Jump to content

What is your view on abortion ?


QuodHumana
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, zArk said:

As the baby hasnt committed a crime punishable by death i see no legal or lawful justification for abortion, in any circumstance.

 

Can you give me an example of where a jury sentenced someone to death in the absence of a crime? 

I can fully understand why you think that an innocent is essentially being murdered in such circumstances.

For me this fully compounds my thoughts on this whole issue.

You have yet to inform me of who you believe is best placed to take such an important  decision.

Do you believe  the responsibility for such a decision should be the carrier of the child or some external force ?

And if so , who ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MarcusOmouse said:

I can fully understand why you think that an innocent is essentially being murdered in such circumstances.

For me this fully compounds my thoughts on this whole issue.

You have yet to inform me of who you believe is best placed to take such an important  decision.

Do you believe  the responsibility for such a decision should be the carrier of the child or some external force ?

And if so , who ?

i have. sorry if not clear

 

murdering an innocent, unable to defend itself , for whatever reason is not acceptable

 

its not acceptable in society and the murderer and the accessories before and after should be jailed

 

i see no differemce between a child at 15 years old, 3 months old or -6months (12 weeks after conception)

 

the being is created with a spark of life at conception. thats my yard stick.

 

when , time scale or age of foetus, do you think abortion shouldnt be done?

do you think a mother can kill her 2 month old child without repercussion?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, zArk said:

its not acceptable in society and the murderer and the accessories before and after should be jailed

 

So "society" should take the responsibility over the individual when it comes to abortion ? Thats your serious conclusion?

 

All you really need to do is look at the world today to see where that takes us. Don't you have enough of your own wrongdoings to consider before you go poking your nose into the wrongdoings ( in your eyes ) of others?  I know I do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MarcusOmouse said:

 

So "society" should take the responsibility over the individual when it comes to abortion ? Thats your serious conclusion?

 

All you really need to do is look at the world today to see where that takes us. Don't you have enough of your own wrongdoings to consider before you go poking your nose into the wrongdoings ( in your eyes ) of others?  I know I do.

 

Society does take the responsibility over the individual in certain circumstances like Murder, Theft, Harm, Injury

 

Thats why an individual is sent to jail or sentenced to death when a crime (as agreed by society) is committed and proven

 

When someone (mother, father,  relative, stranger) murders another being, Society gets together and punishes that individual

When a child is neglected Society intervenes, punishes and installs protections for that child

 

in the case of abortion , it runs contrary to all that Society believes

 

tell Joe Bloggs that child X was bludgeoned to death with a hammer by its father -=---- that father is going to jail or sentenced to death

 

tell Joe Bloggs that child X was aborted at 14 weeks life --- no fucking outrage

its a devils trick on society to accept murder of the innocent

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2022 at 5:51 PM, zArk said:

i have. sorry if not clear

 

murdering an innocent, unable to defend itself , for whatever reason is not acceptable

 

its not acceptable in society and the murderer and the accessories before and after should be jailed

 

i see no differemce between a child at 15 years old, 3 months old or -6months (12 weeks after conception)

 

the being is created with a spark of life at conception. thats my yard stick.

 

when , time scale or age of foetus, do you think abortion shouldnt be done?

do you think a mother can kill her 2 month old child without repercussion?

 

Tell that to a woman carrying a baby of her rapist....

 

I'd say leave it to women who has to carry. What is the right or wrong decision without being dogmatic religious person?

Forget religion, Catholic permits homosexuality then really they have no right to criticise about abortion either without being hypocrytical.

Each to their own circumstance.

 

Another thing to think about it that a soul is not attached to the embryo till some weeks later. They are not in the womb but hovering.

Edited by DaleP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DaleP said:

Tell that to a woman carrying a baby of her rapist....

1. 0.085% of abortions are rape cases

2  just cause the dad is a criminally sick individual its not the childs fault

3 the morning after pill could be used.

