The question is what do we consider a 'human life'. Is it the moment the sperm hits the egg? The moment the DNA forms? The moment the brain is formed? The moment the baby becomes self aware or sentient?

You have non sentient life as in like a tree or plant or a bacteria and some will argue that in the early stages of pregnancy that is all it is. From a spiritual standpoint we can argue that if a child hasn't developed sentience yet then maybe his spirit or soul will go to another body. Just as we are unsure when sentience is developed or when a life really begins we are unsure as to when a baby recieves their soul.

"It is simply being put to death to make someone else's life more convenient" is an interesting stance and a good one but can we not argue that a woman's life may be being ruined for the convenience of an unborn child?

Theres two sides to this debate those who justify the death of a potential life and those who justify taking away a woman's freedom of choice. Either way we are justifying things that are ethically and morally wrong.

In a way, this sums up the abortion dilemma perfectly. However, we then have to examine which is, morally and ethically, the greater wrong.
Taking away a womans freedom of choice.
Taking away the life of something which will almost always become a human being.

The difference in the morality and significance of these two issues is so huge, that personally i cant see how anyone who really looks at it, can fail to see which is the better ethical choice.

Peoples freedoms are restricted every day, by other people, governments and simple circumstance.
In no other circumstance is one individual allowed to kill a human being, or if you prefer something which will almost inevitably become a person, just like herself.

This tells us all we really need to know about the comparative moral values, and ethical choices, inherent in both scenarios, and gives us a good idea of which choice should be made.



I appreciate this may not be your viewpoint, but i must point out that just like the chicken and egg argument raised earlier it has no logical relevance to the situation A seed a tree an egg a chicken a blob of bacteria. None of these will ever become human or develop self aware sentience in their own right. go ahead and destroy them to your hearts content ,. From conception a human embryo(all other factors being equal) will always develop into a full human being. It will never, naturally, become a tree, or a chicken. Nor will it remain, for very long at al,l that small collection of cells which we so readilly discard.

Given this, humanity begins at conception, and ends at death. I would accept brain death as the finishing point but im open to persuasion on that point.

I repeat, self interest is the only thing preventing most people from conceding this point, because once it is conceded, abortion becomes almost imposssible to justify, except on occasions where it endangers the mothers life.

I agree, but I can only comment on what was said in the tv prog... apparently it's legal up to 24 wks 0 days... so she just "made it" so to speak.

The thing is... making abortion illegal will not put an end to it... abortions will still happen whether legal or not... it's just a case of how, where and by whom if it were to be illegal. As against it as I am, when put in like this, isn't it safer to be done in proper medical environment?

Once spirit is realised to come in to an egg at conception, with frewill, This practice nwould stop.

Right now science does not know about spirit, so anything Goes as far as experiments and Killing Babies at any stage of it's development.

I think deep down everyone Knows it's wrong, but Many need proof, and Many goes against their hearts desire to have a baby or pressures from other sources makes one go against his own conscience.

But thes same will Know after this life. This is a verry sad, Hard Life lesson. Baby spirits are real, and they feel everything that happens to them fron The unwantedness by the parent, to The procedure which sucks them up and spits them out.

Believe it or not.

Love Omnaka

well, i feel that if you were irresponsible enough to have sex in the first place, then you should be completely and totally obligated to take care of your consequence (a baby). murdering an innocent baby just because "you're not ready for one" or "you're too young" is no excuse. you should have thought about all of that before you made the decision to have sex. girls who have been raped, however, should have a choice to have an abortion or not because they had no choice in the matter of making the baby.
on the other hand, if abortions were made illegal except in the cases of rape, i have a nagging feeling that there will be alot more child abuse cases from parents who never wanted the kids in the first place, or the kids who had been given up for adoption. because so many women would probably give up their unwanted burden, there would be an influx of foster kids into the system, further stretching a system that's already tearing at the seams...

I do believe that abortion is ethically and morally wrong but if I were a woman and got pregnant right now I would get an abortion. Is that selfish? Yes.

