Pro-life or Pro-choice? | Page 9 | INFJ Forum

Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Again, very good questions!

Before Universe was manifested, it was in unmanifested state. That unmanifested state we can call unity, oneness, unconditional love and then when universe became manifested, it shaterred it self in billion pieces as to experience duality, contrast, separation, individuality, but eventually, after some time, when game is done all pieces will unite themselves to come back into natural state of unity.

So you see your body and mind is just your Relative nature while your Absolute nature is unlimited. That's what enlightenment is about, to get realization of your Absolute nature, to realize that you are not just part and parcel, but whole totallity of existence. To try to hold onto your individuality and perspective forever would only lead to more suffering because it goes against your Absolute nature. Time comes when you need to let go of it. Thats why enlightenment is seen as end of suffering.

What I wanted to say is that we should cherish our individuality because that is helping universe within this current cycle of evolution but also be aware that time will come when we will need to let go off it, because in each cycle of universe, vibrational energy of collective consciousness is raising, so at some point it will be impossible to experience negative energies. This is evident in our past. People were living like animals before without understanding, but today it is different story and more progress will be made in future.

So enlightenment is transcending to becoming that which is omniscient and omnipresent. Paradoxically, death could be a form or stage of enlightenment, or a pathway to multiple rebirths until enlightenment is attained. Thus if enlightenment is almost a certainty, isn't it just the end of the universe?
 
I'm probably going to hell for being a Catholic who can't categorically decide which goes to hell and which doesn't, but I believe I'm faithful. I have faith in birth control. I refuse to believe that my God will abandon to hell those who manage to use a condom or those who choose to give birth then abandon another soul to feel rejected their whole lives.

This is the problem with Dogma. It's too much of specifics.
We shouldn't be judging others. And that was a command. But that's something Christians seem to forget often. I believe in choice and freewill. People make their own choices dictated by their own conscience and beliefs. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. If you're a Christian and you oppose abortion then don't have one. But respect that other people have the freewill to make their own choices and work it out with God (if they believe) on their own.
 
So enlightenment is transcending to becoming that which is omniscient and omnipresent. Paradoxically, death could be a form or stage of enlightenment, or a pathway to multiple rebirths until enlightenment is attained. Thus if enlightenment is almost a certainty, isn't it just the end of the universe?

Yes, thats why enlightenment is seen as self transcendence, when person sees through illusion of Ego and identity or sense of self.

Yes, enlightenment is final death or total Ego death in which person realizes that he is actually deathless. "Die before you die and realize that there is no death." lol

This is way enlightenment is messed up topic, so many paradoxes.

And yes, universe will at some moment go from manifested state to unmanifested state. Who knows how many cycles like this had happened and how many more will happen. I would say infinite
 
I had an abortion when I was 21. I was sad about it, but it felt like the right decision. It didn't feel like I killed it, it felt like I denied it life.

I'm pro-choice.
Much love. I have a child but endured a really difficult high risk pregnancy due to my own health. I am so glad I was able to have him and we are fortunate that we survived and have no complications. He's happy and healthy and resilient and the best choice I ever made in my life was to have him. But if I were to get pregnant again, I would want to be able to decide to carry to term or not. I won't risk my life again for it. I have one child and do not plan on dying on him or ending up with severe life altering complications that could have been avoided.
 
You are one brave soul. Hugs. I'm sure you had your reasons for deciding so and I respect that.

I'm honestly unsure whether I am pro life or pro choice, that's why I say context matters because it matters who we are and what we are in at the time of conception.

The Catholic in me makes me lean towards pro life but I just can't find it in me to condemn (whether legally or in what other way) those who choose to enact on choice, hence my dilemma. Hence my decision to hide behind context. Mehehe

Thank you! I was using protection, and the guy was not a fit parent. We both agreed that it was the right decision. So there was nothing but guilt/fear of guilt that held me back - and it would, if I didn't whole heatedly believe that it was the right decision.

When abortion is used as lazy prevention, it's just horrible. I still don't see it as killing, but total disrespect for life.

Sounds reasonable :blush:
 
Much love. I have a child but endured a really difficult high risk pregnancy due to my own health. I am so glad I was able to have him and we are fortunate that we survived and have no complications. He's happy and healthy and resilient and the best choice I ever made in my life was to have him. But if I were to get pregnant again, I would want to be able to decide to carry to term or not. I won't risk my life again for it. I have one child and do not plan on dying on him or ending up with severe life altering complications that could have been avoided.

:<3: Perfect example of why people need to have the choice, if you ask me :blush:
 
What I do most certainly believe, however, is that bringing in religious texts is misguided here. They are not relevant to a discussion that is fundamentally about human beings.

Hmm! While I may be very cautious about quoting religious texts because sadly so many people have had bad experiences with bad religion, I may very well rely on them myself precisely because they are fundamentally about human beings ;). The trouble is that by excluding a religious perspective a humanist viewpoint can polarise public opinion into non-communicating opposing camps - just as the opposite is also true.

But intriguingly, I don't think the thread has really focused sharply yet on the heart of this issue, which is at what point a fetus becomes a person, a human being. There is nothing I'm aware of in the scripture canons to deal with this as far as I know, simply because it wasn't an option to abort safely when they were written.

