Nah Thomas, your fixation is clearly on the child and not the mother.
Hence, why you would subtly condemn mothers who have abortions, irrespective of what their reason is. You have no compassion for her.
I get why though - after all she is just a mere rib in your religion anyway 
Sad that you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks instead of a civil discussion.
What appears to be a “fixation” on the child is because so many of them are killed by abortion–over 3,000 a day in the US alone. I say we have compassion for the child and the mother. It’s not either/or. And allowing a woman to kill her child is not my idea of compassion for her. Is that YOUR idea of compassion?
And can you cite my comment where I condemned a mother? I don’t even condemn those who have made the choice to abort.
Once again, what is your reasoning for supporting a law that would outlaw the vast majority of abortions?
There is no ad hominem here. I am saying it as it is. You have no compassion for the mother.
If she risks dying by giving birth, you say no go ahead and give birth anyway because your fixated on the child.
If she does not want to conceive a child that she has forcibly been impregnated with, again because you are fixated on the child, again you so go ahead and give birth.
You clearly have no compassion for the mother. This is hardly surprisingly, as traditionally in your religion the woman is seen as nothing but a baby producing machine. I hope you can understand why I have major problems with your religion.
Why did you say you support a law that would make abortion illegal?
How is killing a woman’s baby “compassionate”? It’s not compassion for the baby, and not for the woman either.
And if there is a pregnancy that would result in death for the woman, there are remedies for that.
This discussion is about ahimsa and abortion, so naturally the focus would be on the object, which is the embryo and fetus.
I fail to see why desiring an outcome of a live woman and a dead baby is more compassionate than one involving a live woman and her live baby.
And note that there are many who are pro-life who are not Catholic or Christian.
I fail to see why desiring an outcome of a live woman and a dead baby is more compassionate than one involving a live woman and her live baby.
Right, but given the example I am giving if it is actually known that if a woman gives birth to a baby she is likely to die, then would you go ahead with her giving birth to the baby anyway or would you abort it and not risk killing the woman?
Suppose the chances of the woman dying if she conceives is 50%. Are you willing to gamble her life for the baby?
Philosophically, there is life (to mean ‘consciousness’) in everything, even the seemingly inert objects like buildings or planets.
Functional life is enabled with ‘prana’, the cosmic force becoming the subtle body of an object. In humans and the animal kingdom, this happens when a new-born takes its first breath. That kick starts the fusion process at muladhara chakra followed by the fission process at swadhisthana. (The two sources of energy have an expiry date!)
So, until the first breath a fetus is not functionally alive. And if it is to be taken as alive from conception, the definition of ahimsa needs to be widened so much that we should be aware of killing even germs when we breathe.
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;49855]Philosophically, there is life (to mean ‘consciousness’) in everything, even the seemingly inert objects like buildings or planets.
Functional life is enabled with ‘prana’, the cosmic force becoming the subtle body of an object. In humans and the animal kingdom, this happens when a new-born takes its first breath. That kick starts the fusion process at muladhara chakra followed by the fission process at swadhisthana. (The two sources of energy have an expiry date!)
So, until the first breath a fetus is not functionally alive. And if it is to be taken as alive from conception, the definition of ahimsa needs to be widened so much that we should be aware of killing even germs when we breathe.[/QUOTE]
So we could slice up an 8th month fetus in the womb, and think of it as no more than killing a germ.
Interesting…
Seems like you’ve got a great rationale going for wanton destruction of life in the womb via abortion. And what if these little human thingies that are no more than germs in your eyes feel pain when they are broken and their brains sucked out? Too bad, huh? Until we are kind to chickens and cockroaches, there is no point in being kind to a human being about to be born, is there?
[QUOTE=thomas;49856]
So we could slice up an 8th month fetus in the womb, and think of it as no more than killing a germ.
Interesting…
Seems like you’ve got a great rationale going for wanton destruction of life in the womb via abortion. And what if these little human thingies that are no more than germs in your eyes feel pain when they are broken and their brains sucked out? Too bad, huh? Until we are kind to chickens and cockroaches, there is no point in being kind to a human being about to be born, is there?[/QUOTE]
Uhhh, irrational much? Both Zygotes and Germs are single-cell organisms. :rolleyes:
& if you think your god has such a problem with abortion, why did he invent miscarriages? Huh? 
o:o
I have a question that I want to have answered. Isn’t adoption a choice? If the woman is unwilling to have the child, can’t see just give it to an adoption center after a reasonable amount of time? Or are the costs too cumbersome and the time required, too much?
[QUOTE=Indra Deva;49863]Uhhh, irrational much? Both Zygotes and Germs are single-cell organisms. :rolleyes:
& if you think your god has such a problem with abortion, why did he invent miscarriages? Huh? o:o[/QUOTE]
Gee, he “invented” murderers…and killer tsunamis…and cancer…and automobile accidents…
What a great point you have! If God can kill all those people, then WE should do it too!
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;49905]I have a question that I want to have answered. Isn’t adoption a choice? If the woman is unwilling to have the child, can’t see just give it to an adoption center after a reasonable amount of time? Or are the costs too cumbersome and the time required, too much?[/QUOTE]
Adoption is certainly a viable option.
But as long as there are “philosophers” like Suhas Tambey who rationalize the slaughter of millions of innocents in the womb, dehumanizing them to the point of equating them with things less than insects, then the waters will be muddied and some poor girl somewhere will be fooled to thinking she’s doing nothing more than removing a “growth,” and when her time of regret comes aftewards, her enablers will not be there to comfort her…it will be the Church, Christians, and people of goodwill who will help her pick up the pieces and get on with her life.
