-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year. -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Abortion?
- Thread starter Haltickling
- Start date
desdemona
2nd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 2,376
- Points
- 38
I've followed this discussion and I've been pleasantly surprised by not only the tactful way people are responding, but the heartfelt, thought provoking postings. Just wanted to add my thoughts on some of the other points that have arisen in this debate.
First, Jim the term you want is sentient - see below 🙂
Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&nt, 'sen-tE-&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
I like the brain definition of life, too Steve. But there's a funny thing about nerves (as we're all well aware!). What about the perception of pain? At what stage do we acknowledge that there are pain receptors present? The brain has none - ask anyone who's been "awake" during a brain operation. There are other nerves for pressure and temperature. But when do nocioceptors develop in the fetus? Anyone know?
Hal - from a medical standpoint - the termination of a life (if that's what we're calling a fetus for simplicity sake) is a difficult thing no matter what the reason. I have to know and feel that my ending an animal's life is relieving its suffering before I will offer or consider offering euthanasia to an owner. I can't help but wonder what it's like for an MD who performs abortions. If there are medical reasons why the pregnancy endangers the mother's life, I think most doctors can stand by the choice of saving the individual who is their patient. As for me, I have the right to refuse euthanasia on a healthy animal. I don't know where the medical community stands on refusing to perform an abortion on an unwanted fetus - or if this is even an option for doctors.
Population control/selective breeding - topics near and dear to my heart. Of course, from an animal standpoint, population control often falls to the domesticators - us. I'm disgusted by how many animals' lives are waisted by careless/reckless actions of others. As far as breeding, well, before we start chopping away at the humane gene pool, let's just look at some of the monsters we've created. By our wonderful selection methods, we have dogs and cats who can't breathe, walk, see...you get the picture. We have more congenital problems due to our inbreeding techniques than I'd care to mention. So before we start the discussion as to which baby is deemed "unhealthy" - maybe we should take a look in the mirror first. Now don't get me wrong - I actually inseminate quite a few of these critters and then I'm the one who has to perform a C-section when they can't give birth naturally. But we have a haphazard way of deciding what qualities we want in a breed, let alone examining our own genome.
As for me, I've never had to face the world of pregnancy. A decade ago, a pregnancy would have significantly altered my career plans. I confess I've faced taking a pregnancy test and to my relief, didn't have the rabbit die...Now, I choose not to become a mother. Some condemn the idea, others don't understand, and some accept it. A pregnancy wouldn't necessarily endanger my life - but it would have some unhealthy repercussions for the fetus (btw Big Jim's scientific assessment of a fetus as a parasite is biologically correct - but I like to think a desired pregnancy would be a symbiotic relationship - with the mother benefitting from the positive emotions associated with carrying a child of love). I'm exposed to radiation and anesthesia. So a pregnancy would definitely curtail my clinical and surgical experiences - which would have economic ramifications. I have a Toxoplasmosis titer of god-only-knows what value after living with and treating cats for years. I'm exposed to everything from cat scratch disease to rabies on a routine basis. So why would I willingly want to expose a helpless child to these conditions? At any rate, I love my job too much to quit.
First, Jim the term you want is sentient - see below 🙂
Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&nt, 'sen-tE-&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
I like the brain definition of life, too Steve. But there's a funny thing about nerves (as we're all well aware!). What about the perception of pain? At what stage do we acknowledge that there are pain receptors present? The brain has none - ask anyone who's been "awake" during a brain operation. There are other nerves for pressure and temperature. But when do nocioceptors develop in the fetus? Anyone know?
Hal - from a medical standpoint - the termination of a life (if that's what we're calling a fetus for simplicity sake) is a difficult thing no matter what the reason. I have to know and feel that my ending an animal's life is relieving its suffering before I will offer or consider offering euthanasia to an owner. I can't help but wonder what it's like for an MD who performs abortions. If there are medical reasons why the pregnancy endangers the mother's life, I think most doctors can stand by the choice of saving the individual who is their patient. As for me, I have the right to refuse euthanasia on a healthy animal. I don't know where the medical community stands on refusing to perform an abortion on an unwanted fetus - or if this is even an option for doctors.
