---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :
I take the "eastern" view that until the child takes their first breathe they
are nothing but an growth on the woman. There's really no soul there because
no "shakti" which is the basis of consciousness has not entered the vessel.
Wow, interesting theory. I wonder how they figured that one out. Can you see
Shakti making a dive into the baby's body at some point? Is the intake of
breath the signal for shakti to leap into the body? It certainly is a
convenient theory for the pro choicers (which I am) - that lump growing inside
of a woman is just so much cellular clumping.
The thing about the religious dummies is they want to stop abortion but are
unwilling to adopt kids from mothers who can't take care of them. They are a
bunch of stupid hypocrites. And just wait until one of their daughters gets
raped by a felon to see how fast she gets shuffled off to have an abortion
I would have to agree with you for the most part here. Many people, until they
are in a particular situation, will say one thing as it is only so much theory
but when they are in a "situation" they will often abandon their theoretical
high horses and leap for the very thing they pay lip service to.
On 09/19/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@...
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
Actually, I believe I was giving a non religious explanation against
abortion. The very founding documents, our nation are built upon, recognizes
our unalienable(can not be denied) rights to *Life* liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. You can't have liberty or happiness without Life. These rights are
attributed to an All Mighty Creator because if such a thing existed, who is
anyone to deny them? The very same person that wrote those words also wrote
about the concept of a separation of Church and state. So, they are separate
issues. The basic human rights recognized by the government are not religion
based.
From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" mailto:olliesedwuz@...[FairfieldLife]
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
This whole abortion "debate" seems like such a set up. Why proclaim that due
to religious principles, abortion is murder, or that gay marriage is sin, and
then live in the USA? I am not suggesting such believers should leave, though
it seems like an awful lot of heartache to go through, to insist on a religious
truth so strenuously, that to have the opposite practiced by some, becomes a
constant thorn in the believer's side. Who wants to live like that? It seems
like a set up, designed to cause the believers additional pain, and have them
become co-dependent on such ideas, and the organizations that publicize them.
Life is tough enough, imo.
And the issue is NOT that the Christians cannot live by their beliefs. No one
is insisting *they* get abortions or participate in gay marriage. However, they
and the radical pastors that preach to them have determined that both of these
issues are somehow unholy, and their very practice is an abomination against
God. This in no way begins to validate the freedom of each of us to live our
lives as we see fit. Religious barriers, no matter how well intentioned, are
better practiced personally, vs. imposed on anyone else. I also see a lot more
commonality between the fundamentalists of any religion, be they Christians or
Muslims, than any side is willing to admit.
I do agree that there is a natural law in back of all of this, which we are
all personally held to, and responsible for. However, each of us has to make
that judgment of ourselves independently. No one can do this for us, or impose
it on us, no matter how convinced of their truths they may be.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
<mdixon.6569@...> mailto:mdixon.6569@... wrote :
We hold these truths to be self evident... certain unalienable Rights,among
these are LIFE! Unalienable is defined as, *can not be denied*. Without the
most fundamental right of life, no other rights matter. When does life begin?
Theologically, that is open to discussion. Biologically, it begins when
Conjoined DNA begins to divide. It is the very beginning of life, it's
self.That DNA is not the mother's, it's not the father's, it is the unique DNA
of separate human being with all of it's potential from beginning to end. It
has a right that can not be denied. Socially and theologically speaking, that
unalienable right to life is considered sacred as long as it is innocent.
Violate specific laws of society and that sacred value can be forfeited by the
law breaker, it's his conscious decision. But never was it intended to to be
denied on a basis of someone else's circumstances/ convenience. Do we really
want to go down that road? Hitler did, as did many other tyrants and they have
been traditionally labeled as EVIL, even Anti-Christ. I speak in biological
terms of life because we value our society in secular terms and spiritual
values are not considered valid anymore because certain people don't want
other's religions imposed upon them..
From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
To me, black and white thinking takes on the cloak of "casual, indifferent,
etc.", or "blasé," if you will. The remark "Oh shit! I missed my period! I'm
really *f"ed* now!" seemed off the cuff and appeared to indicate a prejudiced
and surficial understanding of the issue...."blasé."
Curiously, Mike, do you believe in the soul? Do you believe in the eternal
soul? Do you believe that the soul dies along with a potential life that was
aborted by the mother, a potential life that could not survive independently at
6 weeks and that even nature aborts naturally at times (called miscarriages).
Do you believe that it could be possible that if there is a soul, that the soul
may "live" to incarnate in a different host/mother? Just food for thought.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
<mdixon.6569@...> mailto:mdixon.6569@... wrote :
I draw the line with *murder* as one human willfully killing another innocent
human. There's manslaughter, accidents etc.Then there is killing for food.I can
admire one who observes ahimsa as going above and beyond the call of duty as a
penance.
From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
<mdixon.6569@...> mailto:mdixon.6569@... wrote :
"My blase attitudes", did I get that right? How can anything be more blase
than to sweep away and destroy an innocent human life because you're not ready
to be responsible for*it* yet? It's freaking murder! A women's right to murder?
The Supreme Court will wake up one day, just as they did when they ruled one
human can not own another or that Slaves were not 3/5ths of a human being,
because "all men are created equal" under the law. That took two hundred years
to get right , but it happened. Science is moving the understanding of life
forward very fast. If the science of DNA can put a person in prison for life
for a crime, it will save a life that is innocent of a crime. It's not her body
that she kills. FYI, all person's involved in the creation of another, need to
be equally responsible for that life. Yes, that presents new social problems
but the first rule is do no harm to innocent life.
I love your passion, Mike. I am of the belief that all lives are created
equal. When I say that I mean ALL lives. Human or animal. Blasphemous? Perhaps.
Maybe. Likely. To kill any thing is a kind of murder. Killing a fetus is
destroying life. Butchering a terrified, bleating cow is destroying a life.
Euthanizing an old and decrepit dog is destroying a life. Is life sacred?
Probably. What is sacred? Anything that is created. Is allowing something to
live sometimes opening the way for suffering? Yes. Is destroying a life
sometimes decreasing the chances of suffering? Yes. Is it better to overdose a
dangerous horse with phenyl barbital so it doesn't kill somebody merciful? Is
aborting an unwanted baby the right thing to do? Is there ever the
justification for causing death of a living being? It all gets so complicated.
Is the death penalty ever warranted? Are unwanted, unloved, abused children
happy to have been given the chance to live despite the fact they may have been
conceived by rape? I can't answer this but what I do know is that human beings
are given hundreds of chances to make choices every moment of every day and the
freedom to make those choices must remain intact.
From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
There is another issue I'd like to comment on about ignorant men thinking they
know all about pregnancy and childbirth and raising children on their own with
no support—particularly the ones that think they should judge, condemn, and
legislate women's rights. Yes, Mike, it's the girl "who missed her period"
that's at fault, right? Not the boy or man with the raging hormones who
pressured her and pressured her and pressured her to give in to his desires and
then left the scene.....give me a break.
I'm not saying you shouldn't stand by your religious convictions, but maybe
you ought to dig a little deeper into your "blasé" attitudes.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
<mdixon.6569@...> mailto:mdixon.6569@... wrote :
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are end
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