4. 92.33% of abortions are elective

 

Screenshot_2022-06-26-19-36-16-193_com.google.android.youtube.jpg.ca0037fe69b83feb0fbaf49003e6da9c.jpg

2 hours ago, DaleP said:

I'd say leave it to women who has to carry

i'd say people really need to get educated on the reality of abortion. ripping babies limb from limb then crushing the body and then the head.

the older hoover method just sucked the baby into pieces down a tube.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, DaleP said:

Another thing to think about it that a soul is not attached to the embryo till some weeks later. They are not in the womb but hovering.

well thats an unprovable opinion but one which could be argued

 

 you mention catholicism i wonder what other religions think. i read judaism doesnt recognised life until 1 month after birth

 

nfwubn.jpg.1a5c21819aec4acff6b930cc4f1c44f8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm basically in favour of the woman's choice (within reason; late term abortions are sketchy). Not to be funded by the state as a means of birth control.

 

A woman has to carry this thing for a good chunk of her life; it's a real commitment, whereas i can squirt out a new one every day and think nothing of it.  It stands to reason that my choice is less important.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, spideysensei said:

I'm basically in favour of the woman's choice (within reason; late term abortions are sketchy). Not to be funded by the state as a means of birth control.

 

A woman has to carry this thing for a good chunk of her life; it's a real commitment, whereas i can squirt out a new one every day and think nothing of it.  It stands to reason that my choice is less important.

 

There is also an argument for giving up a baby for an adoption. I think someone has already made some points on it earlier.

Knowing what the system offers, fostering etc..... there is a chance that you are giving birth to a baby which isn't going to have a good life.

Even if foster parents are ok, what kind of psychological scar must the child carry? One could argue that it's karma but we know karma is BS.

Regardless of rape, abortion issues, I'd say potential parents should reframe from having kids if they can't afford financially or adult enough to give child a loving environment.

I look at too many parents on the streets and *smh*

Yeah it's easy for me to criticise but that's the reason I decided not to have kids.

There is enough learning, catching up to do for myself. Good luck to parents who have been brought up in a loving home and can now provide such environment for their kids now. Most of us have been abused one way or another.

Edited by DaleP
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a false dichotomy. It isn't pro-choice or pro-life, it is pro-choice or pro-control. Life has nothing to do with it. I love the great George Carlin's view on this. The Conservatives love the embryo until it's born, then when it emerges it means nothing to them.  Until of course it gets old enough to be able to fight for God and country! Ricky Gervais is even more direct saying that God loving Christians  worship the sanctitude of life right up until it turns out to be homosexual then they don't love it anymore.

 

Pro-choice or pro-control. How is this a difficult decision?

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gene Genie said:

This is a false dichotomy. It isn't pro-choice or pro-life, it is pro-choice or pro-control. Life has nothing to do with it. I love the great George Carlin's view on this. The Conservatives love the embryo until it's born, then when it emerges it means nothing to them.  Until of course it gets old enough to be able to fight for God and country! Ricky Gervais is even more direct saying that God loving Christians  worship the sanctitude of life right up until it turns out to be homosexual then they don't love it anymore.

 

Pro-choice or pro-control. How is this a difficult decision?

 

tucker carlson has an interesting perspective on this in that he has spoken about how in the past people who wanted to raise families organised into unions to get enough pay from corporations to be able to raise families. The corporations responded by employing young, single women and at the same time feminism was telling women that they should define themselves by their career instead of being mothers

 

So the corporations are massively in support of women killing their babies as they want those women to be under paid employees

 

Likewise the feminists are massively in support of women killing their babies because they believe women should define themselves by becoming under paid employees of the corporations

 

This can then lead to some women missing the boat of having a family because they chose to climb the corporate ladder and tucker questions if a void is going to be left in american life if the sanctity of family life is pushed aside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 12:17 AM, zArk said:

a 1 month old baby cant talk. the baby cant feed itself. the baby will die without 24/7 care and attention 

 

can the mother murder declare death on her baby?

 

You are talking about two different things. A fetus is not a viable life. It cannot breathe when delivered until it reaches the last trimester. A fetus from 6 months gestation is now a viable life that can possibly (depending on the individual circumstance) live outside of its mothers womb. 

 

No-one can declare death on an independent being once it is a separate life. Inside of the mother it is not a separate life, until it is born. 