Population control/selective breeding - topics near and dear to my heart. Of course, from an animal standpoint, population control often falls to the domesticators - us. I'm disgusted by how many animals' lives are waisted by careless/reckless actions of others. As far as breeding, well, before we start chopping away at the humane gene pool, let's just look at some of the monsters we've created. By our wonderful selection methods, we have dogs and cats who can't breathe, walk, see...you get the picture. We have more congenital problems due to our inbreeding techniques than I'd care to mention. So before we start the discussion as to which baby is deemed "unhealthy" - maybe we should take a look in the mirror first. Now don't get me wrong - I actually inseminate quite a few of these critters and then I'm the one who has to perform a C-section when they can't give birth naturally. But we have a haphazard way of deciding what qualities we want in a breed, let alone examining our own genome.
As for me, I've never had to face the world of pregnancy. A decade ago, a pregnancy would have significantly altered my career plans. I confess I've faced taking a pregnancy test and to my relief, didn't have the rabbit die...Now, I choose not to become a mother. Some condemn the idea, others don't understand, and some accept it. A pregnancy wouldn't necessarily endanger my life - but it would have some unhealthy repercussions for the fetus (btw Big Jim's scientific assessment of a fetus as a parasite is biologically correct - but I like to think a desired pregnancy would be a symbiotic relationship - with the mother benefitting from the positive emotions associated with carrying a child of love). I'm exposed to radiation and anesthesia. So a pregnancy would definitely curtail my clinical and surgical experiences - which would have economic ramifications. I have a Toxoplasmosis titer of god-only-knows what value after living with and treating cats for years. I'm exposed to everything from cat scratch disease to rabies on a routine basis. So why would I willingly want to expose a helpless child to these conditions? At any rate, I love my job too much to quit.
TickleCrazy
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 337
- Points
- 0
I can't read this thread -- too upsetting. I'm just going to represent the many who believe that the moment of conception is the start of a new human life. To rob a person of their entire future on earth is a sin against God and a crime against humanity.
BellaRisa
4th Level Blue Feather
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 5,981
- Points
- 38
TickleCrazy said:
Um, which God, the one that drowns everybody when he gets ticked off? Because it wasn't only the sinners that died that horrible slow death, it was just about everyone. Including children and pregnant women. I read that story in my children's bible as a little girl and it still upsets me, way more than this thread. So does the symbol of a man NAILED to a wooden cross with blood everywhere that I had to see every time I was taken to church. Funny, no one questions how traumatizing all of that is on little ones that are already thinking and feeling, but defending them before they even have cognizance or awareness is a huge debate. No disrespect to Christians intended, but I find this aspect fascinating and rarely discussed.
Bella
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
TickleCrazy
First of all, Tickle Crazy, let me thank you that you kept your post civil, although you disagree strongly with the contents.
As Bella mentioned, mankind has changed a lot of behavior patterns and opinions since Biblical times. Not directly related, but certainly applicable in this context:
Galilei invited several Cardinals to look through his telescope when they denied the existence of Jupiter moons. They refused vehemently, and one anecdote quotes one of them: "Don't bother us with facts, we've made up our minds already. It's all in the Bible."
According to the Biblical view, so many well accepted things don't exist: Atom bombs, organ transplants, not even Australia is mentioned in the Bible, and therefore everybody stating anything else is a heretic and must be burned at the stake.
There is always a time when we have to review our opinions. That's often a quite painful process, and never easy. But all of the decribed problem cases have really happened, and the problems with medical risks for the mother (or severe mental risks with rape-sired children) do actually exist. We can close our eyes to these problems and read the Bible instead, but that doesn't solve the problems.
First of all, Tickle Crazy, let me thank you that you kept your post civil, although you disagree strongly with the contents.
As Bella mentioned, mankind has changed a lot of behavior patterns and opinions since Biblical times. Not directly related, but certainly applicable in this context:
Galilei invited several Cardinals to look through his telescope when they denied the existence of Jupiter moons. They refused vehemently, and one anecdote quotes one of them: "Don't bother us with facts, we've made up our minds already. It's all in the Bible."
According to the Biblical view, so many well accepted things don't exist: Atom bombs, organ transplants, not even Australia is mentioned in the Bible, and therefore everybody stating anything else is a heretic and must be burned at the stake.
There is always a time when we have to review our opinions. That's often a quite painful process, and never easy. But all of the decribed problem cases have really happened, and the problems with medical risks for the mother (or severe mental risks with rape-sired children) do actually exist. We can close our eyes to these problems and read the Bible instead, but that doesn't solve the problems.
TickledToDeath
2nd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- May 30, 2001
- Messages
- 7,477
- Points
- 0
TickleCrazy said:
However it is ok? for "God" to wipe out damn near everything in existance because they did not worship him and give up all they have for and to him? (Actually "IT" is more accurate since "God" is without gender and is not "human"therefore if "God" is an "Entity", God is an IT.)