Whats the real consequence of this though? If I were to kill a world leader the consequence of it may be war, kill a scientist it may put back cancer research, kill Bill Gates and Vista may never function correctly, etc. Kill a potential unborn life? Theres thousands of more conceptions a day...heck I could even have another one later in life when it became more 'convenient'

Heres a question why is human life so significant? We slaughter thousands of animals a day for our selfish needs when we could be vegetarians but nobody cares about that.

Yes thats cold, unethical, immoral, selfish, etc, but I only get one life and I'm going to spend it how I want to.

Tell me that you are simply playing the devil's advocate and that you are not serious about the things in this post...

You do have a point, but look at it this way the baby has its whole life ahead and the woman if she doesn't want the child only has to spend nine months to give a child his/her entire life. There are so many people who can't have children and they will adopt so the woman only has to give nine months. After all it is her responsibility as she chose to make the baby to begin with. There are tooooo many birth control choices out there today to say she had no other choice. I know accidents do happen but if one is dead set against having a child they should be responsible enough to make the necessary arrangements so that they do not have to be put into a situation where abortion is needed. To justify a women having no freedom of choice, she has the ability to choose to take care of birth control before hand so if she does become pregnant she owes that child a chance at life if not with her with parents who will love and support him/her.

Always a pleasure

ok I somewhat agree with you, yes there are too many birth control options out there, I myself choose the pill, but alot of them aren't 100% effective, where it does start is in education I think everyone should have basic sex education so we shouldn't need abortion, but I also like knowing I have the option in case something happens, I'm willing to admit, I'm not a strong enough woman to give up a child for adoption, I would have a heck of a harder time dealing with the fact I knew I had a child out in the world somewhere, then getting an abortion.If we learned anything from history, its some things just need to be be legal, like abortion, we make it illegal, guess what happens we go back to the days of women going to back alley butcher shops, and mabey coming out of it ok but most likely end up maimed, disfigured, unable to have children when they want them, or dead, I know lots of people who want to adopt, but there are alot of children who don't get adopted, a high percentage of them don't, more women are giving children up for adoption then there are people to take them, then when the child gets to a certain age, no one wants to adopt a teenager, they all want babies, its a sad fact but true. I almost end up being an aborted baby, as I like to say i was the pill that didn't work, but my mom chose to keep me, yes she considered abortion, am I offended that she considered it, no, because she was my age(20-21) when she had me, and I understand, I don't believe in using abortion as a form of birth control, where the women instead of being on the pill or whatever, doesn't use anything and just has abortions. But I do believe in having a choice.

but what about the people who weren't irresponsible, my mom was on the pill when she had me , things tend to happen sometimes, but in the case of my body, I doubt you want anyone telling you what to do with your body, I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my body, and its a sad fact but if someone doesn't want a child then they'll find a way to get rid of it one way or another, do we really want to go back to the days of back alley abortions, or women"falling down the stairs"? whats good for you might not be good for someone else.

Carry on guys. lots of interesting points on this thread . but i couldn't allow this too pass i feel strongly about people who try to make those who may already feel bad enough feel even worst . . .

by vampyre rayvyn:
Now, I have noticed how you didn't mention this as a one sided point to one gender. I am assuming you mean both male and females in this lecture, considering it's both that are responsible in the act. A lot of times, girls do not want to have sex, despite what their boyfriend wants, and they get raped? I say this, because many of my friends, including a family member had this happen to them. A lot of times, girls are guilt tripped into sex, they are too young to have their vulnerablity taken advantage of. The boys, well, they too are supposedly old enough as well, so I am assuming you mean them too, right?
I find this a very intuitive statement here. Yeah, this would probably happen. Granted, I don't condone abortion to avoid this situation, but if more responsiblity and blame was drilled into men more often than it is drilled into the women, we may have lesser unwanted pregnancies.

by Rockerchick2008:
Exactly how I feel, but I wish a lot of society saw this too!



