Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

P.S.  Do you first judge the woman for having the abortion and then judge her 
for not raising her child right?  For being poor, uneducated?  For going on 
welfare?  For needing help from a society that marginalizes her?  For not 
getting it?  Do you sponsor a single mother yourself? You aren't coming across 
as demonstrating a shred of understanding on this issue from a realistic 
standpoint.   
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 As I said, I agree with what Karen Armstrong writes.   When the founding 
*fathers* wrote what they did, they were not thinking of this issue 

 "Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the 
misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of 
inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable 
rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it 
opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a 
creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain 
sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For 
example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they 
did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, 
were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were."
 

 (Taken from this...you sound Christian Mike, so I include this and this link 
for you.  Has some interesting points.)  
 

 ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
 
 http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html
 
 ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDE... http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD 1991 Taskforce of United Methodists on 
Abortion and Sexuality, Inc. Published by and available from: ...


 
 View on www.lifewatch.org http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
  RE: ".birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for 
life, I can't afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc)"
 

 This speaks to your assumptions and prejudice regarding an issue that is more 
often than not, deeply personal for a woman.  You demonstrate a closed mind 
when you assume you know what women are thinking.  How many interviews have you 
done?  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Your position that to abort is a personal one and should not be legislated. My 
position is that you don't have the right to take another person's life. It is 
a founding principal of our government and has been recognized from *IT's* very 
inception. Life is considered an *unalienable* right. Unalienable means *it can 
not be denied*. In other words, your right to privacy ends with your body and 
you can  not deny another person's greater right of life, unless it threatens 
yours. Life trumps privacy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done as 
birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for life, I can't 
afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc) not to protect the mother's 
life from complications that could lead to possible death.

 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   Was this the answer to my question?  I appreciate that you've articulated 
your position here.  I believe that the decision to abort is a personal one and 
one that should not be legislated. It isn't a casual decision and don't assume 
that the law which allows it turns it into one.  You have a position—does your 
position lead to positions on policies and social structure that are consistent 
with this position? How do you define compassion?  I agree with the position 
stated below.  
 

 "Nearly every abortion represents a human tragedy. This is something that the 
shrill rhetoric of the Christian right tends to ignore. Perhaps, when facing 
the possibility of terminating a pregnancy, we should return to the ancient 
insight that while it is an inexorable law of life that our survival often 
depends upon the death and suffering of others, there is something terrible 
about this, and that we must force ourselves to look clearly at what we are 
doing. 
 Thus, while it may be religiously impossible to sanction abortion undertaken 
for trivial reasons - for mere social or professional convenience - it may be 
tragically necessary to sacrifice a potential life to nurture the life we have 
already. This is also a sacred requirement. The foetus may have to die for the 
sake of its mother's physical or psychological health, for the economic 
survival of the family, or to prevent a marital breakdown that would damage its 
siblings. And that is why the woman has to make this painful choice, as only 
she can evaluate her circumstances. But we should never lose our sense of the 
awful gravity of the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hinneh, movie freaks: 9/11, 9/23, and stuff!

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Forgot: movie stuff starts at about 00:14:50 ...

[FairfieldLife] Hinneh, movie freaks: 9/11, 9/23, and stuff!

[he...@hotmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

CERN, 666, Shiva Nataraaja, 9/11, 9/23 (yom kippur 2015), etc:

"ALERT" Shocking - September 2015 best video/doco: Maybe the Biggest month in 
world history https://youtu.be/vbl6_g_HTnI 
 
 https://youtu.be/vbl6_g_HTnI 
 
 "ALERT" Shocking - September 2015 best video... https://youtu.be/vbl6_g_HTnI 
"Wake Up" September 2015 This could be the biggest month in world history. It 
is almost upon us, this Doco will give you AWESOME insight to what is h...
 
 
 
 View on youtu.be https://youtu.be/vbl6_g_HTnI 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I don't know of any Christian church that will accept abortion as OK or 
advisable unless the mother's life is endangered. I'm sure there are some that 
may not talk about it for fear of seeming judgmental or driving away those that 
won't listen. Warning someone of the consequences of sin is not being 
judgmental, it's practical advice. I am willing to say the same goes for any 
other religion. A  devout Hindu or  devout Buddhist may say nothing but I can 
almost guarantee that they shrug their shoulders and think, "it's their karma, 
not mine". Their are people in every faith that don't practice it or only 
mildly. Christ called them luke warm and said he would spew them out in the 
end.  He demands people that are on fire for Him. Maharishi wanted people that 
were *one pointed* , on the program. If you aren't, he didn't waist time with 
you. All or nothing. I guess thats OK as long as you aren't told that Killing 
infidels via Jihad is the best guaranteed method to heaven. 
 From: "olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
   
    Yes, every religion can be shown to have its hypocrisy, but this insistence 
that abortions cannot be performed according to the choice of the woman who is 
pregnant, is only prevalent in radical Christianity, and radical Islam. Not all 
Christian sects are against abortion, and not all Muslim countries forbid it. 
But those at the mercy of the radical preachers of both religions, are pawns, 
imo. To them I would say, You simply don't have the right, or the authority, to 
control my life. Go get perfect, first, and then we'll talk, but no butting in 
line.:-) The more moderate sects of both Christianity and Islam understand 
this. It is only the radical elements of both of these religions who insist on 
this complete invasion of personal choice.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