IF you knew that the being inside your body was going to be deformed and or retarted or deaf dumb and blind, are you saying that THAT is right to bring such a being into the world and subject him/her to a life of hell and torment? IF you are saying or thinking that that is "Gods'" will that a child/person be born and live a life that way, then perhaps the Bible should be re-written again and have a New New Testement. Perhaps someone will eventually get it right.
TTD
🙄what a fine example of how we all can voice our own opinions in a constructive and civil manor. This is one of the best discussed threads I have seen here. So many intelligent and thought out responses. Alot of very valid points and observations on both sides of the coin. I guess this is what makes abortion one of the hardest debates around.
Well done group.
Well done group.
Time passes, views change.
I recall being very vocal about this topic when it was discussed a year, or was it two years ago? Can't recall.
Bit of rambling ahead. This is a topic that hurts my heart. Turn left if not interested.
Simply put, I've got a huge problem with things like murderers and child molesters. I think they should be strung up. It's hard for me to explain my stance of pro-life given that fact. I think it's just the difference between adults who make decisions I personally find, well, evil for lack of a better word, and innocent soon to be children. Reckon if I had to explain that to someone, they wouldn't dig it anyway. That being said....
Having given birth to one now healthy child in that dangerous time period where most kids die when born so early, I think I see the viability of a potential life a bit differently than someone who thinks of life beginning after a happy 9 month gestational period. For me, life begins with conception. By the end of the first week, you're aborting more than a "fetus," as it's already determined if it's a baby boy or a baby girl. By week six, you can hear the baby's heartbeat. You know those things called eyes, ears and a mouth? Yup...you'll see those already started out there too by week 6. I'll save the medical mumbo jumbo for you as the next few months are lesson a bit too full to teach. Frankly, I just think that once you introduce a sperm to an egg, you've got life.
I can also speak from the viewpoint of someone who had to terminate a pregnancy because it was in the process of terminating itself. Last year, it was save me or save the baby. The doctors chose to save to viable life that was laying there in front of them. I have to agree that the choice between mother and child should result in the person most likely to live being chosen. That's just my opinion.
Rape? Well, I know the mother of a rape baby. She's 24 and loves her kid. I'm sure there are other results. I won't pretend to make that choice.
Abortion as a form of birth control? WHAT? It's my guess that if you have access to abortion, then you probably, not always, but probably had access to a condom. Or, oh my goodness, abstinence! I know....sick eh? Not having sex? Yeah, but it's a natural process of the human race. Yep, and the resulting pregnancy is too.
When there are folks out here like me who are trying their damn fool heads off to jump backward through hoops of fire to adopt a child, it just hurts me to the bones that somewhere, a potential child for me was just aborted. Just makes me sad is all. Just makes me sad.
Joby, not meaning to offend. Just stating her opinion.
I recall being very vocal about this topic when it was discussed a year, or was it two years ago? Can't recall.
Bit of rambling ahead. This is a topic that hurts my heart. Turn left if not interested.
Simply put, I've got a huge problem with things like murderers and child molesters. I think they should be strung up. It's hard for me to explain my stance of pro-life given that fact. I think it's just the difference between adults who make decisions I personally find, well, evil for lack of a better word, and innocent soon to be children. Reckon if I had to explain that to someone, they wouldn't dig it anyway. That being said....
Having given birth to one now healthy child in that dangerous time period where most kids die when born so early, I think I see the viability of a potential life a bit differently than someone who thinks of life beginning after a happy 9 month gestational period. For me, life begins with conception. By the end of the first week, you're aborting more than a "fetus," as it's already determined if it's a baby boy or a baby girl. By week six, you can hear the baby's heartbeat. You know those things called eyes, ears and a mouth? Yup...you'll see those already started out there too by week 6. I'll save the medical mumbo jumbo for you as the next few months are lesson a bit too full to teach. Frankly, I just think that once you introduce a sperm to an egg, you've got life.
I can also speak from the viewpoint of someone who had to terminate a pregnancy because it was in the process of terminating itself. Last year, it was save me or save the baby. The doctors chose to save to viable life that was laying there in front of them. I have to agree that the choice between mother and child should result in the person most likely to live being chosen. That's just my opinion.
Rape? Well, I know the mother of a rape baby. She's 24 and loves her kid. I'm sure there are other results. I won't pretend to make that choice.
