Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2604716 - 04/26/04 03:05 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Post History Deleted Upon User's Request


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,349
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Seuss]
    #2604810 - 04/26/04 03:37 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

> which disciple was the murderer?




It was Paul. He persecuted and killed Crhistians till an angel came and converted him.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,349
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Seuss]
    #2604855 - 04/26/04 03:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

About Kerry, he can well be a catholic but he also belongs to skull&bones . Read it, that's everything but Christian.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2604882 - 04/26/04 03:53 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
The debate as to whether life begins at conception, at birth or at some arbitrary point during the course of pregnancy is irrelevant to my analysis.

actually it does, because if a developing fetus is considered to be a life at any point before you're saying it's ok to kill it...

** It remains irreleveant to MY OWN analysis. When "life" begins is such an abstract, philosophical dead end that I don't care to make it a relevant part of my thought process. If "life" is thought to begin at conception I still believe it is the right of the woman carrying the child to decide if she would like the being to remain within her.

The fact is that since the beginning of a women have had incredibly deep knowledge of thier own cycles and have been able to use herbs to abort an unwanted foetus.

source? what herbs?

if a fetus has a right to life, the fact that a women is capable of killing it does not negate this right. of course women are capable of intentionally terminating a pregnancy, and certainly this has been going on for ages. how does that make it right?

*** Source? Read any credible anthropological study from recent times. There is ample evidence proving that paleolithic and neolithic women were extremely in tune with thier own bodies, and with the cycles of the earth and were able to induce abortion with herbs. What herbs? I'm not fully versed in herbalism so I can't offer you a very detailed description but many plants are emmenogogues (which means they trigger the menstrual cycle to return) and some of them include papaya (an enzyme in it called papain), pennyroyal, some species of mushrooms I'm not familiar with, etc. There are a lot more plants, more specific to different bioregions and I havn't studied it in depth enough to be able to give you greater details.

**If a fetus has a right to live does that negate a woman's right to care for her body, and keep it in whatever condition she wishes? Does the fetus have rights above and beyond the woman that has to deal with all the pains of pregnancy and the horror of giving birth when one truly doesn't want to?

When patriarchal monotheism came along such women were branded witches and persecuted because it doesn't serve patriarchy for women to have control over thier own cycles and to decide for themselves if they are ready to concieve or not.

how did that serve the churches' needs then? how does it serve them now?

**This is a pretty huge question to answer, and is a subject unto itself. I'll try and be brief, but it won't be easy. The church, in the beginning and now, requires control over the minds and bodies of its flock. In the past the women who were well versed in herb craft and had a deep comprehension of their cycles and thhose of the earth were uncontrollable. They came from matriarchal or egalitarian pagan cultures and were self sufficient, powerful and uninterested in submitting to patriarchy, domestication and repression. These women were demonized, called witches and persecuted. Soon any woman that didn't quite fit into a community was deemed a witch and persectuted. I really don't have the time or space to get into vast detail about how the process of colonization and Christianization occured in Europe, but the information is out there. In fact, I posted an interesting articule about the phenomena of witches in domesticated cultures so that might offer you more insight.

A liberated, powerful woman who can take care of her own needs isn't as easily dominated.

the ability to abort a pregnancy or not, there were very few liberated, powerful women who could take care of their own needs back then. i don't think abortion was threatening the patriachy much. if there are some historical accounts to show that it was, i'd be interested to read them.


**Back then? What time period are you talking about and where are you getting the information that women "back then" were incapable of caring for thier own bodies? Abortion is threatening to patriarchy because any instance of a woman taking her life into her own hands without the input or involvement of a dominant male is a rejection of the power structure, and demonstrating it's weakness. Women taking back thier power is a direct challenge to patriarchy and abortion is one way women take back thier power to lead thier own lives and take back thier own bodies and minds.

This same structure has remained a part of the western psyche through to modernity and it is a structure many women (and men alike) are struggling against.

or please at least consider the possibility that some feel the way they do because they believe in a fetus' right to life, not simply because they hate women.