*Innocent Life,* the unborn don't fly jets into buildings or commit any other 
criminal or hostile act. Killing in Self- defense is justifiable. I believe I 
mentioned earlier that Abortion is acceptable when the mother's life is 
threatened.If you are concerned about hypocrisy, Christians aren't alone. 
Everybody can be labeled Hypocrites one way or another. Can you name one 
religious/spiritual group that doesn't have *qualifications* as to who receives 
salvation or liberation. etc?And each believes theirs is superior to 
others.Look no further than TM! Everyone has their limitations and 
understanding of religion and spirituality. If you have followed Maharishi's 
teachings you will know that we are born into our lives based on our karma, 
which dictates the circumstances of our lives and how and what values we grow 
up with to experience life. If you were born into a  Judeo-Christian culture, 
those are the values you are meant to experience life from. In India, from that 
perspective. A Muslim, that perspective and so on. That is your dharma and how 
you grow. This is why Maharishi used to say, one doesn't need to change 
religions to practice TM successfully. Add TM to whatever you are and you'll be 
better. Everyone has a different understanding based on their ability to 
understand. We all start from somewhere. The question is, where do we finish 
up? Follow your dharma for maximum growth. Gita says, it's better to die within 
your dharma, even if done poorly than to die in someone else's dharma, even if 
well done. If you were born a Jew , then be one but practice TM. If you were 
born a Christian, then be one but practice TM. If you were born a Muslim, a 
Hindu... etc. but practice TM. BTW, if you think you can convert to be a Hindu, 
you can't. Speak to any Vedic priest,. he'll tell you pretty much what I just 
said. And if you insist, dude, just imagine starting at the bottom of the 
barrel, as an untouchable, so you learn the full scope of what it is to be a 
real Hindu! LOL. No thanks!

  From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 It is cherry-picking, led by the radical Christian pastors. If the sanctity of 
human life is so important, where are the anti-war demonstrations by the 
Christians? Those aren't fetuses we are bombing, and invading, they are fully 
grown human beings, men, women and yes, children, but not a peep from the 
anti-abortion crowd about their maiming and slaughter. 
I think it is because of the hypocrisy of their position - I once heard a 
Christian pastor say that a dog could not get into Heaven, unless it was a 
Christian dog (no kidding). The same justification is used for killing Muslims. 
What I would like to see is all of the Christians taking responsibility for the 
tragic loss of life that occurs due to 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I guess it depends on your definition of *judge*. Do I recognize poor 
choices?Is it  from poor up bringing or low intelligence.-or is it something 
else. Does that person learn from their mistakes or do they keep repeating the 
same mistake over and over. Do they ever figure out that they are making 
mistakes and , poor choices. Do they feel any responsibility for their choices? 
Do they even care? Do they feel entitled to make mistakes without consequences? 
Some people learn things the easy way, others the hard way.  How much empathy, 
compassion and understanding is expected of me? For how long and to what 
degree? Are they taking advantage of my good will? If it's their nature to 
learn things the hard way, is my help actually retarding their learning 
process? Some people are real victims of circumstances through no fault of 
their own. They didn't make poor choices  but shit happened. Maybe their 
husband died or just left them or became totally disabled. Aren't  they more 
deserving of my empathy and compassion than someone that never grew up? When I 
was younger, out of wedlock births were relatively low. Today, I think it is  
over or at least close to half. Something is dreadfully wrong. When it comes to 
the woman that has the abortion, I am fully aware that she is probably confused 
and frightened of her future  and doesn't know what to do and ends up taking 
the remedy with the quickest results. I feel terribly sorry for her because  I 
don't think she really and fully understands what she has just done. Yes, 
she'll always remember it and the anguish. But she was talked into it and told 
it was the best thing to do. This is what the Beast does. What is the Beast, 
it's the system!

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:19 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
   
    P.S.  Do you first judge the woman for having the abortion and then judge 
her for not raising her child right?  For being poor, uneducated?  For going on 
welfare?  For needing help from a society that marginalizes her?  For not 
getting it?  Do you sponsor a single mother yourself? You aren't coming across 
as demonstrating a shred of understanding on this issue from a realistic 
standpoint.  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

As I said, I agree with what Karen Armstrong writes.   When the founding 
*fathers* wrote what they did, they were not thinking of this issue
"Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the 
misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of 
inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable 
rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it 
opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a 
creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain 
sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For 
example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they 
did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, 
were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were."
(Taken from this...you sound Christian Mike, so I include this and this link 
for you.  Has some interesting points.)  
ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD
|  |
|  | |  | ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDE... ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY 
UNDERSTOOD 1991 Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality, Inc. 
Published by and available from: ... |  |
| View on www.lifewatch.org|   Preview by Yahoo  |
|  |

    RE: ".birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for 
life, I can't afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc)"
This speaks to your assumptions and prejudice regarding an issue that is more 
often than not, deeply personal for a woman.  You demonstrate a closed mind 
when you assume you know what women are thinking.  How many interviews have you 
done?  

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

Your position that to abort is a personal one and should not be legislated. My 
position is that you don't have the right to take another person's life. It is 
a founding principal of our government and has been recognized from *IT's* very 
inception. Life is considered an *unalienable* right. Unalienable means *it can 
not be denied*. In other words, your right to privacy ends with your body and 
you can  not deny another person's greater right of life, unless it threatens 
yours. Life trumps privacy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done as 
birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for life, I can't 
afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc) not to protect the mother's 
life from complications that could lead to possible death.