Abortion as a form of birth control? WHAT? It's my guess that if you have access to abortion, then you probably, not always, but probably had access to a condom. Or, oh my goodness, abstinence! I know....sick eh? Not having sex? Yeah, but it's a natural process of the human race. Yep, and the resulting pregnancy is too.
When there are folks out here like me who are trying their damn fool heads off to jump backward through hoops of fire to adopt a child, it just hurts me to the bones that somewhere, a potential child for me was just aborted. Just makes me sad is all. Just makes me sad.
Joby, not meaning to offend. Just stating her opinion.
TickleCrazy
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 337
- Points
- 0
Thank you, JoBelle, for that post.
hmmmm...
well, certainly some extremely thought provoking statements. i have noticed somewhat of a trend: the female post-conceptional members seem to be on a no-go with the aborting of the being. although i could well be wrong, just as a boy who says that he is a 46 year old vixen with huge breasts is also probably mistaken😛
anyway, time to give another 10 cents to the crippled childrens fund box (office space reference people). i fully agree with bella and TTD regarding god. its off the topic and i dislike lengthy and mutually antagonistic theological disputes, but i nevertheless feel comfortable in refuting the existence of the biblicle, koranic and toraic god/s. i am less sure about the hindu god, but nevertheless doubtful. evidence suggests the holy texts were written by men, rather than created from nothing by a creator, and therefore they are open to social and political factors existing in biblical times. abortion was almost unheard of, as were many of the other things which are abundant in this day and age. the old testament containfs "holy rules" for the survival of the tribe and its health. this was indeed viable for that time, but we no longer need many of these rules. the bible was also written from a masculine (dare i say chauvanistic) perspective. it has been conjectured that if men had the babies, abortion would be sacrosanct. i cannot reconcile the concept of a god who would allow a person to live whose every moment was pain, with the idea of an intimate, all-loving god. also, god dets pretty damn pissed at homosexuals, at least in the old testament. does this mena we should kill homosexuals as being against god? i believe the main argument against homosexuality was that it was non-condusive and detrimental to population growth, something a desert tribe or early society would need for continuity and strength. JoBelle, i made it clear that i would only sanction abortion as a last resort to population control, much the same as using the 'nuclear option' is a last resort. in a well-educated world with ample protection, such measures would be unneeded. i disagree with the left-wing stance (unusual for me) that a woman should be able to eject her foetus whenever. however, i see a myriad of areas where abortion is useful, necessary and beneficial. i am also conservative re my opinions on what constitutes adequate grounds for termination in cases of deformity. if the person will suffer agony with every breath, then yes. however this line becomes difficult to place. i fully support quentin's right to life, for example. likewise, if a person rationally and repeatedly wants to die, then he/she should be able to. why keep them alive if it is their will? it depends on the person. one thing i am ultra conservative on: we need to practice safe sex, and spread the info around to developing countries, in the interest of human rights. a child should only be born to those who wish for it, and are able to provide adequate care.😎
well, certainly some extremely thought provoking statements. i have noticed somewhat of a trend: the female post-conceptional members seem to be on a no-go with the aborting of the being. although i could well be wrong, just as a boy who says that he is a 46 year old vixen with huge breasts is also probably mistaken😛
anyway, time to give another 10 cents to the crippled childrens fund box (office space reference people). i fully agree with bella and TTD regarding god. its off the topic and i dislike lengthy and mutually antagonistic theological disputes, but i nevertheless feel comfortable in refuting the existence of the biblicle, koranic and toraic god/s. i am less sure about the hindu god, but nevertheless doubtful. evidence suggests the holy texts were written by men, rather than created from nothing by a creator, and therefore they are open to social and political factors existing in biblical times. abortion was almost unheard of, as were many of the other things which are abundant in this day and age. the old testament containfs "holy rules" for the survival of the tribe and its health. this was indeed viable for that time, but we no longer need many of these rules. the bible was also written from a masculine (dare i say chauvanistic) perspective. it has been conjectured that if men had the babies, abortion would be sacrosanct. i cannot reconcile the concept of a god who would allow a person to live whose every moment was pain, with the idea of an intimate, all-loving god. also, god dets pretty damn pissed at homosexuals, at least in the old testament. does this mena we should kill homosexuals as being against god? i believe the main argument against homosexuality was that it was non-condusive and detrimental to population growth, something a desert tribe or early society would need for continuity and strength. JoBelle, i made it clear that i would only sanction abortion as a last resort to population control, much the same as using the 'nuclear option' is a last resort. in a well-educated world with ample protection, such measures would be unneeded. i disagree with the left-wing stance (unusual for me) that a woman should be able to eject her foetus whenever. however, i see a myriad of areas where abortion is useful, necessary and beneficial. i am also conservative re my opinions on what constitutes adequate grounds for termination in cases of deformity. if the person will suffer agony with every breath, then yes. however this line becomes difficult to place. i fully support quentin's right to life, for example. likewise, if a person rationally and repeatedly wants to die, then he/she should be able to. why keep them alive if it is their will? it depends on the person. one thing i am ultra conservative on: we need to practice safe sex, and spread the info around to developing countries, in the interest of human rights. a child should only be born to those who wish for it, and are able to provide adequate care.😎
BellaRisa
4th Level Blue Feather
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 5,981
- Points
- 38
Afterlife for the unborn?