 

If the mother commits suicide it is highly likely the fetus will die along with her. So yes the mother does have the right to choose what happens to herself and the fetus within her. I personally believe that no-one should be telling any woman what to do with her body or we will be seeing pregnant women in dire strait situations committing suicide or seeking back street abortions. Either way...if the mother makes a decision for her own body she makes it. Trying to stop her will open up many unfavourable avenues that will result in terrible consequences. We have been down this path decades ago....has nothing been learned?

 

If coming from a religious standpoint...it is my understanding that `God`gave people free agency.... that means they make their choices. They decide  what they do and they live with the choice. Pro- choice is based on the right of a man or woman to choose. Once you take away free agency over ones own body, where someone else decides, we are at a cliff edge as far as freedom is concerned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beaujangles said:

 

You are talking about two different things. A fetus is not a viable life. It cannot breathe when delivered until it reaches the last trimester. A fetus from 6 months gestation is now a viable life that can possibly (depending on the individual circumstance) live outside of its mothers womb. 

 

No-one can declare death on an independent being once it is a separate life. Inside of the mother it is not a separate life, until it is born. 

 

If the mother commits suicide it is highly likely the fetus will die along with her. So yes the mother does have the right to choose what happens to herself and the fetus within her. I personally believe that no-one should be telling any woman what to do with her body or we will be seeing pregnant women in dire strait situations committing suicide or seeking back street abortions. Either way...if the mother makes a decision for her own body she makes it. Trying to stop her will open up many unfavourable avenues that will result in terrible consequences. We have been down this path decades ago....has nothing been learned?

 

If coming from a religious standpoint...it is my understanding that `God`gave people free agency.... that means they make their choices. They decide  what they do and they live with the choice. Pro- choice is based on the right of a man or woman to choose. Once you take away free agency over ones own body, where someone else decides, we are at a cliff edge as far as freedom is concerned. 

depends on perspective ,

 

i hear the argument of foetus vs baby yet i summise it as 'an innocent helpless baby can be killed by its mother because it is helpless and requires its mother to live'

 

pretty sick in my opinion.

 

also the word foetus and the helplessness argument says that it is different to the mother. The foetus is not part of the mother, the mother is a feeding system, the foetus is not her body. it is not a possession. 

 

the baby is in care while it grows. 

 

also if the argument of possessional dependancy is accepted the eugenicists and Elite are rubbing their hands. Are most people not dependamt upon others for shelter, food, sanitation and even air is being used as a whipping stick with Extinction Rebellion  

 

People, in our society, have no right to kill another. Murder of a child is considered up at the top of the list as most evil. To reiterate , a mother feeding amd sheltering a foetus does not gain the right to kill that foetus.

@Beaujangles

It is a perception issue

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

tucker carlson has an interesting perspective on this in that he has spoken about how in the past people who wanted to raise families organised into unions to get enough pay from corporations to be able to raise families. The corporations responded by employing young, single women and at the same time feminism was telling women that they should define themselves by their career instead of being mothers

 

So the corporations are massively in support of women killing their babies as they want those women to be under paid employees

 

Likewise the feminists are massively in support of women killing their babies because they believe women should define themselves by becoming under paid employees of the corporations

 

This can then lead to some women missing the boat of having a family because they chose to climb the corporate ladder and tucker questions if a void is going to be left in american life if the sanctity of family life is pushed aside

The appropriately-named Dick’s Sporting Goods to pay employees $4,000 to abort their baby – other corporations that care so much about you promise something similar

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, zArk said:

depends on perspective ,

 

i hear the argument of foetus vs baby yet i summise it as 'an innocent helpless baby can be killed by its mother because it is helpless and requires its mother to live'

 

It is not yet a baby that is viable.

 

18 hours ago, zArk said:

pretty sick in my opinion.

 

also the word foetus and the helplessness argument says that it is different to the mother. The foetus is not part of the mother, the mother is a feeding system, the foetus is not her body. it is not a possession. 