**I could accept a woman chosing not to have an abortion HERSELF because she believes in the fetus's right to live and I would stand by that decision with as much solidarity as I would to a woman who made the choice to abort. When someone's pro-life beliefs infringe on another's right to make decisions about her own body there's a problem.

Women have the inherent right as autonomous living creatures to decide if something else is going to live or grow in thier own wombs, and men (and other women) don't have the right to stop a woman from making that autonomous decision.

so it is the location of the fetus that matters, as opposed to its stage of development? an 8 month fetus can be aborted, but if it is born prematurely, the same being, at the same stage of development, may not also be killed?

**It's dangerous for a fetus to be aborted after the first trimester, for the health of the woman concerned so it's better to do it before three months. Although it's possible to do it after and if someone decided to do it after I would support that decision. If a baby is *born* that's a whole different story because it's out of the body anyways. It's no longer affecting her body, and she can put it up for adoption if she doesn't wish to be a mother.

The location of the fetus is exactly what matters. It's in a womans body and she shouldn't be forced to keep it there if she doesn't want it there.

is abortion at any point in a pregnancy ok?

It's the call of the woman involved, her doctor and requires a lot of analysis of the specific circumstance. Like I said it's healthier to abort during the first trimester but it's really not my call to make if another woman wants to abort after that. If I ever was faced with an abortion I'd prefer to do it as early as possible.

Don't you feel that it is a rather generalized statement to say that "women are more opposed to abortion than men are" ??

statistically speaking, no.

**You could easily have phrased that in such a way that didn't suggest that the vast majority of women are against abortion. Also it's somewhat irrelevant. Thefact that statistically more women are in opposition to abortion doesn't negate that it's a patriarchal attitude to be against women's freedom of choice.

Pro-choice is about women's liberation. It's about liberation, period. The liberty to know what you need and the liberty to go about fulfilling such needs. Having an option taken away certainly isn't conducive to liberty, don't you think?

here is how liberty works: you may act as you see fit so long as your actions do not forcefully transgress against another person. liberty is not unrestrained freedom. if knowing what you need and acting to fulfill such needs requires you to forcefully transgress against another person, you may not do it.

you are avoiding a key concept. at what point does a person have a right to life? is it the instant they exit their mother's body, or is it at some before that? is it based on the physiological development of the person, or is it based on their location?

** I agree with you on how liberty works, but if that's your definition you could also say that the fetus is transgressing on the mother because she doesn't want it in her body. I would argue that as long as the fetus is in a womans body she has the right to remove it. It's far healthier and just generally a better idea to abort sooner rather than later, but it's up to the woman involved to make her own call, and not up to someone else's morality to dictate her decision.

I have a really hard time taking an man seriously on the subject of abortion because pregnancy is something no male will ever have to face (except maybe f-m trannies) and therefore a man really can't possibly comprehend all the emotions and factors in making such a major decision. A man will never have to feel the utter panic, and sickness at the pit of the stomache of realizing there's something growing inside his body, soemthing that if left there will come out kicking and screaming and needing of unending attention


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #2605043 - 04/26/04 04:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

When "life" begins is such an abstract, philosophical dead end that I don't care to make it a relevant part of my thought process.

you've made it a part of your thought process whether you recognize it or not. in saying that it is permissible to terminate a pregnancy at any point before birth, you must either believe that a developing baby has no right to life until it exits its mother's body, or that it has a right to life before that, but it is somehow permissible to terminate it.

a 2 month old infant has a right to life and it's wrong to kill it. i would say that a 2 month old fetus does not. there is a time, somewhere in between, where it becomes a person with a right to life. i believe that this time is based on its level of physiological development, not its location.

If a fetus has a right to live does that negate a woman's right to care for her body, and keep it in whatever condition she wishes? Does the fetus have rights above and beyond the woman that has to deal with all the pains of pregnancy and the horror of giving birth when one truly doesn't want to?

if it is past the point where it has a right to live, then yes. a person may not like caring for an infant. it may be physically draining, time-consuming, and expensive, but the person cannot just kill it because it has a right to life. the question is: when does this begin?