----> I was talking to a someone today, about a someone, who we know is pregnant. She made the comment about hoping a lot of people married, before and after having kids. I paused, and then told her I understood where she was coming from, and how I saw things, including unmarried parents I know who have taken great care of their children, and married parents who haven't. Then my co-worker mentioned that, marriage, even after conception, will help the men stay in contact and in the responsiblity area of raising their children, when there is seperation and divorce. I thought that was a great point. I said that I am fully aware the unfairness on the fathers, who aren't even told, and are not allowed contact at all, and her point was a good point that should help foster responsiblity in fathers, and keep them in lawfully responsible contact with their children. We all know of the 'shotgun weddings' and how in the past they seem to be. Well, what if we all felt how it should be brought back? What if this gets both men and women thinking about the consequences. What if this gets men to realize that fathering a child, does not mean they get to escape, but realize they would have to commit to the mother and take full responsibility? This would be a great way of defending marriage, but yet the pro-marriage defenders do not mention this. Interesting!

At least i can admire your honesty. Most people dont like to admit they are doing something morally/ethically wrong, and so attempt to redefine what is moral or ethical.
You dont see the contradiction/irony in your centre statement? When you kill an unborn, you may well be killing either a future hitler or a future mother thresa or bill gates or the person who is going to provide the technology for free fuel and perpetual motion. Thats the point .Just because you will never have to see the consequences does not make them any less real. When one kills an unborn one kills all the potential future of that child andits effects upon the world(to me thats something to be taken into consideration but not really a moral/ethical objection to abortion. It wouldn't matter if the child grew up to be just an ordinary joe citizen. Somewhere in his/her life he/she would make some contribution to other people on the planet. In killing a child a whole line of probabilities is ended.

This also relates to why human life is so significant. Apart from any religious weighting or conjecture about the soul there is simply the uniqueness of what constitutes humanity.

Naturally any view point on this issue is going to be somewhat humano centric, but, in general.

The degree of sentient self awareness within humans (including an understanding of the nature of life and death and the difference between these two states), by itself makes the taking of a human life less acceptable than any other life. Humans are the only creative intelligences on earth. When you destroy one you destroy that creativity. Humans are the only beings with free will (not a religious argument but based on the nature of human sentience)

Humans can use their mind to truly evaluate not only physical factors around them but metaphysical, philosophical or ethical factors in their decision making and exercise of their will. Thus, when a human kills another human being he is not only more responsible than an animal is when it kills, he is also killing something which is more than any other animal on earth.

The principple of killing anything applies here and so you are partly correct. When we kill other animals we have more of an ethical obligation than they do to kill only as necessary. One of the first lessons my alter ego "The Phantom" taught me as a young child is, "we never kill anything we do not need to eat"

Animals are biologically driven to kill for a varirty of reasons. Humans are able to make an intellectual choice to kill and thus we have ethical obligations any time we kill anything. these come out, in codes for the humane killing of animals for food, and even some humans decision to become vegetarian. Animals cant make those choices and thus dont have any ethical obligation to do so.

Biologically humans are not vegetarians, even if biblically they may be. We are actually omnivores. i have no ethical objection to eating meat, although i dont eat much of it. Ecological considerations and the resource footprint needed for a nation of meat eaters, compared to one of vegetarians offers a better rationale for eating less mea,t than an argument that we dont have a right kill and eat other animals.

It is only because we are human that we are able to debate this issue and choose to be vegetarian. Given the opportunity, animals designed to eat meat, would eat us, without the slightest hesitation or moral/ethical consideration.

When you take a life from an unborn you take away also its future humanity, including the opportunity to take part in debates like this, or to make its own moral and ethical decisions. That is why killing an unborn is much more serious than killing an animal to eat.

The IRS says its not a dependent until it's born. The IRS always wins.

Does that mean you also cannot claim an abortion as a work related expense?

Not unless your a "seamstress"

I'm glad you said all of this because in reality, it is the genetic code which is metaphorically called the 'soul'.

Like you said, I also believe that every human being has a genetic code which comes at the moment of conception, and continues to grow and develop throughout a humans life.

How a person thinks, and acts, influences the development of that genetic code. However the genetic code IS recordable....you can take a sample of it and at death the body goes to the grave until it can be ressurected. The same of the genetic code can be used to clone a new body. When we have the technology, we can record the thoughts/memories/personality of the person and download them into the new clone. Our ET creators who were mistaken for gods have been recording our thoughts since our very conception.