Bella again,
I have a question for those against abortion. What do you folks speculate happens to the soul,(or essence, or whatever you call it) of a child that isn't born into this world?
I'm asking because I figured out why I'm not saddened by abortions despite being a proud mama. Death doesn't sadden me, except for missing the deceased IF I already knew them. Without being very religious, I have a strong belief in the soul, and that it can't be destroyed or wasted, if you will. Hence, the baby unborn to one person will be born to another eventually, either in this world or another. So perhaps a child not birthed by the resentful single crackhead teen mother here will instead have two loving parents and a flying pony in another life. I *know* that's optimistic and a tad farfetched, but that's what my heart and my instincts tell me.
On a less ethereal level, I guess that as much as I love living I'm realistic about it's trials. I know that many are upset that an aborted baby will never see the sun, taste ice cream, etc. But he'll never break his toe or have his heart broken either. We could be losing the next Ben Franklin, or the next Boston Strangler. And to be blunt, the child of that crackhead mama I mentioned earlier is FAR more likely to fit the strangler category than that of good 'ol Ben 🙁
Just my thoughts,
Bella
Bella again,
I have a question for those against abortion. What do you folks speculate happens to the soul,(or essence, or whatever you call it) of a child that isn't born into this world?
I'm asking because I figured out why I'm not saddened by abortions despite being a proud mama. Death doesn't sadden me, except for missing the deceased IF I already knew them. Without being very religious, I have a strong belief in the soul, and that it can't be destroyed or wasted, if you will. Hence, the baby unborn to one person will be born to another eventually, either in this world or another. So perhaps a child not birthed by the resentful single crackhead teen mother here will instead have two loving parents and a flying pony in another life. I *know* that's optimistic and a tad farfetched, but that's what my heart and my instincts tell me.
On a less ethereal level, I guess that as much as I love living I'm realistic about it's trials. I know that many are upset that an aborted baby will never see the sun, taste ice cream, etc. But he'll never break his toe or have his heart broken either. We could be losing the next Ben Franklin, or the next Boston Strangler. And to be blunt, the child of that crackhead mama I mentioned earlier is FAR more likely to fit the strangler category than that of good 'ol Ben 🙁
Just my thoughts,
Bella
JoBelle said:
Joby,
I can relate to alot of this but not all. I have had 3 miscarriages and many fertility treatments before the adoption of my 2 beautiful children. I had different views before all this, before seeing my 1st growing baby inside me, yes I saw the heartbeat and little form at around 6 weeks. I know how you feel. I still feel that you can't make a decision for all those woman out there but I do wish they would take a look at all those human beings out there wanting to have a little bundle to love. Bringing a child to term and placing them for adoption is one of the most loving acts a woman can do. And just remember if you want to chat I am always here for you Joby. My Yahoo IM is jpie1, AOL is jpienygal. You are free to IM me anytime.
