Do you support abortion as

[jillio]

I know what you mean...
Because of we live in a "human selection" world, one other reason, a vaule of life is worthless to anyone who don't believe in all life matters. A life should throw away like a toliet if a person don't have any meaning of his/her life. =/

You know, a few times, I was told by some people that they thought mom should abort me because of my disability and poor qaulity of life. Imagine that, huh? :roll:

I am very understand how you feel. I do.

But... Please, remember, you should not tell them what to do. It's her choice to make, even if it is not yours...

The Tibetan monks believe all life matters. But they carry their philosophy into all aspects of life, and do not limit it to the areas that they find most convenient. In other words, sanctity of life applies to all creatures, and they stand by that beleif and practice it daily. They do not eat meat, they do not kill insects, they do not support the death penalty, they do not decide the sanctity of life based on their own value judgements. No matter hopw despicable the acts of another, they do not judge whether than person should live or die. They understand that you cannot claim a pro-life stance in one area, and then turn around and abandon that belief in another area. Until one practices the preservation of all life in the same way that a Tibetan monk does, they cannot claim to be pro-life. They can, at most, claim to be pro-life regarding the issues that follow their specific and often contradictory moral code. At worst, they can only claim, as in the case of abortion, to be anti-abortion. Anti-abortion and pro-life are not the same concepts. In the case of the majority, they are not even on the same logical and moral plane. You find me a person who refuses to judge the value of another's lifestyle, who is vegetarian, who refuses to kill even the lowly housefly, who refuses to support the death penalty even in the most heinious cases, who does not support freedom of choice when it comes to pregnancy, and does not morally condone the taking of any life for any reason, then you have run across a person can rightfully claim to be pro-life. Leave any one of those conditions out, and you have nothing more than someone who wishes to judge the actions of another based on their own moral code. You have a person who believes, above all, that they are so self righteous that they have the obligation to impose their moral stance on others.

 

[jillio]

You would rather a baby to die a long, slow death rather than prevent it?

That's the greater evil and, certainly, not Christian.

Obviously, few have considered the concept of mercy in this discussion.

 

[CrzyMeg]

I have concept of mercy in this discussion.

 

[KarissaMann05]

The Tibetan monks believe all life matters. But they carry their philosophy into all aspects of life, and do not limit it to the areas that they find most convenient. In other words, sanctity of life applies to all creatures, and they stand by that beleif and practice it daily. They do not eat meat, they do not kill insects, they do not support the death penalty, they do not decide the sanctity of life based on their own value judgements. No matter hopw despicable the acts of another, they do not judge whether than person should live or die. They understand that you cannot claim a pro-life stance in one area, and then turn around and abandon that belief in another area. Until one practices the preservation of all life in the same way that a Tibetan monk does, they cannot claim to be pro-life. They can, at most, claim to be pro-life regarding the issues that follow their specific and often contradictory moral code. At worst, they can only claim, as in the case of abortion, to be anti-abortion. Anti-abortion and pro-life are not the same concepts. In the case of the majority, they are not even on the same logical and moral plane. You find me a person who refuses to judge the value of another's lifestyle, who is vegetarian, who refuses to kill even the lowly housefly, who refuses to support the death penalty even in the most heinious cases, who does not support freedom of choice when it comes to pregnancy, and does not morally condone the taking of any life for any reason, then you have run across a person can rightfully claim to be pro-life. Leave any one of those conditions out, and you have nothing more than someone who wishes to judge the actions of another based on their own moral code. You have a person who believes, above all, that they are so self righteous that they have the obligation to impose their moral stance on others.

You entitled on your opinion.

Bond font - :shakes head: You don't know me at all. I have a pro-choice family because they are so totally pro-choicers. So, don't assmue so much about me. By the way, thanks for correct me about Tibetan monks that I totally forget about that.

EDIT: My personal opinion about "pro-life" ...

Mostly, pro-lifers are portayed as uncaring and inconistent with any belief/religion. Any person who bombs clinics, this person is not a pro-life. Any person who is anti-abortion politician who enforce the death penalty on laws or else, this person is not a pro-life. Any person who, is anti-abortion, threatened people's lives, this person is not a pro-life.

It's too do much more harm than good to our cause...

