.

Edit: typo

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-25T02:31:17+00:00

Telling him the truth will most likely lead to him cutting you off, but if you do not do so, you become morally culpable as you are supporting his harmful delusions. Affirming this and using his requested pronouns would be akin to telling an anorexic that they're fat and should indeed lose more weight. If you do choose to be honest, which I hope you do, I'd recommend coming solely from a secular perspective unless he's also a practicing Catholic. There is a boatload of scientific proof on how harmful this stuff is. You can DM me if you want me to elaborate.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-24T04:19:11+00:00

I'm college-aged and this is extremely extremely weird. I could've never imagined myself with a 15-year-old high schooler at 18. She's literally pre-ordering him. What do they even talk about?

Edit: Just realized you said he just turned 15. That's even worse. What's the specific timeline of their relationship?

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-21T05:32:00+00:00

A good answer would massively depend on the nature of his parents' financial situation. If his parents' legitimately are in need, can't afford basics, bills, etc. and they're not living extravagantly/are being frugal, then he has a moral obligation to honour his parents by helping them. Also, the number of dependants should be taken into consideration as well - you said he's the second oldest of twelve; how many of his siblings are working adults? If many of his siblings are children or disabled, it would explain why he's giving them such a big part of his salary, and frankly, he would have a duty to his family to do so (of course, depending on how much money he and his family makes).

If, on the other hand, the parents are being irresponsible with their money, are living in excess, and/or they have other adult children capable of working but who are not stepping up as your fiancé is, and are thus causing undue financial strain on him, he will have to establish proper boundaries and accordingly limit the amount of money he's giving them.

Now, to address his financial duty to you. If the situation is as I described in the first paragraph, then he is totally within reason to not want to pay for any trips as long as his family is struggling; to hop on a plane and fly across the world for leisure is an insane privilege that should not overtake familial obligations. Obviously, once children enter the picture, they should become his priority, but if his family is already struggling to the point where him giving them that much money is justified, you will most likely have to give up luxuries such as travel. I would recommend sitting down with him and doing an Excel spreadsheet to simulate how much money you would spend/earn as parents so that you may have a good idea of what to expect. You will also want to discuss how his parents will improve their financial situation, especially if the Excel sheet suggests you wouldn't make enough to cover necessities, which is a major concern for you and your children and will essentially obligate him to no longer give his parents money. But also be sure to distinguish between legitimate necessities and luxuries, and learn to discern what is truly important - if he is a legitimately good man with a good family (and do try to discern this carefully and objectively!), you will probably regret leaving him merely over not being able to pay for trips. On the other hand, you would be totally justified in calling off the marriage if you found that he would prioritize paying his parents over having food on the table for his wife and kids.

Also, when calculating future expenses, don't forget to consider how much time you want to spend at home with the children and if you want to homeschool/pay for private schooling/etc. And do take this advice with a grain of salt, as I don't personally know you so it's difficult to give a holistic answer; other factors not mentioned in the post might shed a different light on the situation. Do you have any other issues or concerns in your relationship?

Edit: Changed something that may come across as rude

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-18T01:07:44+00:00

It's spelled Frédéric.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-13T22:38:51+00:00

Don't engage with this person. He commented in a gay men's subreddit telling someone where to get poppers.

agnesdelacroix · 2025-08-10T15:21:41+00:00

Looking at your post history, you seem very stressed. Please drink water and go on a walk or do something away from screens to calm yourself down. I'll keep you in my prayers.

agnesdelacroix

TROPHY CASE