  From: "emily.mae50@... 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

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. 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


On 09/19/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [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:* "olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* 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,  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]" 
*To:* 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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Your position that to abort is a personal one and should not be legislated. My 
position is that you don't have the right to take another person's life. It is 
a founding principal of our government and has been recognized from *IT's* very 
inception. Life is considered an *unalienable* right. Unalienable means *it can 
not be denied*. In other words, your right to privacy ends with your body and 
you can  not deny another person's greater right of life, unless it threatens 
yours. Life trumps privacy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done as 
birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for life, I can't 
afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc) not to protect the mother's 
life from complications that could lead to possible death.

  From: "emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
   
    Was this the answer to my question?  I appreciate that you've articulated 
your position here.  I believe that the decision to abort is a personal one and 
one that should not be legislated. It isn't a casual decision and don't assume 
that the law which allows it turns it into one.  You have a position—does your 
position lead to positions on policies and social structure that are consistent 
with this position? How do you define compassion?  I agree with the position 
stated below.  
"Nearly every abortion represents a human tragedy. This is something that the 
shrill rhetoric of the Christian right tends to ignore. Perhaps, when facing 
the possibility of terminating a pregnancy, we should return to the ancient 
insight that while it is an inexorable law of life that our survival often 
depends upon the death and suffering of others, there is something terrible 
about this, and that we must force ourselves to look clearly at what we are 
doing. Thus, while it may be religiously impossible to sanction abortion 
undertaken for trivial reasons - for mere social or professional convenience - 
it may be tragically necessary to sacrifice a potential life to nurture the 
life we have already. This is also a sacred requirement. The foetus may have to 
die for the sake of its mother's physical or psychological health, for the 
economic survival of the family, or to prevent a marital breakdown that would 
damage its siblings. And that is why the woman has to make this painful choice, 
as only she can evaluate her circumstances. But we should never lose our sense 
of the awful gravity of the procedure, because - as in ancient religion - 
therein lies our sense of life's sacred value." ~Karen Armstrong

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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]" 
 To: 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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

As Judy said earlier, don't force your religion on me! No, I appreciate your 
views but the reason I gave below is non religious. The founding fathers 
recognized Life as an Unalienable, fundamental right. Most views on abortion 
were formed before there was much common understanding about DNA. The fetus was 
described to the public as a *lump* of tissue, devoid of individuality, almost 
like a cancer. It was depersonalized to make it easier to *get rid of* even the 
term *fetus* has that affect, so as not to leave any emotional scars for the 
aborting mother. But science has projected the understanding of the life of the 
fetus as a unique human being, complete within it's self with more 
understanding of DNA. Maharishi used to speak of holding a great banyan tree in 
the palm of your hand. Just pick up a tiny seed. All of it's greatness and 
potential lies within. Every person has personal weakness's, that' s why we 
have laws.
 From: "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 2:07 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
   
 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.   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
 
 On 09/19/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [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: "olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: 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,  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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

It is cherry-picking, led by the radical Christian pastors. If the sanctity of 
human life is so important, where are the anti-war demonstrations by the 
Christians? Those aren't fetuses we are bombing, and invading, they are fully 
grown human beings, men, women and yes, children, but not a peep from the 
anti-abortion crowd about their maiming and slaughter. 
 

 I think it is because of the hypocrisy of their position - I once heard a 
Christian pastor say that a dog could not get into Heaven, unless it was a 
Christian dog (no kidding). The same justification is used for killing Muslims. 
What I would like to see is all of the Christians taking responsibility for the 
tragic loss of life that occurs due to our government's actions, including war. 
 

 This picking on the poor souls that undergo abortions is bullying and 
hypocrisy, imo. It is a radical religious view held by those who wish to 
continue the co-dependent relationship they have with their flocks. These 
preachers are a lot like the politicians, framing the (conveniently 
insurmountable) "problems" and "issues" that their congregations face, ensuring 
their followers will feel both bereft, and beholden to the churches. What a 
scam.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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]" 
 To: 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,  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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

These blank posts are intervals for silence and deep breathing

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Sun 20-Sep-15 00:15:05 UTC

[FFL PostCount ffl.postco...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 09/19/15 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 09/26/15 00:00:00
37 messages as of (UTC) 09/19/15 23:26:58

 11 emily.mae50
  9 Mike Dixon mdixon.6569
  5 awoelflebater
  3 jr_esq
  2 olliesedwuz
  2 emptybill
  2 dhamiltony2k5
  2 Bhairitu noozguru
  1 Doug Hamilton dhamiltony2k5
Posters: 9
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Debate from Hell'

[ultrarishi]

Republican Playbook page 34:  In debate talk about hot button issues that will 
never change but always rally support.  This includes, but not limited to 
abortion, flag burning, gay rights, prayer in school, secured borders, etc.

Avoid really issues like domestic jobs (as oppose to jobs for domestics), 
favorable trade, reducing green house foot print, outlawing lobbying, ending 
domestic surveillance, alternative energy, foreign wars, science, etc.

Nothing to see here, keep moving.