If they so desire, our ET creators will recreate select humans. Humans will be given a new body and their genetic code, including all their learned experiences, will be restored to them at that time. Thus, the number of genetic codes is always exactly the same as the number of humans, and each genetic code is unique to each person. It is in the weighing of the recorded actioons, or the judgement of the individual, that eternal life or eternal death are apportioned to that person.

Do you see that our ideas are very similar?

-Josh

by Mr. Walker:
This has been brought so many times, in various areas where this discussion happens. Granted, I can see the understanding to this, and the feeling behind it, but it's also way too complex to even think it's a good arguement in this case. This doesn't jar with me, because it just falls under the hindsight is 20/20 situation. What if you smoke, ten years before getting pregnant, and that causes your Mother Theresa to behave like a Hitler? If this to be considered, then why don't we all just wonder how each and every step we take will do harm or great good in the far future! And I still think this doesn't really solve if life is created at conception or not.

Yes, very.

Thank you for your reply, Omnaka.

I worry that you're seriously misinterpreting your experiences in the spirit world. I worry because this is very important information to which not everyone has as much access as you and I, which places a great deal of responsibility on our shoulders. I wonder if you've had any teachers or guides to help you learn to distinguish what is genuine spirit from what are only thought forms, and if your own intense emotions have clouded your judgement and contaminated your perception. I know it can be very difficult to find teachers, but at the very least we should "compare notes" with other practitioners and sensitives. So in the spirit of sharing information, I must strongly disagree with you. These things you describe--an aborted baby heaven turned into hell, spirits afraid to incarnate, spirits adopting other spirits--don't jibe with anything I've experienced, heard of, or read concerning the spirit world.

For one thing, in my experience, disencarnate souls do not hold onto the intense negative earthly emotions you describe. In that way, death is truly a release. The spirits that seem to do so, are some form of the pathology known as "ghosts" and the entities you describe sound a little like ghosts. That such ghosts would be trapped in a hell makes sense; that is what ghosts experience, their own private hell. But the rest of it, forgive me, strikes me as really too much mixed up with biblical dogma which denies the truth of reincarnation, and your own subjective feelings about abortion, to be an accurate account of the spirit world. You and I have a responsibility to be as accurate as we can and not to frighten people needlessly with such horror stories.

I'm reminded of a woman I counselled years ago. In the process of reading her, I discovered that she was having an affair with a married man and that they chose to make love in his home, in his wife's own bed! This woman was, not surprisingly, having nightmares. I told her she was crazy to be sleeping in that bed! Y'see, not just when we conceive a child, but every time a man and a woman have sex, the thought form of a baby begins to take shape. This baby is not really the incarnating soul, but the sum of the couple's hopes and fears of fulfilling nature's purpose. Over the years of a marriage these thought forms can accumulate, particularly in the vicinity of the marriage bed. These forms act like very needy, very sentimental childish creatures (reflections, really, of the couple's needy, sentimental, childish feelings) and in my client's case were sending her (or, if you will, reflecting) all her worst fears connected with her guilt, shame, grief about the affair, "stealing" another woman's man, and so forth. A friend of mine said she'd encountered the same sort of energy in her work and she called it "ether babies." If I knew more about the context in which you encountered your "baby spirits," we might be able to see that they were entities such as this.

There is no reason a human soul would feel fear of any kind about the incarnation process. Fear does not mean anything in their deathless world. And my goodness, Omnaka, why would Heavenly Father allow such innocent souls to suffer in a hell they couldn't possibly deserve? Your idea of a heaven turning to a hell is a strong indication that there's a disturbance in your psyche that you will need to clear up before you can make good sense of what spirit is teaching you. Have you ever worked with a pendulum? Pendulums are a very austere and strongly angelic divination tool perfectly suited to clearing this sort of disturbance. I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with them.