 

Yes potentially, futuristically  it is a separate life. But until it is a viable life it is solely dependent upon the `host` the mother. Until then it is most definitely part of the mothers body. It is within it. It feeds from it, it is dependent on it. It`s future life depends on that mother. Therefore it is that mother that determines what grows within her, not you and not anyone else! If you feel her decisions make you sick, that is your problem. No -one should be forced to do anything they do not want to do. Free agency... `God`given free agency if you are religious. You cannot murder something that cannot survive without it`s host. The host has full dominion over it, regardless of how it makes anyone else feel.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, zArk said:

 

also if the argument of possessional dependancy is accepted the eugenicists and Elite are rubbing their hands. Are most people not dependamt upon others for shelter, food, sanitation and even air is being used as a whipping stick with Extinction Rebellion  

 

People, in our society, have no right to kill another. Murder of a child is considered up at the top of the list as most evil. To reiterate , a mother feeding amd sheltering a foetus does not gain the right to kill that foetus.

@Beaujangles

It is a perception issue

 

`possessional depency`  hmm thats a weird construct.

 

Bottom line, the mother is in possession of every organ or organism within her body, as everyone is. 

She has the right to make decisions on any group of cells within her body.

No-one is dependent on anyone else necessarily. Maybe through choice. Most people would seek a way to fend for themselves if stranded on an island alone. But a fetus is different. It is not an independent being. It is not a child. It is a fetus, a group of cells that is potentially a child once it is viable and can breathe for itself...which is not the period in time that is in question.  A pregnant mother is not `feeding`the fetus, the fetus is sucking nutrients from her...different.

 

Yes on the one hand a perception issue. But that doesn`t mean that a perception that doesn`t recognize body autonomy is right.

 

Do you have children yourself?

I presume you are a female (in the normal context)?

Have you ever been in a situation where you were pregnant with an incompatible with life` fetus?

Have you ever felt so overwhelmed or depressed where you would take yourself to a back street abortionist if abortion wasn't freely available?

Have you witnessed the trauma of rape and subsequent pregnancy?

Have you been a 12 or 13 year old who has got pregnant?

Etc Etc ( So many individual situations that need to be considered) 

 

I`m not expecting answers to these personal issues - But...

 

Until such time as you have experienced or witnessed such situations... you may want to reserve your perceptions and have another think. Other people should not be making decisions for someone own body. 

 

It`s easy to sit back and make judgement calls...if you haven`t been in a situation to witness the many situations that arise re: pregnancies.

 

 

Edited by Beaujangles
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

It is not yet a baby that is viable

pretty sterile language.viable. 

7 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

Yes potentially, futuristically  it is a separate life. But until it is a viable life it is solely dependent upon the `host` the mother

 a new born doesnt wear a suit and is off to the office

why not throw a 3 year old into a pond and shout "swim to be viable"?

 

7 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

. It is within it. It feeds from it, it is dependent on it.

breast feeding? nappy changes. then solid food. carry . pick up. change nappy. toilet train, teach to tie shoe laces, teach to cook and not burn down house

 

pretty much until 16-18 years old

7 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

Therefore it is that mother that determines what grows within her, not you and not anyone else

the dna of the baby is different to the mother. the baby is a sentient being with a right to life.

 

body autonomy applies to the foetus as well

 

even a mass murderer gets the opportunity to defend their right to life

terrorists, rapists, robbers but not the foetus

 

btw the government didnt pop the baby into her uterus. it wasnt immaculate conception. she was part of that baby making process and in 98.5% of abortions the baby is considered an inconvenience

7 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

You cannot murder something that cannot survive without it`s host. The host has full dominion over it, regardless of how it makes anyone else feel.

 

have you actually looked at how an abortion  is done?

 

vacuuming a little helpless baby , ripping apart its limbs and body  is murder

using pinchers to tear limbs off , crushing the skull amd body is murder

 

the mother is the growing vessel for the sentient being and under our laws the baby is the possession and responsibility of the parents until adulthood but this does not give the mother the right to damage her possesion

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

Do you have children yourself?

yes, got 4 . 2 were when my wife was older than the 'safe range' so we had all the pressure from the NHS and social opinions come flying into our lives.

 

every day is a worry with children and i reckon 98% of women who had an abortion will be racked with guilt , worry and a massive sense of loss

 

8 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

Until such time as you have experienced or witnessed such situations

again i return to my point "who speaks for the baby?" 