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Being that I am a computer programmer I note how newborns are like robots 
taking things in as a way of self-programming.  So the truth may be stranger 
than fiction or religion. ;-) 
 

 I rather think robots are more like humans than babies are like robots.
 
 On 09/19/2015 12:28 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... mailto:mdixon.6569@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   As Judy said earlier, don't force your religion on me! No, I appreciate your 
views but the reason I gave below is non religious. The founding fathers 
recognized Life as an Unalienable, fundamental right. Most views on abortion 
were formed before there was much common understanding about DNA. The fetus was 
described to the public as a *lump* of tissue, devoid of individuality, almost 
like a cancer. It was depersonalized to make it easier to *get rid of* even the 
term *fetus* has that affect, so as not to leave any emotional scars for the 
aborting mother. But science has projected the understanding of the life of the 
fetus as a unique human being, complete within it's self with more 
understanding of DNA. Maharishi used to speak of holding a great banyan tree in 
the palm of your hand. Just pick up a tiny seed. All of it's greatness and 
potential lies within. Every person has personal weakness's, that' s why we 
have laws.

 From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... mailto:noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 2:07 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   
 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.   
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
 
 On 09/19/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mailto:mdixon.6569@...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: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'
 
 
   Thiswhole 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.
 

 Andthe 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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]]

Being that I am a computer programmer I note how newborns are like 
robots taking things in as a way of self-programming.  So the truth may 
be stranger than fiction or religion. ;-)


On 09/19/2015 12:28 PM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
wrote:
As Judy said earlier, don't force your religion on me! No, I 
appreciate your views but the reason I gave below is non religious. 
The founding fathers recognized Life as an Unalienable, fundamental 
right. Most views on abortion were formed before there was much common 
understanding about DNA. The fetus was described to the public as a 
*lump* of tissue, devoid of individuality, almost like a cancer. It 
was depersonalized to make it easier to *get rid of* even the term 
*fetus* has that affect, so as not to leave any emotional scars for 
the aborting mother. But science has projected the understanding of 
the life of the fetus as a unique human being, complete within it's 
self with more understanding of DNA. Maharishi used to speak of 
holding a great banyan tree in the palm of your hand. Just pick up a 
tiny seed. All of it's greatness and potential lies within. Every 
person has personal weakness's, that' s why we have laws.


*From:* "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]" 


*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Saturday, September 19, 2015 2:07 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

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.   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


On 09/19/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 
 [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:* "olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
 
 
*To:* 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 
,  
 wrote :


We hold these 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I take the "eastern" view that until the child takes their first breathe they 
are nothing but an growth on the woman.

"Oh yeah ... It ain't nothing but fleshy tissue. It can't breath so it ain't 
human." 

That's about as "Eastern" as Washington, New York and Boston.

You obviously have never seen Garbha-Upanishad.
Oh, but I forget ... reading is for "intellectuals with no experience".





Garbha Upanishad - Translation http://www.vedarahasya.net/garbha.htm 
 
 Garbha Upanishad - Translation http://www.vedarahasya.net/garbha.htm The human 
body is constituted of five things (the five forces of earth, sky, air, water 
and fire) and is of six shelters (like the physical, ethereal and so on). 
 
 
 
 View on www.vedarahasya.net http://www.vedarahasya.net/garbha.htm 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

As I said, I agree with what Karen Armstrong writes.   When the founding 
*fathers* wrote what they did, they were not thinking of this issue 

 "Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the 
misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of 
inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable 
rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it 
opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a 
creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain 
sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For 
example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they 
did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, 
were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were."
 

 (Taken from this...you sound Christian Mike, so I include this and this link 
for you.  Has some interesting points.)  
 

 ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
 
 http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
 
 ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDE... http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD 1991 Taskforce of United Methodists on 
Abortion and Sexuality, Inc. Published by and available from: ...
 
 
 
 View on www.lifewatch.org http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  
  RE: ".birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for 
life, I can't afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc)"
 

 This speaks to your assumptions and prejudice regarding an issue that is more 
often than not, deeply personal for a woman.  You demonstrate a closed mind 
when you assume you know what women are thinking.  How many interviews have you 
done?  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Your position that to abort is a personal one and should not be legislated. My 
position is that you don't have the right to take another person's life. It is 
a founding principal of our government and has been recognized from *IT's* very 
inception. Life is considered an *unalienable* right. Unalienable means *it can 
not be denied*. In other words, your right to privacy ends with your body and 
you can  not deny another person's greater right of life, unless it threatens 
yours. Life trumps privacy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done as 
birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for life, I can't 
afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc) not to protect the mother's 
life from complications that could lead to possible death.

 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   Was this the answer to my question?  I appreciate that you've articulated 
your position here.  I believe that the decision to abort is a personal one and 
one that should not be legislated. It isn't a casual decision and don't assume 
that the law which allows it turns it into one.  You have a position—does your 
position lead to positions on policies and social structure that are consistent 
with this position? How do you define compassion?  I agree with the position 
stated below.  
 