As to this adoption business, I have never heard any such thing. Death is merely transition, after all. At the soul-level we choose our parents with tremendous loving care and we forgive them absolutely, whatever they feel they must do. Spirit is patient and will wait or move on. There is no need for a soul orphanage.

Given how you seem to be thinking about abortion, it's interesting that you speak of spirits "who never finished their incarnation" because that does connect with something I've been given to understand: that incarnation is a process, begun even before conception (!) but not finishing until quickening. The idea is that the incarnating soul spirals down into the fetal body as the body develops to the point of being a suitable vessel. Sometimes the body is not suitable and the spirit departs and the fetus miscarries quite naturally. To my knowledge, the idea that the soul instantly incarnates in a fertilized ovum at the moment of conception is a very recent idea in Christian thinking derived from scientific discovery of the sperm and the egg.

Take care.

So our intelligence is what makes us more important then animals then? How much has are intelligence actually separates us from them?
We kill things for food the same as they do.
We fight for territory the same as they do.
They build nests and dams, we build houses and umm better dams.
They sing and dance and so do we.
They have families and communities.
They even have systems that resemble governments.
They have emotions just as we do.
They can live happy and fulfilling lives.

Of course I think the ant is the only other social species that has full scale wars with itself, and I do not know of any other animal that has destroyed the planet near as much as we have. In this world dogs are more loyal to humans then humans are to humans.

"future humanity" is a good concept and a strong argument but what about the cow you kill for your hamburger? Of course in our mind it may never be more then a cow but what if inside that cow lies the genetics to kick start the next step in cow evolution? What if by not killing that cow it would have lived and reproduced and evolution would have turned the cow species into a fully intelligent sentient species?

Of course we ignore all of the above in our own selfish desires for a Big Mac.
Also instead of debating this topic we both could be out teaching underprivileged kids or building homes for the homeless but were not, even though it would be a more morally right thing to do. Heck the Jesus thing to do would be to sell our computers and donate the money to cancer research but we don't. Why? Because UM is more fun then helping out at the soup kitchen...its selfish but its what we want to do. Living a life doing things we don't want to do sucks and we'd rather do unethical or immoral things to avoid that kind of life...thats the justification for most of our selfishness.
Is being selfish that horrible of a thing? Given a choice between being selfish and happy or morally right and unhappy what would you choose?

More or less playing devil's advocate here but still would get an abortion.Although if I were say five years older and it didn't matter if I got disowned by my family, was financially capable of having a child, viewed myself as a good potential parent, etc, etc. I would keep the baby...even if I didn't want kids.

Also contrary to popular belief I am not immortal and a successor may be required...cause it just aint the same without a Cadetak.

I heard a quote once - In Australia, we do not have the death penalty. But 100,000 people are given a Death Sentence every year; their only crime - being inconvenient.

I know this one-liner does put a very harsh spin on the statistics of abortion, and biased towards the view that a foetus is considered a living being, but the quote has stuck with me ever since I heard it. Just thought I'd share.

Except for the suicide bomber one, I don't see whats the problem with all that. You don't have to wear a seatbelt, but if you get killed in a car crash, or if your child does because it copied you, then you'll look pretty stupid. It's perfectly OK and accepted by society to drink alcohol, which is one of the worst drugs in the world, but all the tamer ones and the few which are worse are illegal and we dont have the right to put what we want into them? Everyone has the right to take their own lives, but they really should consider the impact first. Nudity isn't really that bad, it's just we're a planet of prudes.

I wrote a brilliant reply rebutting each of these points. It took an hour.Then the computer crashed momentarily and i lost the lot. lol This is a well written and humourous post, which really deserves a thoughtful response . Unfortunately your'e not now going to get it. Damnation.