Screenshot_2022-06-26-19-36-16-193_com.google.android.youtube.jpg.4a4c8393483eca25dc64ec306577e233.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zArk said:

yes, got 4 . 2 were when my wife was older than the 'safe range' so we had all the pressure from the NHS and social opinions come flying into our lives.

 

every day is a worry with children and i reckon 98% of women who had an abortion will be racked with guilt , worry and a massive sense of loss

 

again i return to my point "who speaks for the baby?" 

Screenshot_2022-06-26-19-36-16-193_com.google.android.youtube.jpg.4a4c8393483eca25dc64ec306577e233.jpg

 

I have 4 also. I also had an abortion !!!!  However, none of this is yours or anyone`s business, but just for the record I am not racked with guilt and worry as you suggest. Yes, I was told that if I continue with the pregnancy my cancerous cells could multiply and cause me a lots of problems, shall we say. Along with that I didnt want anymore children. So I made a choice. I decided that I would not risk my life and risk leaving my viable living children without a mother. I also weighed in the fact that I didnt want anymore children. So I guess i somewhat fit into your stats table and somewhat meet your opinion of murderer. Either way, I am not bothered by what you think...I am a good mother and person, not faultless but certainly no murderer.

 

Your point of who speaks for the baby...ties in with your question about VIABLE. Viable meaning a viable life that can be sustained outside of the mothers womb. Once a fetus becomes viable and would be able to survive outside of it`s mother by being fed and if necessary given oxygen to the lungs then I believe it should be born... I believe their are limits that should be imposed on the gestation period for abortion. I also believe that circumstances are important as well as the right to choose. If someone delays an abortion to when the fetus becomes viable then a natural delivery or caesarian should be the option. ( Bear in mind doctor delays are often an issue) Again this is my opinion.

 

This would bring us to a conversation about where to draw the line insofar as weeks of gestation for terminations. If you can get past this post and not feel totally appalled  then feel free to ask my opinion on timeline of gestation. I should add I did work as a nurse for many years. I`ve seen a lot...medically speaking.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zArk said:

pretty sterile language.viable. 

 a new born doesnt wear a suit and is off to the office

 

No, thats because it is a newborn.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

why not throw a 3 year old into a pond and shout "swim to be viable"?

 

Viable does not mean being able to swim.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

breast feeding? nappy changes. then solid food. carry . pick up. change nappy. toilet train, teach to tie shoe laces, teach to cook and not burn down house

 

Yes these are normal things one does when raising a child - not sure of your point here...

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

pretty much until 16-18 years old

 

My 16 - 19 years old were able to cook, do laundry, shower, tie their shoes and toilet themselves by this age. No diapers by then. ;-)

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

the dna of the baby is different to the mother. the baby is a sentient being with a right to life.

 

The DNA is different in a miscarriage too... at early stages of gestation I think you would need to prove that a cluster of cells was a sentient being.

 

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

body autonomy applies to the foetus as well

 

How?  The fetus is unable to comprehend body autonomy. Even fully grown human beings with severe mental retardation are unable to comprehend body autonomy and are unable to make decisions for themselves. They fall into another category because of this...as do fetuses who are not viable and able to sustain life on their own.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

even a mass murderer gets the opportunity to defend their right to life

terrorists, rapists, robbers but not the foetus

 

Because a mass murderer is a viable life... it can breathe and live outside of a host. 

My son`s friend was on life support at age 25... he could not make decisions for himself as he was unable to communicate due to his accident.The doctors said his brain was no longer functioning enough to survive by himself. His MOTHER had to be asked for permission to turn off his life support. I saw this young man in this state... He was no longer a viable life!!!

 

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

btw the government didnt pop the baby into her uterus. it wasnt immaculate conception. she was part of that baby making process and in 98.5% of abortions the baby is considered an inconvenience

 

Then maybe the government should not be making decisions on whether the mother can or cannot pop the fetus out of her uterus. I`m not sure what immaculate conception has to do with it.... but much more than the `ìnconvenience`as you put it, is considered. You are extremely judgmental and that you feel a government should be deciding what a woman does with her body makes me feel rather judgmental of you to be honest.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

have you actually looked at how an abortion  is done?