 "Nearly every abortion represents a human tragedy. This is something that the 
shrill rhetoric of the Christian right tends to ignore. Perhaps, when facing 
the possibility of terminating a pregnancy, we should return to the ancient 
insight that while it is an inexorable law of life that our survival often 
depends upon the death and suffering of others, there is something terrible 
about this, and that we must force ourselves to look clearly at what we are 
doing. 
 Thus, while it may be religiously impossible to sanction abortion undertaken 
for trivial reasons - for mere social or professional convenience - it may be 
tragically necessary to sacrifice a potential life to nurture the life we have 
already. This is also a sacred requirement. The foetus may have to die for the 
sake of its mother's physical or psychological health, for the economic 
survival of the family, or to prevent a marital breakdown that would damage its 
siblings. And that is why the woman has to make this painful choice, as only 
she can evaluate her circumstances. But we should never lose our sense of the 
awful gravity of the procedure, because - as in ancient religion - therein lies 
our sense of life's sacred value." ~Karen Armstrong
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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] 
 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, 
 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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

*Innocent Life,* the unborn don't fly jets into buildings or commit any other 
criminal or hostile act. Killing in Self- defense is justifiable. I believe I 
mentioned earlier that Abortion is acceptable when the mother's life is 
threatened.If you are concerned about hypocrisy, Christians aren't alone. 
Everybody can be labeled Hypocrites one way or another. Can you name one 
religious/spiritual group that doesn't have *qualifications* as to who receives 
salvation or liberation. etc?And each believes theirs is superior to 
others.Look no further than TM! Everyone has their limitations and 
understanding of religion and spirituality. If you have followed Maharishi's 
teachings you will know that we are born into our lives based on our karma, 
which dictates the circumstances of our lives and how and what values we grow 
up with to experience life. If you were born into a  Judeo-Christian culture, 
those are the values you are meant to experience life from. In India, from that 
perspective. A Muslim, that perspective and so on. That is your dharma and how 
you grow. This is why Maharishi used to say, one doesn't need to change 
religions to practice TM successfully. Add TM to whatever you are and you'll be 
better. Everyone has a different understanding based on their ability to 
understand. We all start from somewhere. The question is, where do we finish 
up? Follow your dharma for maximum growth. Gita says, it's better to die within 
your dharma, even if done poorly than to die in someone else's dharma, even if 
well done. If you were born a Jew , then be one but practice TM. If you were 
born a Christian, then be one but practice TM. If you were born a Muslim, a 
Hindu... etc. but practice TM. BTW, if you think you can convert to be a Hindu, 
you can't. Speak to any Vedic priest,. he'll tell you pretty much what I just 
said. And if you insist, dude, just imagine starting at the bottom of the 
barrel, as an untouchable, so you learn the full scope of what it is to be a 
real Hindu! LOL. No thanks!

  From: "olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
   
    It is cherry-picking, led by the radical Christian pastors. If the sanctity 
of human life is so important, where are the anti-war demonstrations by the 
Christians? Those aren't fetuses we are bombing, and invading, they are fully 
grown human beings, men, women and yes, children, but not a peep from the 
anti-abortion crowd about their maiming and slaughter. 
I think it is because of the hypocrisy of their position - I once heard a 
Christian pastor say that a dog could not get into Heaven, unless it was a 
Christian dog (no kidding). The same justification is used for killing Muslims. 
What I would like to see is all of the Christians taking responsibility for the 
tragic loss of life that occurs due to our government's actions, including war. 
This picking on the poor souls that undergo abortions is bullying and 
hypocrisy, imo. It is a radical religious view held by those who wish to 
continue the co-dependent relationship they have with their flocks. These 
preachers are a lot like the politicians, framing the (conveniently 
insurmountable) "problems" and "issues" that their congregations face, ensuring 
their followers will feel both bereft, and beholden to the churches. What a 
scam.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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]" 
 To: 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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 As I said, I agree with what Karen Armstrong writes.   When the founding 
*fathers* wrote what they did, they were not thinking of this issue 

 "Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the 
misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of 
inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable 
rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it 
opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a 
creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain 
sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For 
example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they 
did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, 
were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were."
 

 (Taken from this...you sound Christian Mike, so I include this and this link 
for you.  Has some interesting points.)  
 

 ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
 
 http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html
 
 ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDE... http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html 
ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD 1991 Taskforce of United Methodists on 
Abortion and Sexuality, Inc. Published by and available from: ...


 
 View on www.lifewatch.org http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
  RE: ".birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for 
life, I can't afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc)"
 

 This speaks to your assumptions and prejudice regarding an issue that is more 
often than not, deeply personal for a woman.  You demonstrate a closed mind 
when you assume you know what women are thinking.  How many interviews have you 
done?  
 

 That Karen Armstrong quote was phenomenal, I meant to post that to you a few 
hours ago when I read it. Thanks for including it - I think women have a handle 
on this issue that perhaps men will never quite be privy to.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Your position that to abort is a personal one and should not be legislated. My 
position is that you don't have the right to take another person's life. It is 
a founding principal of our government and has been recognized from *IT's* very 
inception. Life is considered an *unalienable* right. Unalienable means *it can 
not be denied*. In other words, your right to privacy ends with your body and 
you can  not deny another person's greater right of life, unless it threatens 
yours. Life trumps privacy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done as 
birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for life, I can't 
afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc) not to protect the mother's 
life from complications that could lead to possible death.

 

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   Was this the answer to my question?  I appreciate that you've articulated 
your position here.  I believe that the decision to abort is a personal one and 
one that should not be legislated. It isn't a casual decision and don't assume 
that the law which allows it turns it into one.  You have a position—does your 
position lead to positions on policies and social structure that are consistent 
with this position? How do you define compassion?  I agree with the position 
stated below.  
 