Judy
TickledToDeath
2nd Level Violet Feather
- Joined
- May 30, 2001
- Messages
- 7,477
- Points
- 0
JoBelle said:
Every case scenario should be treated individually. There should not be a "blanket" rule or solution. However, say an adult, had a heart beat, eyes,ears and mouth yet has no significant brain function at all. Machines are keeping this person alive, just as the natural biological machine the human body is in carrying a human being to term, if either machine is shut down, both cease to exist. You cannot shut down the human machine like you can the mechanical but would you not want to see that person, brain dead for all intents and purposes, be laid to rest? That child within is not self sufficient on any level for if taken from the womb at week six, that fetus ceases to exist in minutes if not less. That is why there is a "cut off" period, that which is with in the first tri-mester. The second tri-mester is the gray area, that which to play it safe, was left out of the dead line period. However it is in THAT gray area where it is , for the most part, evident how this child will turn out(deformed,retarted or otherwise disabled or limited). Hard to make a viable decision as to how one will handle a birth of a human being that will forever be in some form of torment or major disability be it physical or psychological or both. What gives a 'group' the right to dictate to the 'one' that she or they should be forced to bring a being forever subject to "pain" and sentence that person to a life (or lack thereof) such as that? The decision has to always lie with that ONE person. The female whos' body is the vessel of said life. Period. That is my opinion. May not be anyone elses' but hey, that is their right as an individual. Reverse the scenario, what if it was made a LAW or was proposed to be a LAW that a woman HAD to have an abortion under....certain..."X" circumstances? I am sure the pro-lifers would go balistic and the same war, so to speak, will play out. As far as abortion being used as Birth Control, well that is just plain crazy! Lazy,irresponsible,idiotic, etc etc etc. pick and adjective.... . I agree totally with how you feel about that, Jobelle.
Bottom line is, abortion cannot and should not be outlawed. Women will find a place to have it done no matter, law or no law and then there will be more lives at risk out of desperation and fear. The decision has to be left with the individual woman.
TTD
🙄 Ps I had to put in the little ranty emoticon! It cracks me up! lol😀
desdemona said:
Oh definately! But I didn't mean to come across as some emotionless monster. In that particular post I was attempting to be purely, objectively scientific. I agree with your definition of the desired pregnancy 100%. I especially like the word symbiotic. 🙂 A cool, scientific way of saying "mutual love".
TickleCrazy said:
Only if you're a religious person. There's millions of atheists and agnostics in this argument. Odd thing though; if I was an aetheist, I'd be fanatically against abortion. It would seem horrible to totally end a being's chances of existence that way. Fortunately I'm not and even more fortunately, I'm not a Christian either.
I don't believe anything in mankind's power has the capability of destroying an immortal soul. I also believe that sould need more than one lifetime in this physical dimension to get as close to God/Allah/Spirit/the Force as they can. I think every lifetime is a learning experience, even the sadly short ones. That's why I don't believe that aborion can be defined as........
TickleCrazy said:
From my point of view an incredibly high-karmic (i.e. "holy") soul would volunteer for a life that was desined to be cut short (by whatever means, be it abortion, stillbirth or infant illness) in order to give the parents an experience that is necessary for their spiritual development. I've often heard it said that growth most frequently comes out of tragedy. People who deal with personally catastrophic events in a way that allows them to move forwards with nothing tieing them back, are nearly always strengthened immeasureably by the fires they've been through.
Re: Afterlife for the unborn?
Wonderful sentiments Bella, and right in line with my own! 🙂 I don't think you have to be religious to be spiritual, especially in a discussion like this. I think the two are almost mutually exclusive. I find no religion totally free, because they all have some, specific dogma to defend. Personal spirituality means you pay fealty to no-one but your personal conception of God.
My personal views incorporate multiple lives as part of the spiritual learning process and because of that, I think we have to sometimes know tragedy to be able to know joy. Maybe that's just my sub-conscious way of trying to rationalise all the misery in the world, but I'd like to think I wasn't as shallow in my beliefs as some think I am. I don't look on abortion as a total loss, because it cannot destroy tghe soul of the potential child and gives everyone involved a chance to learn. I think that's markedly different from killing a sentient😀 human being though, because it's able to feel fear, pain etc. An embryo isn't physically developed enough to feel the same way. (Not on the physical level at least.)
The only thing I'd disagree on is your high opinion of Ben Franklin.....🙄
bella said:
Wonderful sentiments Bella, and right in line with my own! 🙂 I don't think you have to be religious to be spiritual, especially in a discussion like this. I think the two are almost mutually exclusive. I find no religion totally free, because they all have some, specific dogma to defend. Personal spirituality means you pay fealty to no-one but your personal conception of God.
My personal views incorporate multiple lives as part of the spiritual learning process and because of that, I think we have to sometimes know tragedy to be able to know joy. Maybe that's just my sub-conscious way of trying to rationalise all the misery in the world, but I'd like to think I wasn't as shallow in my beliefs as some think I am. I don't look on abortion as a total loss, because it cannot destroy tghe soul of the potential child and gives everyone involved a chance to learn. I think that's markedly different from killing a sentient😀 human being though, because it's able to feel fear, pain etc. An embryo isn't physically developed enough to feel the same way. (Not on the physical level at least.)