Thomas, I did not want to this point — but considering what you just said to Suhas I had to. Infanticide is one of the most reported activities in the bible. Did you forget the killing of 32,000 little children in the OT ordered by none of than Moses.
Curious how you could be so dead against abortion and consider the bible as your holy scripture.
Dare I say you look like a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=thomas;49917]Adoption is certainly a viable option.
But as long as there are “philosophers” like Suhas Tambey who rationalize the slaughter of millions of innocents in the womb, dehumanizing them to the point of equating them with things less than insects, then the waters will be muddied and some poor girl somewhere will be fooled to thinking she’s doing nothing more than removing a “growth,” and when her time of regret comes aftewards, her enablers will not be there to comfort her…it will be the Church, Christians, and people of goodwill who will help her pick up the pieces and get on with her life.[/QUOTE]
No thanks. We don’t need Christians to do anything like that. We have already seen what Christian “help” has done to the rest of the heathen world. It is her own path, her own life, and no one should have control over it. If she thinks that what she did is wrong, then good for her. Let her find her own path and way, with emotional support along the way. The woman doesn’t need a Christian to prod her in the direction in line with their dogma. That would be living a lie.
Besides, I thought people already proved in this thread that abortion itself hardly causes any physcological damage to the person who choose to do it. Rather it is the unique circumstances of the individual in question that causes her to feel the subsequent pain or regret. Even then, I think it also pointed out that relatively few people feel the regret or pain after an abortion.
I would just like to make the point that Planned Parenthood offers counseling for free before and after an abortion. They make sure that you understand all of your options. They do not force you into the abortion. They want to make sure that it is something that you really want to do.
[QUOTE=Star Light;49946]I would just like to make the point that Planned Parenthood offers counseling for free before and after an abortion. They make sure that you understand all of your options. They do not force you into the abortion. They want to make sure that it is something that you really want to do.[/QUOTE]
I think this is much better than Christian “counseling.”
And neither do they force you not to, amirite?
The hub - ub with Catholics or christians in general is that their exoteric foundational dogma is absurd and untrue - hence their faulty views.
Notice I said EXOTERIC!!!
Just one example - Soul doctrine right?
They believe that they were created by the will of God as a Unique Individual.
They also believe that this unique creation of God (all humans) only gets one chance and once chance only to get to either heaven or hell.
If you mess up and go to Hell your screwed - forever. Sorry Pal.
Hey african guys? Your gonna burn cause you were born in a place that ain’t never heard of Jesus! Thats why all the Missions. To save all the unfortunates tossed where they are by the whims of a cosmic despot. Which is absurd…
They are so opposed to abortion because they think that Life is only one go.
“Your killing an Innocent who will never get a chance at life! You barbarian!”
They don’t consider what happens to insects or animals when they die. They probably don’t think they are spiritual beings - only man is.
Yet they don’t really know what man is. If they do consider the matter of insects and animals they probably come up with another superstitious fantasy.
You can not argue with them logically in the context of their religious views because their foundations aren’t built upon Logic and reason but rather their world view is built upon blind faith in an absurd EXOTERIC dogma that contradicts the very message of nature.
The only thing you can do for them is to kindly try and undermine their superstitions.
Self knowledge is the first real Big Goal of the Spiritual life. You can try to encourage them to go down that road but in the final analysis they will walk it when they want to.
That said . . . All religions are essentially the same provided you look at them from the proper perspective.
That perspective or GNOSIS is gained through spiritual and intellectual development over time…
That will be 50 dollars.
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;49975]I think this is much better than Christian “counseling.”
And neither do they force you not to, amirite?[/QUOTE]
They don’t force anything. They just provide a service. Whether or not someone chooses to use that service is their decision alone.
[QUOTE=Star Light;49980]They don’t force anything. They just provide a service. Whether or not someone chooses to use that service is their decision alone.[/QUOTE]
Okie Dokie then.
It is appalling to see how my simple words were twisted by Thomas and a lot many new words were forced in my mouth. I am a Yoga practitioner who follows ahimsa and wouldn’t even suggest killing anybody or anything.
In my view, to decry abortion only in the human context is approaching the equation from a wrong end. When one wants to respect life, one should respect ALL life. And in doing so, when one faces impossible dilemmas that put life against life, one should be ready to be rational rather than be blinded by emotions.
Life has to be seen along with its twin, death. Only this way will we learn the divine purpose of both. What ends in death is what begins in life. What ends on death is the functionality of the physical body, thus rendering it perishable. In Yoga, the cause of the functionality is called prana energy. Hence, infusion of prana marks the birth of life that happens with the first breath.
It is very important that life perpetuates with birth after birth. In fact, the Yoga philosophy further explains that when, how and in what worldly conditions should a subtle body reincarnate is decided by that body itself. The opportune circumstances are carefully orchestrated to make the ‘birth’ happen. In very unfortunate circumstances the subtle body, the architect of the new life, itself aborts that mission.
Pondering over these larger dimensions will help realize the big picture, rather than stoking the fire somehow with a narrow fixation over one single aspect. That will allow better understanding of the subtle forces and will teach us to truly respect the higher intelligence to which we often offer only lip-service. We need to look at Jainism to understand the real breadth and depth of ‘ahimsa’ and also remain open to such beautiful alternatives like adoption.
[QUOTE=Star Light;49946]I would just like to make the point that Planned Parenthood offers counseling for free before and after an abortion. They make sure that you understand all of your options. They do not force you into the abortion. They want to make sure that it is something that you really want to do.[/QUOTE]
Well what if they feel it’s something they really wish they had not done ten years later?
Will they be grateful to Planned “Parenthood” then? Will PP apologize for being a faciltator to kill their babies that they mourn?