 

 I was a nurse... I`m guessing I know a little more than you do.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

vacuuming a little helpless baby , ripping apart its limbs and body  is murder

 

It is not a viable life - no -one rips arms and limbs off during any abortions I have seen.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

using pinchers to tear limbs off , crushing the skull amd body is murder

 

You are dramatizing and no doubt unable to comprehend much more than your bias allows.

 

5 hours ago, zArk said:

 

the mother is the growing vessel for the sentient being and under our laws the baby is the possession and responsibility of the parents until adulthood but this does not give the mother the right to damage her possesion

 

 

Again you are being dramatic in my opinion. I believe that the limits to gestation for terminations should always be based on the viability of the `being` in question. Also, remember that not everyone holds your religious views at least to the extreme extent that you do ( again just my opinion) and therefore you should not be forcing or attempting to force your beliefs on others.  I respect that you have an opinion.... and you can practice your beliefs in your own lives.... but for others the choice should always be theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Beaujangles said:

However, none of this is yours or anyone`s business,

hang on

we, society, take issue when a childs health or safety is at risk. in fact this has occurred waaay back into antiquity especially with non-family structured groups/culture. children are still perceived as future extensions of the culture and valued as such.

people , through courts, intervene in risk situations and the parents right of possession /property is overruled.

 

when we as a society agree life begins whether spirit or soul is very important and it seems to me has been run roughshod by atheists

 

@Beaujangles as you follow davids work i guess you agree, like i do, that people has a spirit (some call soul) which makes us special? we are entities that will move into a new existence at death.

 

when do you think that 'entity spirit' arrives in the body of a foetus or baby?

 

i believe it occurs at conception as is a unique product of the energy of the stars. the angle of the stars to the egg and sperm create this unique energy and creates life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, zArk said:

hang on

we, society, take issue when a childs health or safety is at risk. in fact this has occurred waaay back into antiquity especially with non-family structured groups/culture. children are still perceived as future extensions of the culture and valued as such.

people , through courts, intervene in risk situations and the parents right of possession /property is overruled.

 

Yes, I do take issue when a living breathing childs health is at risk. Yes children are future extensions. We are not talking about children here... I disagree with much of what courts do to families...so for me your attempt at justifying such intervention as being the same as the topic we are discussing is moot as far as I am concerned. We need to stay on topic...

 

 

2 hours ago, zArk said:

 

when we as a society agree life begins whether spirit or soul is very important and it seems to me has been run roughshod by atheists

 

Whereas you may disagree with atheists - all of mankind has a right to their opinions and their CHOICES.

 

2 hours ago, zArk said:

 

@Beaujangles as you follow davids work i guess you agree, like i do, that people has a spirit (some call soul) which makes us special? we are entities that will move into a new existence at death.

 

I follow his work, although I am not a clone of anyone and I will make my own decisions devoid of anyone else`s viewpoints. I think many people have a beautiful spirit even when hidden behind some traits that are not so beautiful. Some people are very special and some are not.. we know that there are distinctly negative people in this world.

 

If you believe that we move into a new existence at death - maybe that applies to all energies or maybe it does not. I have had my own experiences with``energies``  - I would say not all energies are good.

 

2 hours ago, zArk said:

 

when do you think that 'entity spirit' arrives in the body of a foetus or baby?

 

i believe it occurs at conception as is a unique product of the energy of the stars. the angle of the stars to the egg and sperm create this unique energy and creates life.

 

 

 

So at the end of the day it comes down to belief... You believe a spirit is created at conception. Although you will have no proof of this.

I believe that a fetus ( Cdn spelling v  UK English) evolves and can eventually but not always become a spirited being.  A chrysalis is a chrysalis it is not a butterfly. Larvae are not insects or they would be called insects not larvae. A complete metamorphosis has to occur to effect the transition. Which brings me back to what I said earlier, viable life.

 

I`m afraid I dont buy into the energy of the stars concept... but hey... I dont spend my days telling other people how to think feel or believe.

Edited by Beaujangles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...