The only thing I'd disagree on is your high opinion of Ben Franklin.....🙄
Your stance isn't in the least unusual Joby. 🙂 Most people hold opposite views on the live vs. death debates. I think being pro-choice and anti-death penalty myself, is damn rare. Seems strange that I should believe murderers can live while innocent embryos get terminated? Difficult to explain. Someone would have to read all my long, tedious posts to understand why.JoBelle said:
Quite possibly. In my opinion, definately. That wasn't the argument though. A blade of grass is "life". A tape-worm is "life". But what constitutes a sentient life-form that is capable of even primitive emotion (such as a foetus) and what constitutes a non-sentient lifeform that is not able to physically feel fear, pain etc? (Such as, in my opinion, an embryo.) Is it immoral to prevent a ball of cells that has no physical emotion or sensation (You notice I always distinguish between the physical and the spiritual levels of emotion?) from developing into a foetus that is plainly, a small human beginning it's life?JoBelle said:
Difficult one that. I personally think that if you're physically capable of the re-productive act, you should damn well educate yourself on the responsibilities that go with it. That goes for anything you choose to do. You want to buy a gun? Then you buy a rock-solid cabinet for it and learn how to use it safely at an instructional range. You want to drive a car? You learn properly and find out what drunken assholes have done to innocent families behind the wheel.
My sympathies luv, I really feel for you.JoBelle said:
But what about this? A mother is statistically very likely to die if she tries to carry to term, but there is nothing wrong with the baby. It's as likely to live as any infant can be. The mother is only 19 or 20 say and if she terminated and underwent surgery the following year, could likely raise a family of 2,3 or 4 children. This may sound a simple question, but I've heard any people give answers from both sides.
Bless her. She must be an incredibly centred and strong person. If she's able to do that, then may the Force be with her. 🙂 Some (most in my not exactly veteran, but still substantial experience) can't.JoBelle said:
99% down to not being bothered. People like that make me bloody furious. But as I said earlier, what happens if even 2 paralell methods of contraception fail at the same time? The condom bursts at exactly the same time as the pill is nullified by antibiotics, D&V or whatever? Should the woman be morally allowed to terminate then? I think that's up to her personally. It's not something that anyone but herself can judge. (And in the end, we are ALL our own harshest judges.)JoBelle said:
And a very welcome one it was.🙂 It was a pleasure reading and digesting them Jo.JoBelle said:
I tend to think of "God" as a sentinent energy than an "it". After all, without the body that's all we are. A human body is just a genetic suit we need to wear if we are to experience this level of being.TickledToDeath said:
Personally I think people with some STAGGERING disabilities can overcome them and lead a reasonably fulfilling life. I also believe that some people have specific spiritual lessons that can only be taught through hardship. For that reason, I disapprove of abortion on the basis of disability, unless the disability robs the child of 99% of sensory input. Then perhaps it might be a kindness.TickledToDeath said:IF you knew that the being inside your body was going to be deformed and or retarted or deaf dumb and blind, are you saying that THAT is right to bring such a being into the world and subject him/her to a life of hell and torment? .
TTD
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
if jim can come back, i can too
just to clear up a couple points. studies have shown that the infant, while in the uterus, does feel pain, and emotions.
i have to disagree with ttd's stance. women have unchecked access to abortion now, no one can impede them. look at the results! the whole sale slaughter of literally millions annually! sorry, but i think some safe guards have to be put in place. at the very least, the father of the un-born child should have a say.
i too believe in reincarnation. i don't believe in the theory that god is a kind all loving, all knowing father. so big jim, and bella since you believe in the reincarnation of the babys soul ,why not believe in the reincarnation of the soul of a criminal who has been sentanced to death?!?! if this mortal coil is just a stopping point on the journy of a soul, why can't you look at it the same way for foul fiendish murderers, as you do for inocent babies?
and lastly to all, why was it nessecary to jump on the religious beliefs of another member? this thread was going so well, then some of you just had to go, and show your smug superiority (or your mistaken belief that you are).
steve
just to clear up a couple points. studies have shown that the infant, while in the uterus, does feel pain, and emotions.
i have to disagree with ttd's stance. women have unchecked access to abortion now, no one can impede them. look at the results! the whole sale slaughter of literally millions annually! sorry, but i think some safe guards have to be put in place. at the very least, the father of the un-born child should have a say.
i too believe in reincarnation. i don't believe in the theory that god is a kind all loving, all knowing father. so big jim, and bella since you believe in the reincarnation of the babys soul ,why not believe in the reincarnation of the soul of a criminal who has been sentanced to death?!?! if this mortal coil is just a stopping point on the journy of a soul, why can't you look at it the same way for foul fiendish murderers, as you do for inocent babies?
and lastly to all, why was it nessecary to jump on the religious beliefs of another member? this thread was going so well, then some of you just had to go, and show your smug superiority (or your mistaken belief that you are).
steve
Re: if jim can come back, i can too
You say that as if you expect me to disagree Steve? I don't.