I will just say that i do, or have, contributed to both teaching underprivileged kids and providing homes and other facilities for people in different parts of the world. I am one of the happiest people i know.
i spend a very few dollars on myself each week and several times more than that on our animals(we worked out they cost us over $5000 dollars a year. i own 3 pairs of pants 4 shirts and two pairs of shoes. Thats not because im trying to be righteous. i just dont need any more than that.We went on one holiday in our state in 2005 after we had lost all our possesions in the big bushfire and were free of commitments. Thats the only time we have been away from home on holiday for over 20 years. Yes my use of the internet is an indulgence and a pleasure I dont even use it as an eductional tool, dividing my time between wow and um. It provides essential mental relaxation after working with teenagers all day(thats my excuse and im sticking to it) We support individuals and families in many countries and have for most of our lives physicaly looked after peole who needed help.. So its probably a bit unlucky unfair that you asked me, because I have made a different choice

That is largely because i live an ethical life. Personally i could not be happy living a selfish one. That might sound moralistic. It is only a personal view and it brings huge rewards of joy peace and contenment so i dont need self gratification for it as well. Perhaps im still selfish , because the more unselfish iam the happier iam. The more i give away, the richer i become, and so i benefit far more than i lose by my behaviour. i guess thats selfish in a way too.

I never lose sight of the concept that you must care and look after yourself and family first, if you are going to be best able to look after others as well. A truly poor person can not do much to help anyone.

Just as not drinking, smoking, or taking drugs brings great health benefits and peace of mind, living a life you know is right, brings its own rewards, such as sleeping soundly every night and that bliss and joy that is always with you when there is no guilt, doubt, or fear in your mind.
This belief system predates any religious beliefs i hold and was inculcated into me by good, honest, hard working parents who also had the capacity to both love and correctly discipline their children, and taught them not only to care for them selves, but also for those around them

By Mr. Walker:

You should write it on your notepad and continue to save it, if it's long, and should anything should happen, you still have it. Just a suggestion.

A question for those of you who believe in the soul:

Where did you get the idea that the soul enters the ovum at the moment of conception?

Certainly not the Bible, as neither testament has even a single word to say on the subject (not saying there's nothing in the Bible about the unborn, only nothing about conception as we understand it and nothing to say that the soul incarnates at the moment of conception). You'd think that if abortion were really "the greatest destroyer of peace" in the world today (and by implication, all eras, as abortions have been going on since the beginning of human history), as Mother Theresa said--trumping war, famine, incest, terrorism--you'd think God would have a few words, specifically, to say on the subject, wouldn't you?

The ancient Hebrews--you know, the folks who wrote the Bible--believed that the soul entered the body when the newborn baby took her first breath. This idea was so basic to their thinking that the word for "breath" and the word for "spirit" are the same. Our own word "spirit" comes directly from a Latin word spiritus which also means "breath." For most of Christian history the soul was believed to enter the body at "quickening," when the mother first felt the baby move of it's own volition. I find it supremely ironic that the people who are most vehemently and even violently anti-abortion, the fundamentalist Christians, have no biblical basis for their thinking on the subject and not even tradition to justify their militancy.


Most cultures that have ever existed--including most Christian cultures--on this planet would disagree with you.

Think of yourself, for a moment, as a soul before incarnation. Would you want to come into the "body" when the "body" is a single cell or four, lacking even a nervous system to inform you that you exist? Wouldn't you want to wait a few weeks at least until there was a heart or a mind or arms to move? Why would a loving God force you into a tiny prison like that?

It does say something about it in the bible, something to the extent of wishing one had a millstone around ones neck for hurting the babies, However I did not get my information from a book, I got it from traveling to Heaven and the spirit world and speaking with Father and Mother(GOD), and The babies who needed to be rescued from what was baby hell, , it started out as baby heaven , but aftyer a while turned in to a hell of sorts, Its understandable if you do not believe me, but is true all the same, as you will find out after this life.

Yes I volunteered For this life , as did you, even though you can not remember, Good thing your parents did not abort , or you would know of the pain I speak of.

We come in to the body knowing about Love, that we learned from our true parents (Father and Mother) God, Who have loved us unconditionally since our eternal spirit was created, But, Your earth Parents stil have freewill, and Father as much as it goes against His Love, will let you reap what you sow, in the end all the babies in Heaven who do not get adopted,(End meaning end of this world) wil be reabsorbed back in to fathers love light, Or Firmament.

Hk Cavalier, What or who is your Avatar represent, if you don't mind Me asking?