I could accept a woman chosing not to have an abortion HERSELF because she believes in the fetus's right to live and I would stand by that decision with as much solidarity as I would to a woman who made the choice to abort. When someone's pro-life beliefs infringe on another's right to make decisions about her own body there's a problem.

that's the problem. it is NOT 'her own body'. by the end of the first trimester, a developing fetus has a fully-developed nervous system with measurable brain activity, a heart that pumps its own bloodtype (distinct from the mother), and can feel and respond to pain. when your pro-choice beliefs infringe on another's right to live, there is a problem.

The location of the fetus is exactly what matters. It's in a womans body and she shouldn't be forced to keep it there if she doesn't want it there.

if it can live outside of the mother's body, is it too late for an abortion?

It's the call of the woman involved, her doctor and requires a lot of analysis of the specific circumstance. Like I said it's healthier to abort during the first trimester but it's really not my call to make if another woman wants to abort after that. If I ever was faced with an abortion I'd prefer to do it as early as possible.

you didn't answer the question. is abortion at any point in a pregnancy permissible?

I have a really hard time taking an man seriously on the subject of abortion because pregnancy is something no male will ever have to face (except maybe f-m trannies) and therefore a man really can't possibly comprehend all the emotions and factors in making such a major decision. A man will never have to feel the utter panic, and sickness at the pit of the stomache of realizing there's something growing inside his body, soemthing that if left there will come out kicking and screaming and needing of unending attention

i have a hard time taking some people seriously on the subject abortion because objective ethical analysis is sometimes clouded by self-interest and personal convenience.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #2605062 - 04/26/04 04:35 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I'd just like to say much props to NiamhNyx and SpringChickita for presenting their *controversial* viewpoints on this ever so touchy issue in a very thoughtful and empowered manner.  Mushmaster...I usually agree with you on most everything but I have to say these women schooled you on this one  :lol:

For the longest time i was anti-abortion.  I used all the same arguments about how abortion is equivalent to murdering a living human etc... to rationalize my view.  The way I approach it now it now is that i feel it's presumptuous to assume that a fetus is either
a. "A real living person"    or
b. "a lump of tissue"
Honestly, I think a fetus is not a person.  They have no life experience, no personality, no values, no empathy.  The reason abortion should be avoided is that a fetus is THE POTENTIAL of a huma being and by destroying a fetus you are eliminating the possibility that that fetus could grow to be a wonderful person in the world.

With that being said, as the ladies in this thread already mentioned, how can the "rights of an undeveloped human" outweigh the rights of the person who is nurturing its development.

The Earth is our domain, and we could not survive outside of it without life support.  But if the earth chooses to swallow us up in another ice age, that is the fate we must accept, because the earth is our mother and we rely on it solely for our existance and we are grateful to it.
In the same way, if a woman has has begun to nurture the development of a person in her womb decides that she does not want to bring the baby into the world, that choice is solely in her domain and there's not a goddam thing than any legislator of morals should say about it.  All the other arguments have already been eloquently made by females so I'll leave it at that.

Of course, this whole argument is seperate from the factor of responsibility.  Botht the man and the woman must make responsible choices so that they don't conceive a child and I don't think abortion should be a safety net for the irresponsible and fickle.  However, I don't think that the majority of people who support abortion are like this.  We simply don't want an option to be removed simply because it offends someones proud morals.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2605073 - 04/26/04 04:39 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

i think this is reasonable:

1st trimester: abortion is permissible with no questions asked. no parental notification for minors, no mandatory counciling; nada.

2nd and 3rd trimester: only in cases of grave physical danger to the health of the mother.

how we got into this in the first place was my assertion that abortion is an issue for the states. it is. roe v. wade was just another instance of the federal government extending its hands into another place it has no costitutional business being. abortion is a state issue. to enact federal abortion legislation requires a constitutional amendment. if we get a supreme court that overturns roe v. wade, it won't necessarily be because they a bunch of reactionary old fundamentalists. they might just be good objective judges doing their job like they're supposed to.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Viveka]
    #2605078 - 04/26/04 04:41 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

With that being said, as the ladies in this thread already mentioned, how can the "rights of an undeveloped human" outweigh the rights of the person who is nurturing its development.