 "Nearly every abortion represents a human tragedy. This is something that the 
shrill rhetoric of the Christian right tends to ignore. Perhaps, when facing 
the possibility of terminating a pregnancy, we should return to the ancient 
insight that while it is an inexorable law of life that our survival often 
depends upon the death and suffering of others, there is something terrible 
about this, and that we must force ourselves to look clearly at what we are 
doing. 
 Thus, while it may be religiously impossible to sanction abortion undertaken 
for trivial reasons - for mere social or professional convenience - it may be 
tragically necessary to sacrifice a potential life to nurture the life we have 
already. This is also a sacred requirement. The foetus may have to die for the 
sake of its mother's physical or psychological health, for the economic 
survival of the family, or to prevent a marital breakdown that would damage its 
siblings. And that is why the woman has to make this painful choice, as only 
she can evaluate her circumstances. But we should never lose our sense of the 
awful gravity of the procedure, because - as in ancient religion - therein lies 
our sense of life's sacred value." ~Karen Armstrong
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Yes, every religion can be shown to have its hypocrisy, but this insistence 
that abortions cannot be performed according to the choice of the woman who is 
pregnant, is only prevalent in radical Christianity, and radical Islam. Not all 
Christian sects are against abortion, and not all Muslim countries forbid it. 
But those at the mercy of the radical preachers of both religions, are pawns, 
imo. To them I would say, You simply don't have the right, or the authority, to 
control my life. Go get perfect, first, and then we'll talk, but no butting in 
line.:-) The more moderate sects of both Christianity and Islam understand 
this. It is only the radical elements of both of these religions who insist on 
this complete invasion of personal choice. 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 *Innocent Life,* the unborn don't fly jets into buildings or commit any other 
criminal or hostile act. Killing in Self- defense is justifiable. I believe I 
mentioned earlier that Abortion is acceptable when the mother's life is 
threatened.If you are concerned about hypocrisy, Christians aren't alone. 
Everybody can be labeled Hypocrites one way or another. Can you name one 
religious/spiritual group that doesn't have *qualifications* as to who receives 
salvation or liberation. etc?And each believes theirs is superior to 
others.Look no further than TM! Everyone has their limitations and 
understanding of religion and spirituality. If you have followed Maharishi's 
teachings you will know that we are born into our lives based on our karma, 
which dictates the circumstances of our lives and how and what values we grow 
up with to experience life. If you were born into a  Judeo-Christian culture, 
those are the values you are meant to experience life from. In India, from that 
perspective. A Muslim, that perspective and so on. That is your dharma and how 
you grow. This is why Maharishi used to say, one doesn't need to change 
religions to practice TM successfully. Add TM to whatever you are and you'll be 
better. Everyone has a different understanding based on their ability to 
understand. We all start from somewhere. The question is, where do we finish 
up? Follow your dharma for maximum growth. Gita says, it's better to die within 
your dharma, even if done poorly than to die in someone else's dharma, even if 
well done. If you were born a Jew , then be one but practice TM. If you were 
born a Christian, then be one but practice TM. If you were born a Muslim, a 
Hindu... etc. but practice TM. BTW, if you think you can convert to be a Hindu, 
you can't. Speak to any Vedic priest,. he'll tell you pretty much what I just 
said. And if you insist, dude, just imagine starting at the bottom of the 
barrel, as an untouchable, so you learn the full scope of what it is to be a 
real Hindu! LOL. No thanks!

 

 From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   
 It is cherry-picking, led by the radical Christian pastors. If the sanctity of 
human life is so important, where are the anti-war demonstrations by the 
Christians? Those aren't fetuses we are bombing, and invading, they are fully 
grown human beings, men, women and yes, children, but not a peep from the 
anti-abortion crowd about their maiming and slaughter. 
 

 I think it is because of the hypocrisy of their position - I once heard a 
Christian pastor say that a dog could not get into Heaven, unless it was a 
Christian dog (no kidding). The same justification is used for killing Muslims. 
What I would like to see is all of the Christians taking responsibility for the 
tragic loss of life that occurs due to our government's actions, including war. 
 

 This picking on the poor souls that undergo abortions is bullying and 
hypocrisy, imo. It is a radical religious view held by those who wish to 
continue the co-dependent relationship they have with their flocks. These 
preachers are a lot like the politicians, framing the (conveniently 
insurmountable) "problems" and "issues" that their congregations face, ensuring 
their followers will feel both bereft, and beholden to the churches. What a 
scam.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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.

 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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: "olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: 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,  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]" 
 To: 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,  wrote :

I draw the line with *murder* as one human willfully  killing another innocent 
human. There's manslaughter, accidents etc.Then there is 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Here is the transcript of what he said.  It is not out of the realm of 
possibility that he was thinking simultaneously of the two topics in that one 
sentence precedes/follows another.  The word "punishment" could just have 
easily been construed as "consequence"...as in "I don't want them to suffer the 
consequence of a baby or an STD at the age of 16."  