Because many "pro-lifers" fail to realize what it the word real meaning is... I agreed with her post, #90. Because they are not really a pro-life at all. IMPO. I believe in "consistent life ethic" pro-life rather than just plain anti-abortion pro-life.

 

[shel90]

Abortion is a necessary evil sometimes.

I totally agree...

 

[Cheri]

The Tibetan monks believe all life matters. But they carry their philosophy into all aspects of life, and do not limit it to the areas that they find most convenient. In other words, sanctity of life applies to all creatures, and they stand by that beleif and practice it daily. They do not eat meat, they do not kill insects, they do not support the death penalty, they do not decide the sanctity of life based on their own value judgements. No matter hopw despicable the acts of another, they do not judge whether than person should live or die. They understand that you cannot claim a pro-life stance in one area, and then turn around and abandon that belief in another area. Until one practices the preservation of all life in the same way that a Tibetan monk does, they cannot claim to be pro-life. They can, at most, claim to be pro-life regarding the issues that follow their specific and often contradictory moral code. At worst, they can only claim, as in the case of abortion, to be anti-abortion. Anti-abortion and pro-life are not the same concepts. In the case of the majority, they are not even on the same logical and moral plane. You find me a person who refuses to judge the value of another's lifestyle, who is vegetarian, who refuses to kill even the lowly housefly, who refuses to support the death penalty even in the most heinious cases, who does not support freedom of choice when it comes to pregnancy, and does not morally condone the taking of any life for any reason, then you have run across a person can rightfully claim to be pro-life. Leave any one of those conditions out, and you have nothing more than someone who wishes to judge the actions of another based on their own moral code. You have a person who believes, above all, that they are so self righteous that they have the obligation to impose their moral stance on others.

Before this thread gets going again, let's all keep in mind that the question is whether you support abortion remaining a legal medical procedure. It is not about whether you trust doctors, and it is not about personal experience. It is about whether you believe women should keep the right to terminate a pregnancy.

It applies the same principal as death penalty, eating meats and killing insects too.

As Liebling stated to not discuss death penalty on this thread.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

It's murder, it's a human baby, not a baby fault!

Suicide is self murder!

Bible said You Must Not Murder!

It's wrong to take the life of another human being!

We're human, not an object of nothing!

I cryed hard when people die of health problems and murder, accident, it's terrible to lose a love one and it's terrible to murder someone, it's gruesome and baby inside are innocent do not deserved to be aborted!

That's sad!

Your ethics aside, we aren't allowed to discuss religion in AD anymore.

 

[jillio]

You entitled on your opinion.

Bond font - :shakes head: You don't know me at all. I have a pro-choice family because they are so totally pro-choicers. So, don't assmue so much about me. By the way, thanks for correct me about Tibetan monks that I totally forget about that.

EDIT: My personal opinion about "pro-life" ...

Mostly, pro-lifers are portayed as uncaring and inconistent with any belief/religion. Any person who bombs clinics, this person is not a pro-life. Any person who is anti-abortion politician who enforce the death penalty on laws or else, this person is not a pro-life. Any person who, is anti-abortion, threatened people's lives, this person is not a pro-life.

It's too do much more harm than good to our cause...

Because many "pro-lifers" fail to realize what it the word real meaning is... I agreed with her post, #90. Because they are not really a pro-life at all. IMPO. I believe in "consistent life ethic" pro-life rather than just plain anti-abortion pro-life.

And many who claim to have a pro-life stance are uncaring and inconsistent. Hence my example of the Tibetan monks. They are consistent in their beliefs and their practices. Most are not.

I wasn't referring to you personally. You can also be used in a generic way to refer to people.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Abortion is a necessary evil sometimes.

Someone has been listening to me for far too long!

 

[jillio]

It applies the same principal as death penalty, eating meats and killing insects too.

As Liebling stated to not discuss death penalty on this thread.

If Leibling wishes to correct my post, she is free to do so. And many have already claimed in this thread to be pro-life, so I am not the first one to bring up the label. I was discussing the pro-life stance, and the inconsistencies that most people apply when they voice their opposition to abortion by claiming to be pro-life. The same holds true for killing animals for a food source, or to swatting a fly because it annoys you. If you engage in any of those, you cannot identify yourself as pro-life because there are inconsistencies in your reasoning. Therefore, you do not disagree with a woman's right to choose because you are pro-life, but quite simply because you are anti-abortion and self righteous in nature.