Again, if you don't believe me it's understandable, all will know soon enough

Abortion Is a most dreadfull thing For a spirit which never completed Its incarnation, and with freewill that pain can stop it from volunteering again and maybe finding a proper parents to love and nourish it.

Love Omnaka

Omna, you're coming across as really arrogant, okay? Really holier than thou. You don't know who you're talking to. I do remember volunteering for this life, as it turns out. I know why I was born to this life and what work I have to do here on Earth. And I've already told you that none of your story of the "baby spirits" jibes with anything I've ever experienced, read about, or been shown. Please read my reply to your first post, if you haven't already. Again, I have to ask you though, why would Heavenly Father permit the blameless souls of the unborn to suffer in Hell?

ETA: My avatar is a portrait of Hern I painted, based on a dream my girlfriend had.

Sorry If I come across as Arogant, If you have seen, and Know what I have You would be Telling it as it is too, no matter who believes or not. .

My first post does not apear on my screen, so feel free to send me a link, You also don't know who you are speaking with, Iam a son Of Father and Mother a Son Of Love. If this is arrogant so be it, it is truth.

If you truly are a mediumOr clairvoint, Try ask them(Your Spirits) about the son On earth right now. as Ive said it does not even matter if you believe me, Iam that Iam, and your unbelief can not change that, it will be Known soon eanough, about the babies and Who Iam to Father Mother You and the Universe. Guess that did sound a little arogant , O well.

If you Know about Hell and its diferent levels and states of consciousness, then you would know that it is something we do to our self as Children ofd Love , The pain and Unloving that a baby Feels is Enough to keep it away from Fathers love light, Just as The pain of realising one is a child of God and Kils or Hurts his bro on Earth, can also make him Feel unworthy of this love.

We do it to our self, Father does not do it, There are Ministers and angels who can enter these diferent dark levels and states Of hell, But And rescue many , But in the end it is the individual spirits freewill to come out or not. Yes we all have freewill in spirit also. This is not Fathers doing, but the individuals doing, Father just gives a safe place to do it in, and in the end, those not rescued will be reabsorbed back in to the firmament from which all spirit is created, Or Fathers love with no recolection of Past lives, as if one never was , So eternal hell is a Fable, Eternal spirit is true, This reabsorbtion is granted out of sufferage to the spirit asking for it. Not Painfull at all Just a return to pure love, Done out of Love.

Love Omnaka

Not that tecno literate, watchful, lol. Wouldnt have a clue where to find notepad, let alone how to transfer writing, without risking forum page being lost. Usually i do save as i go, but when im really involved in the writing, i dont want to break my chain of thought. Thank you for the comment, none the less.

Hk cavalier, im probably the last person, ever, who should deny anyone the validity of their personal experience.

I have one problem with yours. Science is almost there in defining consciousnes, the creation of, and all the things which we think of as the soul of a person.

Before long they wil be able to transfer that "soul" physically from one host to another. Let us suppose this happened. Do you see the soul as something other than all that makes one person unique, from memories to intelligence, and if so how do you see it and how do you explain its existence, separate from a physical host, when all physical evidence suggests that our physical bodies create our soul? This is a personal question, i appreciate, and feel free to answer only as you choose.

How can that woman live with herself?

No, actually it is not at all the same. Shaking a baby to death is murder, abortion is not.

by HKCavalier:

Now this, I find a very interesting post. I think this is something, that is not even touched upon, really knowing when or what a soul is or does. I thank you for your input, HKCavalier.

I didnt read this whole thread, so I dont know if this has been stated, but when was the last time a abortion clinic was bombed in America? And what church endorsed it? Second, no where in the constitution does it say there is a seperation of church and state, in fact it goes so far as to say that the goverment shall make no law interfearing with the church. 3rd making a amendment stopping women from murdering there unborn children wouldnt be based souly on religion. In fact according to the bill of rights life is #1 on the list, saddly somehow this no longer aplies to the most innocent among us, those who have no voice to speak for themselfs.

As far as the aborted going into another body, I cant say I could put much stock into that.

Of course its murder. Man the crap people tell themselfs so they can sleep at night. How sad.