The death penalty argument has bugger all to do with that line of reasoning Steve. If we're going to approach that one from a spiritual angle, I'd say that a criminal has a serious amount of shit to work out of his soul. One way or another he will have to face it and society will have to cope with him facing it. We're talking about possible consequences for baby and mother here, which is on a different line of thought to whether a criminal should face himself and the consequences of his actions for say 40 years, or get the electric-chair. (Or in the case of some criminals you feel passionately about executing, the electric high-chair. Still it'll be much easier to that, than wait till they're grown up and strong. I hear the latest tactic in Texas is just to switch off the music and the kids all rush to sit down.)
TickleCrazy came across to me (and possibly, only me) as if he was applying his religious beliefs to the whole board, instead of just what he uses to govern his own life. I'm not actually that far off his opinion. I'm certainly closer to him than I am to the lefties who use terminations because they can't be bothered to use a jimmy-hat.
But a particular dogma shouldn't have a say in the laws that govern other people's morality. I brought up for instance, that America has loads of atheists and agnostics (neither of which the daddy of the current pupp......err I mean President, has any time for) who's arguments for and against terminations would be governed by different principles. Telling those people that they can't have a termination "Because it's an offence in the sight of God" just don't wash, because they're happy to be spirit-less and remain that way.
If those people are going to be debated with, you've got to use the same scientific styled arguments you and me were having earlier in this thread. (Well we were'nt arguing per' se, we were agreeing with each other.
areenactor said:
You say that as if you expect me to disagree Steve? I don't.
areenactor said:
The death penalty argument has bugger all to do with that line of reasoning Steve. If we're going to approach that one from a spiritual angle, I'd say that a criminal has a serious amount of shit to work out of his soul. One way or another he will have to face it and society will have to cope with him facing it. We're talking about possible consequences for baby and mother here, which is on a different line of thought to whether a criminal should face himself and the consequences of his actions for say 40 years, or get the electric-chair. (Or in the case of some criminals you feel passionately about executing, the electric high-chair. Still it'll be much easier to that, than wait till they're grown up and strong. I hear the latest tactic in Texas is just to switch off the music and the kids all rush to sit down.)
I'm assuming I'm the only one you mean here, because I don't think Bella made any comment about religion.areenactor said:
TickleCrazy came across to me (and possibly, only me) as if he was applying his religious beliefs to the whole board, instead of just what he uses to govern his own life. I'm not actually that far off his opinion. I'm certainly closer to him than I am to the lefties who use terminations because they can't be bothered to use a jimmy-hat.
But a particular dogma shouldn't have a say in the laws that govern other people's morality. I brought up for instance, that America has loads of atheists and agnostics (neither of which the daddy of the current pupp......err I mean President, has any time for) who's arguments for and against terminations would be governed by different principles. Telling those people that they can't have a termination "Because it's an offence in the sight of God" just don't wash, because they're happy to be spirit-less and remain that way.
If those people are going to be debated with, you've got to use the same scientific styled arguments you and me were having earlier in this thread. (Well we were'nt arguing per' se, we were agreeing with each other.
Had an afterthougth Steve. You know what you mentioned about elieving in re-incarnation? Is thatsomething that developed ovwer the years, or did you always think that? I'm quite interested in discussing that. PM me if you like mate.
Re: Re: if jim can come back, i can too
I can't name the sources at the moment Cokecan, but Steve is definately right. Once neural activity is present in an un-born foetus, physical sensation is obviously present. I can't remember the source about emotion, but that is true too. (Even if it's not as developed as a grown human.) Sorry I can't be more specific.
Cokecan said:
I can't name the sources at the moment Cokecan, but Steve is definately right. Once neural activity is present in an un-born foetus, physical sensation is obviously present. I can't remember the source about emotion, but that is true too. (Even if it's not as developed as a grown human.) Sorry I can't be more specific.