 "When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is 
education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education 
and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not 
something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, 
you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two 
daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all 
about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished 
with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, 
so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
 

 Consider expanding your definition of "health/life" of the mother
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Right, I got the context right. He was talking about  contraception at that 
point. And my point earlier is, that Abortion is used primarily as a means of 
birth control, not to protect the health/life of the mother. The latter is used 
primarily to justify the former. The idea of *punishment* corroborates that. 
Almost no one would deny a woman an abortion if her life were threatened by the 
pregnancy.

 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   Get it right, Mike.  Context, context, context.  You've isolated one 
sentence from an interview about HIV/AIDS - which is where his mind was when he 
made that statement, if you look at the interview.  

 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

  We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that 
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among 
these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*- That to secure these 
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from 
the consent of the governed.
 Your right to *privacy* will not stand against another person's right to 
Life much longer, religion or no religion. You will need to abolish the 
first amendment that grants freedom of political speech and freedom of religion 
first. Everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of abortions in this 
country are simply birth control, "Oh shit! I missed my period! I'm really 
*f"ed* now!" It's rarely about health or life of the mother. Fifty-three 
million abortions can not account for that. "
 "Why would I want my daughter to be *punished* with a child?" Obama's words, 
not mine. This is the mind set of *Me first* and to hell with what's right. It 
is the purest of evil and it will not stand.

 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:21 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   

 

 

 Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal in this country. To jeopardize 
the health of poor women because of your religious convictions is untenable.
 

 

 

 


 













 
  


 


 











 
  

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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,  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]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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]" 
 To: 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,  wrote :

  We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that 
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among 
these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*- That to secure these 
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from 
the consent of the governed.
 Your right to *privacy* will not stand against another person's right to 
Life much longer, religion or no religion. You will need to abolish the 
first amendment that grants freedom of political 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Own a house in San Francisco for just $350K

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Living Small in Fairfield, Iowa 

 Behind the Scenes (Smaller, Simpler Living Episode) | 
http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243 
 
 http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243 
 
 Behind the Scenes (Smaller, Simpler Living Episode) | 
http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243 The best part of this job is the friends 
we make along the way and the learning that takes place on a daily basis……… 
 
 
 
 View on www.borganic.net http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  


 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The property it's on is probably assessed at $350K.  Build a small house on it 
and the price would soar over $1M.
 
 On 09/18/2015 11:32 AM, j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 
mailto:j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

   If Samantha Stevens tinka-tinka-teed that house to Fairfield, it probably 
wouldn't even fetch $35,000.

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote :
 
 Here it is:
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3239257/In-America-s-expensive-city-350K-buys-San-Francisco.html
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3239257/In-America-s-expensive-city-350K-buys-San-Francisco.html
 
 BTW, yesterday I heard about a listing for a 32,000 sq ft castle in 
 France on 200 acres of land that you can rent for what it costs to rent 
 a 400 sq ft studio apartment in San Francisco.


 
 

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Founder's Day Celebration Friday, Sept. 18, 8 pm, Men's Dome

[Doug Hamilton dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

| 
|  |
| Please join us for our annualFounder's Day CelebrationFriday, September 18th
8:00 pm
Maharishi Patanjali Golden DomeWe warmly invite everyone to join us to 
celebrate His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Founder of Maharishi 
University of Management. The evening will include:   
   - Live address by Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam
   - Videotape of Maharishi
   - Talk by Raja John Hagelin 
   - In-person recitation by Maharishi Vedic Pandits 
   - Dr. Bevan Morris, Master of Ceremonies
Please bring your current program badge or MUM ID. Meditators without badges 
please contact the Invincible America Department, 472-1212 or 
iad...@mum.edu.jai Guru Dev |

 |





   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Own a house in San Francisco for just $350K

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Living Small in Fairfield, Iowa 

 Behind the Scenes (Smaller, Simpler Living Episode) | 
http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243 
 
 http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243
 
 Behind the Scenes (Smaller, Simpler Living Episode) | 
http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243 The best part of this job is the friends 
we make along the way and the learning that takes place on a daily basis………


 
 View on www.borganic.net http://www.borganic.net/blog/?p=3243
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  


 This is a great little house and property. Everything is carefully thought out 
and designed with a loving, intelligent eye for function and detail.  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 The property it's on is probably assessed at $350K.  Build a small house on it 
and the price would soar over $1M.
 
 On 09/18/2015 11:32 AM, j_alexander_stanley@... mailto:j_alexander_stanley@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   If Samantha Stevens tinka-tinka-teed that house to Fairfield, it probably 
wouldn't even fetch $35,000.

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 Here it is:
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3239257/In-America-s-expensive-city-350K-buys-San-Francisco.html
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3239257/In-America-s-expensive-city-350K-buys-San-Francisco.html
 
 BTW, yesterday I heard about a listing for a 32,000 sq ft castle in 
 France on 200 acres of land that you can rent for what it costs to rent 
 a 400 sq ft studio apartment in San Francisco.


 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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..

 

 See, it comes down to what feels right to every individual - in the end. Laws 
can be made and laws can be rescinded. Laws may be followed or they may be 
broken. In the end, everyone has to do what feels right for them, in their 
particular circumstance. There is killing and there is choice and that includes 
having to punish those who the law feels transgressed too many boundaries and 
all the while it is human beings who are deciding these things. The right, the 
freedom to be able to decide is the most fundamental for me. Whenever we decide 
something we effect others. That decision could involve abortion, what to eat 
for dinner (do we have tofu or do we have cow?) or how long our ailing cat 
should remain alive. 
 