Then what of miscarriages caused by the mother's lifestyle choices? Is that considered "murder" as well? Or is God just being cruel with mothers? Why have an egg fertilized at all if it's not going to be born as a baby?

And where in the Bible does it state the soul enters the body at conception?

I had a friend who I went to school with that was involved in the abortion clinics in pensacola,fl and she was really indifferent about abortion. She done it because she was in love with the guy who was behind the bombings. Just a little piece of info there.
I agree with you the most innocent of all is being murdered everyday. Like I said before sure if a women doesn't want the child she will be inconvenienced for nine months but thats the consequence she has to pay for playing, her inconvenience verses murder of an innocent child. There are plenty of people willing to adopt babies.


Always a pleasure

I dont think that will fair to well before God either.


The bible says God knew us before we ever got to the womb.

I don't think until you've been in the situation, you'd know how you feel about it.

And since I never will be in that situation...

I think ending potential life (a bunch of cells - NOTHING more) before its "too late" to go back is often the best option for many people, under many circumstances. But not everyone. It's a personal choice.

I DO believe that the cut off point should be made earlier. And it has been in this country now, I think?

It's just not my business what a mother chooses to do. Entirely. All the while It's nothing more than a part of her.

So if you had a neighbor next door that murders 3 of her children and said it was because she was so depressed that she couldn't handle them anymore. She told you not to tell anyone right away. What would you do? Since it's the mother's choice.

A foetus is not a child nor is technically living at the point when you can still abort.

Actually the first amendment of the constitution prevents it because it would mean that one religions opinion was raised over another which is unconstitutional.


No it is not at all.
It's them themselves btw.

By whos standards do we base this on? A foetus is not "technically" a life? Who's technicality is this? The government's? If left to its natural course, it would become a life.

I was reading an article about a dancer who slipped on a wet stage and damaged her knee to the point that she could no longer dance. Even though she was just a young'un when it happened, she successfully sued the company for "potential lost earnings". There's no guarantee she'd have even made it as a dancer - not every person with aspirations of dance become professional dancers. But the courts ruled that the "potential" was there.

Is not the "potential" for life there - and to cut that life off before it has a chance to grow, we could sue for "potential lost life"????

Just a thought,

Except... Those are intelligent, living, breathing things which can exist as individuals.

A fetus is a bunch of cells. It's not conscious. It's not alive.

After birth, when it exists as an individual... Then it's life is valued. Before then it's only potential life.

The line when a bunch of cells become a true human being (or anything else, for that matter) is hazy.

Putting the "cut of point" at birth is FAR more logical than at conception. When the thing actually has developed visually, physically, mentally and definately consciously without argument into a human being.


But sperm and egg cells are potential life. And we all don't mind when they die. Why's that? Why's it ANY different?

Because one needs the other to become human. When a child is conceived it is a human being, a living breathing child.
This theory that a baby is not a baby until it is born is ridiculous. The moment that child is conceived it is a baby!

Always a pleasure

I agree with you, further more if the people who are calling a fetus a group of cells would look a six week or eight week fetus they will see alot more that a "group of cells." They will see a heartbeat, little begginings of arms,legs, even brain activity it may be tiny but the fetus is human. No doubt.
Also maybe people who support abortion don't kow that a woman typically takes about 6 weeks to pass a pregnancy test and eight is not uncommon. By the time a woman knows she is pregnant she is no longer carrying a group of cells, but a baby. (though very tiny)

Look this up on wiki or something. Saying that a fetus is just a bunch of cells is pretty preposterous. In the first 3 months alone, the baby is 3" long, has arms, legs, eyes,internal organs, fingernails, a heart beat, brain waves, dreams, moves, hears, sees, tastes. People should really look stuff up before they post.

I think that this is a persons choice. Between a wife and husband. I think that the government or religion has any right in this matter. Yes there are some that used abortion as a form of birth control. I don't agree with that. In the case of rape, child rape, incest, or major medical problem I agree with. My wife and I went though 1. It was a very rough decsion we had to make. I would never wish that one anyone.