when does it go from being an 'undeveloped' human to being a 'developed' one?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Viveka]
    #2605102 - 04/26/04 04:51 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

i realize that i am usually fairly opinionated (actually i'm just always right.  :tongue:), but this is an issue that i'm definitely not rock-solid about. my ideas about abortion are actually pretty nebulous, and they do shift from time to time. i am however, certain of two things:

1. roe v. wade was wrong.

the power to regulate abortion is not delegated to the federal government, nor is it forbidden to the states, anywhere in the constitution. therefore, by the 10th amendment, it is reserved for the states.

the federal government cannot ban abortion, but nor can it prevent individual states from doing so, without a constitutional amendment.

(for other powers not delegated to the federal government but assumed anyway, see: drug laws)

2. a fetus does have a right to life at some point before it is born.

to claim otherwise is ignorance of biology. a developing fetus, at some point before it is born, can use its brain, feel pain, and even survive outside the womb if it has to. take 2 developing babies at identical stages of development. one is inside its mother's body. the other is born a couple weeks premature. they both have reached the same level of development and are both endowed with the same right to live.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2605627 - 04/27/04 02:46 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Well, I'm a woman, too, and I have an opinion on this, and it's probably an unpopular opinion with women.

I believe in the right to choose, but I believe abortion is wrong. I believe that killing a fetus is killing a fetus, regardless of politics and religion.

Abortion is supposed to be about preserving the woman's life, or to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape or incest.

Only 5% of all abortions are performed for these reasons. The rest of the abortions are performed as a means of birth control.

If women would stop using abortion as a means for birth control, I would take them more seriously in their debates on the issue.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Frog]
    #2606479 - 04/27/04 03:09 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Post History Deleted Upon User's Request


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Frog]
    #2606648 - 04/27/04 03:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Post History Deleted Upon User's Request


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2606962 - 04/27/04 04:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

It was because somehow my Fiancees super sperm had managed to bypass my Ortho-TriCyclin.

i know several women who became pregnant while taking birth control pills exactly as prescribed. they are far from 100% effective.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Seuss]
    #2607031 - 04/27/04 05:08 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
In response, the Vatican has said:

A top Vatican cardinal called on priests to deny communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion.






They will deny him communion, huh?  :crazy2:

If the Roman Catholic church still believes they have some sort of monopoly on God, then that obviously is the root of all of their problems. "God" isn't in the bread and the water, "God" isn't in the Church and the Official Service Proceedings.... "God" is in the mind.

It is the symbolism that communion carries, it is about your thoughts. It is about the connection to this Ultimate... presence, do I say?, that IS everything and is everywhere... the total and complete consciousness that we are all playing a small but integral part of...

The Roman Catholic church has taken an absolute, physical interpretation of an (originally) spiritual message and have seperated a person's knowing of God from the person themself. We do not need a middle man. God is an experience, not some deity that has to have ordained people connecting Him to us.

The Roman Catholic church is like a huge cafeteria where these little rats come up in sucession and each take this little piece of bread and file out. The Roman Catholic church's origins lie in the thirst for control, and it hasn't changed since.

If there is some sort of deity in personal contact with the Archbishops, it is most definitely aliens, not "God".  :shocked:

As far as abortion goes... maybe ya'll should carry THAT over into its own thread? I didn't think that Seuss was intending to purely discuss abortion here.  :grin:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2607125 - 04/27/04 05:33 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Just a reminder to everyone:


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2607529 - 04/27/04 07:11 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

when does it go from being an 'undeveloped' human to being a 'developed' one? 




On my way to work today, I encountered several drivers who, by the way they maneuvered their vehicles, I could only assume they were still 'undeveloped' humans.    :yesnod:

Seriously, I don't think a developing human in the womb is a person at any point.  In fact, I think newborn babies lack some of the qualities of a "person".  We legally recognize that children are not capable of their own choices and they cannot be expected to fulfill any obligations as members of society therefore we hold parents responsible for their wellbeing and their actions.  Thus, I conclude that we should be allowed to murder children until they are legally autonomous adults at 18 years of age..........?!?