My position stands.

BTW, I just posted in the PTSD thread. Would you like to go there and see of you can find something in my post to object to?

 

[Cheri]

If Leibling wishes to correct my post, she is free to do so. And many have already claimed in this thread to be pro-life, so I am not the first one to bring up the label. I was discussing the pro-life stance, and the inconsistencies that most people apply when they voice their opposition to abortion by claiming to be pro-life. The same holds true for killing animals for a food source, or to swatting a fly because it annoys you. If you engage in any of those, you cannot identify yourself as pro-life because there are inconsistencies in your reasoning. Therefore, you do not disagree with a woman's right to choose because you are pro-life, but quite simply because you are anti-abortion and self righteous in nature.

My position stands.

What makes you God of the universe? If one wants to say they are pro-life, that's within their rights. If one is pro-life on abortion, that's abortion, that's a separate issue, if one is pro-justice on death penalty, that's death penalty. This topic is about an abortion issue.

BTW, I just posted in the PTSD thread. Would you like to go there and see of you can find something in my post to object to?

 

[Oceanbreeze]

If Leibling wishes to correct my post, she is free to do so. And many have already claimed in this thread to be pro-life, so I am not the first one to bring up the label. I was discussing the pro-life stance, and the inconsistencies that most people apply when they voice their opposition to abortion by claiming to be pro-life. The same holds true for killing animals for a food source, or to swatting a fly because it annoys you. If you engage in any of those, you cannot identify yourself as pro-life because there are inconsistencies in your reasoning. Therefore, you do not disagree with a woman's right to choose because you are pro-life, but quite simply because you are anti-abortion and self righteous in nature.

My position stands.

BTW, I just posted in the PTSD thread. Would you like to go there and see of you can find something in my post to object to?

 

[Jiro]

lol....

 

[KarissaMann05]

And many who claim to have a pro-life stance are uncaring and inconsistent. Hence my example of the Tibetan monks. They are consistent in their beliefs and their practices. Most are not.

Indeed. It would make more sense if a person is pro-animals rights, pro-vegan/veggie, pro-nature, and go on while they are against something is related to death issue, suffering, and go on.

So, I don't vote either legal or illegal. It's a bit too much for my taste..

I wasn't referring to you personally. You can also be used in a generic way to refer to people.

Okay, all right.
Bond font - Like what?

 

[KarissaMann05]

To choose a legal or illegal...
- How many people in an unborn child's future descendant do you think?
- How many good effects on a woman's life if she obtains her abortion, do you think?

I hope it is sound like netural post I made.. :cross:

Gotta go now..

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

I'll join you!

 

[Wokamuka]

To choose a legal or illegal...
- How many people in an unborn child's future descendant do you think?
- How many good effects on a woman's life if she obtains her abortion, do you think?

I don't understand. Can you explain/clarify?

 

[jillio]

What makes you God of the universe? If one wants to say they are pro-life, that's within their rights. If one is pro-life on abortion, that's abortion, that's a separate issue, if one is pro-justice on death penalty, that's death penalty. This topic is about an abortion issue.

What the hell are you talking about, "God of the Universe?" You can say you are purple, too, but that doesn't mean you are. Pro-life is an ethical, moral position. You can't use it when you want to and ignore it when it is convenient. Well, you can, but it just means that you have no conviction.

And, yes this is about the abortion issue. Which means that you are either pro-choice or anti-abortion. Don't claim a pro-life stance to support an anti-abortion argument unless you are consistent in your ethics.

 

[deafdyke]

Every woman have a good reasons for abortion.

Ummm......I wouldn't quite say that. Overall the gross majority of women do have good reasons for choosing not to continue a pregnancy. However, there is a small percentage of women who can be incredibily blase about the decision.
Then again, those types of women tend to be really superfical overall.
I do think that better counseling should be available for women who are carrying children with profound birth defects. A lot of the information that women get is VERY outdated and inaccurate. Like I know that a large percentage of Down's babies are aborted! WTF?

 

[Wokamuka]

Then there's genetic engineering. Within the realm of abortion, genetic engineering is not a valid reason to me. The future, I am often told, is going to be just that: genetic engineering. However, that is the future and this thread/topic is based on now.