 You feel that life has a right to exist the moment an egg and a sperm come 
into contact. Others believe it is at 4 months. Still others believe if a life 
is still encased in their womb they have the right to determine, at any time, 
whether it should be born. Who is right? Does it depend upon individual 
circumstance? (Not according to you.) Right vs wrong. Absolute vs relative. The 
challenge of determining these things will continue as long as humankind has a 
brain to reason with and a heart to feel.
 From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: 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,  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]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: 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,  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]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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: 

[FairfieldLife] In Leadership: A meditation on 'influence'.

[dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Leadership by influence of Kinetic hard power, v adept and agile 
..understanding the environment.
 
 
 “We were surprised at how little was understood about the people who inhabited 
this conflict area. 
 
 
 What was the status of the tribal culture that had endured so much conflict 
and been criminalized ..?
 
 
 We wondered why .. the local population who stood to gain the most would not 
provide support to us. 
 
 
 Our lack of understanding meant we interpreted such behaviour as irrational. 
Had we understood more, we would have known it was entirely rational. 
 
 
 Influence, the art of subtle persuasion, would form the backbone of our 
effort. .. They made choices just like the rest of us but how could we 
influence those choices?” 
 
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-ff9a9c01-faa4-4038-b4e9-83e619460e1f 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-ff9a9c01-faa4-4038-b4e9-83e619460e1f
 
 
 
 

 Detail and context aside it seems a lot of similarity in this to the ongoing 
relationship of the TMorg administration with the meditating community.  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 It is cherry-picking, led by the radical Christian pastors. If the sanctity of 
human life is so important, where are the anti-war demonstrations by the 
Christians? Those aren't fetuses we are bombing, and invading, they are fully 
grown human beings, men, women and yes, children, but not a peep from the 
anti-abortion crowd about their maiming and slaughter. 
 

 I had virtually the same thought. Let's hear about the fate and treatment of 
the grown up babies (adults and children) who are being maimed and slaughtered 
as we speak.  
 

 On another note: There is not a person among us who has not been protected, 
nurtured and loved at some point in our small lives. We received protection and 
nourishment in the womb (we managed to make it into the birth canal or, at 
least, were delivered by C section) and we continue to need all three now. But 
when a baby is miscarried, has nature somehow become aberrational or unnatural? 
When a fetus is malformed in the womb or is attacked by a virus that causes a 
"natural" abortion is this somehow more justified than a person choosing to do 
the same thing (kill its unborn child)?
 

 I think it is because of the hypocrisy of their position - I once heard a 
Christian pastor say that a dog could not get into Heaven, unless it was a 
Christian dog (no kidding). The same justification is used for killing Muslims. 
What I would like to see is all of the Christians taking responsibility for the 
tragic loss of life that occurs due to our government's actions, including war. 
 

 This picking on the poor souls that undergo abortions is bullying and 
hypocrisy, imo. It is a radical religious view held by those who wish to 
continue the co-dependent relationship they have with their flocks. These 
preachers are a lot like the politicians, framing the (conveniently 
insurmountable) "problems" and "issues" that their congregations face, ensuring 
their followers will feel both bereft, and beholden to the churches. What a 
scam.
 

 

  





 


 












 














 














 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

Was this the answer to my question?  I appreciate that you've articulated your 
position here.  I believe that the decision to abort is a personal one and one 
that should not be legislated. It isn't a casual decision and don't assume that 
the law which allows it turns it into one.  You have a position—does your 
position lead to positions on policies and social structure that are consistent 
with this position? How do you define compassion?  I agree with the position 
stated below.   

 "Nearly every abortion represents a human tragedy. This is something that the 
shrill rhetoric of the Christian right tends to ignore. Perhaps, when facing 
the possibility of terminating a pregnancy, we should return to the ancient 
insight that while it is an inexorable law of life that our survival often 
depends upon the death and suffering of others, there is something terrible 
about this, and that we must force ourselves to look clearly at what we are 
doing. 
 Thus, while it may be religiously impossible to sanction abortion undertaken 
for trivial reasons - for mere social or professional convenience - it may be 
tragically necessary to sacrifice a potential life to nurture the life we have 
already. This is also a sacred requirement. The foetus may have to die for the 
sake of its mother's physical or psychological health, for the economic 
survival of the family, or to prevent a marital breakdown that would damage its 
siblings. And that is why the woman has to make this painful choice, as only 
she can evaluate her circumstances. But we should never lose our sense of the 
awful gravity of the procedure, because - as in ancient religion - therein lies 
our sense of life's sacred value." ~Karen Armstrong
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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]" 
 To: 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,  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]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

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,  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]" 
 To: 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,  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]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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" 

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'

[Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]]

I'll give you that!
  From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 

 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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..

 

You feel that life has a right to exist the moment an egg and a sperm come into 
contact. Others believe it is at 4 months. Still others believe if a life is 
still encased in their womb they have the right to determine, at any time, 
whether it should be born. Who is right? Does it depend upon individual 
circumstance? (Not according to you.) Right vs wrong. Absolute vs relative. The 
challenge of determining these things will continue as long as humankind has a 
brain to reason with and a heart to feel.  From: "emily.mae50@... 
[FairfieldLife]" 
 To: 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,  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]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell'
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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