Wait a minute.  Ok, a fetus could be a "completely developed human" in the womb.  But does that make them an individual?  I ask because the typical murder statute defines a murderer as:

"A person who kills an individual without lawful justification"

A human in the womb is still connected to its mother by umbilical cord.  It has no legal identity as it is not given a legal name until it exits is mother's womb.  Furthermore, many cases of abortion
could be justifiably in self-defense.

Since the real issue is about definition of legal terms, I'm gonna stick with this idea:  A human in the womb has not yet been legally recognized with a name or social security number.  Therefore, existing laws and interpretations of murder statutes do not apply to the fetal situation.  In other words, big brother can't get involved with what happens in a woman's womb.  How can a murder happen inside the womb when nothing inside that womb has any legal documentation that it exists?  How could a fetus garner legal representation, especially if it's already been destroyed?
How about this for a murder trial:
"The destroyed developing human that was once inside Ms. Jones V. Ms Jones"
:wtf:

I'm not trying to be sinister.  It's a tough damn issue.  But I think if there was any way that the law could appropriately legislate against abortion, the method to do so would be much more readily apparent than it is.  The question is not wether a fetus is a developed human or not, but rather is it possible to assign autonomous legal status as an individual to a human still in its mother's womb?

By the way, I fully agree with you on the issue of states rights.  Like last year when the federal court overturned Texas sodomy laws, all my friends who 'hate big brother' and Bush and his big evil government were all praising the ruling. I pointed out to them that all the ruling did was take away power from the state of Texas while strenghtening the power of the big evil central government they hate so much. 
Their reply:  But.....people should be allowed to have butt sex... :confused:
People and their fickle passions...they miss the point so easily.

(btw: sorry about furthering the abortion discussion but it is a good discussion and this is where it is happening)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Viveka]
    #2610393 - 04/28/04 04:44 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Post History Deleted Upon User's Request


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2610404 - 04/28/04 04:52 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

SpringChickita said:
The last thing I want to see is a woman in a back alley, with a rusty coat hanger, mutilating her own vagina because she feels it is the only way out of her situation. That, to me, is far more barbaric than an abortion.




That is why I am "pro-choice" and not against abortion, per se. If a woman is going to kill the fetus, at least let's make it safe.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: ]
    #2610409 - 04/28/04 04:55 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

SpringChickita said:
And I also don't understand how you can say that it is okay to abort a child that is conceived through incest or rape.





I know that's what it sounds like I am saying, but that's not what I'm saying. When I say that it's okay to abort due to a baby being conceived out of rape or incest, I'm thinking of the mother's state of mind. If she is not enlightened, and if she is having a terribly difficult time carrying a baby in her that was conceived due to rape or incest, abortion should be allowed.

To an enlightened thinker, the baby would be a blessing, or be meant to be, or whatever. I personally wouldn't kill the baby just because it was conceived in that manner.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: The 'forgiving' church [Re: Frog]
    #2610430 - 04/28/04 05:10 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Post History Deleted Upon User's Request


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pope Defines HIS Church as the Only True Church
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 3,713 22 07/12/07 06:51 PM
by PhanTomCat
* christains? buddist? catholics? satanist? athiest?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
leturheadread 5,782 64 03/23/08 06:04 PM
by spacemonkey69
* Catholic Influences on Mazatec Shamanism, and Taboo Questions
( 1 2 all )
zzripz 3,598 31 09/30/09 03:58 PM
by cyb3rtr0n
* Catholic Sex Scandal MAGnum 2,749 19 08/14/04 03:15 AM
by Huehuecoyotl
* chrestie and catholic arabmobster 585 4 04/07/03 11:50 AM
by gnrm23
* Christianity and its Msygonic Patriarch. DigitalDuality 1,034 2 05/01/04 09:13 AM
by Anonymous
* absolute proof, sorry to all the catholics out the
( 1 2 3 all )
ArchDruid 5,448 52 01/04/02 04:50 AM
by WaktSniper
* Native American Church: An Anthropologist's Experience with Peyote Ritual shroomydan 2,406 1 03/26/06 07:34 AM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
2,851 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.