Now I don't think anyone in the thread is saying it's OK to kill an unborn human being - where we are in disagreement is when a fetus becomes close enough to being a person that they have independent rights. That is why my own views are liberal on this - I follow the Catholic view that you are a human being from conception, but many others do not accept that. It saddens me deeply that so many people's lives are ended through abortion, and it feels very wrong to me - but I don't think that those who consent to it are guilty of that wrong as long as they are clear in their own hearts that they have not ended another person's life.
 
I'm probably going to hell for being a Catholic who can't categorically decide which goes to hell and which doesn't, but I believe I'm faithful. I have faith in birth control. I refuse to believe that my God will abandon to hell those who manage to use a condom or those who choose to give birth then abandon another soul to feel rejected their whole lives.

This is the problem with Dogma. It's too much of specifics.
What is interesting to me is that most people see the faithful as "religious" - in the essence that they only see 'rules' & 'dogma'. But this is why I quite dislike this word. Because in truth, as @Dado was trying to explain.. we undergo a metamorphosis that changes our heart & mind to 'desire' to do what is right.

It is easy to comprehend how in this metamorphosed state we undergo a great and powerful internal, spiritual shift in thinking which melts the gold commandments from constraints to liquid hearts desire. Through tribulation & leaning on God this liquifying process continues to purify our character, refine our strength, and bind our faith to the one who redeemed us from the fire..

And we will also all endure life's fires - whether we believe in God or not, no one is exempt, because of the free will we were all granted at birth - both evil and good intending humans - alike.

That is the very strength of faith, itself though.- The assurance that, with him, we can survive the pain we all endure because we no longer endure them alone. The comfort that comes from never having to suffer alone and unguided from the moment we accept his hand, his love, and let him help us - far better than we can on our own.

Like a perfect father, he is always there. We will still try to do things our way, stubborn & strong willed because we think' we always 'know' what's right. And sometimes we are right. But more often than not, we fail ( or people fail us ) big time.. and that is when our father is there to comfort, guide, and focus us in the right direction. He meets us in our mess.. That's the beauty of it. :)

In these moments we are once again liquifued, humbled, and ready to accept the path we stubbornly rejected the first time. ( or 10 times if you're like me )..

God doesn't want our half hearted 'obedience' of Dogma'. What he does want is to let us let him change us, from the inside out, so that we start to want to do what's right, from the heart, not because teacher is watching, waiting to smack our wrists with his ruler.

He wants us to finally feel that deep inner peace, love, and hope for the future - even as the flames of life rise around us - that abides in us once we let him in. And once we do so we learn that like any good father, his rules' were created to spare us pain and give us joy, not steal our joy and cause us pain. His comfort and love is unconditional.

In life we often spend years searching for the ideal mate. I too believe in soulmates, yes. But even if we are so lucky in this often dark world to find such a being and be happily married, this being can die.

This means we learn through pain and loss, that in life there is no one we can truly depend on forever, because nothing is promised. Trusted people die, and sometimes other people turn out to be bad, or disappear & disappoint. But God, never. He's the one solid thing in this world. He is steadfast & never lies. He is the one we can always trust. I find comfort in this, not dogma.

As far as our 'behaviour' / sense of "dogma" goes you can compare our 'obedience' ( which by the way even the best 'Christians' fail at every single day ) by using also marriage as another example.

When you marry a good man or woman you want to keep your promises to them. You want to make them proud, happy..so even when you are tempted to yell at them, get back at them, whatever it may be.. your love for them - that liquid, pure place in your heart you call love prevents the follow through ( most of the time ). It makes you want to do what is right, even when tempted by anger and pride to hurt or spite them. To rebel against the 'commandments/ constraints' of your vows..

You are no longer keeping to the vows' or rules' of your marriage simply because of 'dogma'. You are trying to do so from the heart. From love. This.. is what being faithful' is supposed to be about. Religious' and faithful' are two seperapte planes of existence in this deeper context.

This concept is so easily seen in the parable of the tax collector and the pharisees. The pharisees out in the streets screaming of God and asking for money, pretending to be holy and pure of heart, but behind closed doors being full of greed and a closed heart to God.. condemning others. Whereas the tax collector was loathed, yet loved God and had a close relationship with him. Below is an excerpt from a cool site that explains:

What Did the Pharisees Believe and Teach?
Among the Pharisees' beliefs were life after death, resurrection of the body, importance of keeping rituals, and the need to convert Gentiles.

Because they taught that the way to God was by obeying the law, the Pharisees gradually changed Judaism from a religion of sacrifice to one of keeping the commandments (legalism). Animal sacrifices still continued in the Jerusalem temple until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., but Pharisees promoted works over sacrifice.

The Gospels often portray Pharisees as arrogant, but they were generally respected by the masses because of their piety. However, Jesus saw through them. He scolded them for the unreasonable burden they placed on the peasants.

In a scathing rebuke of the Pharisees found in Matthew 23 and Luke 11, Jesus called them hypocrites and exposed their sins. He compared the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs, which are beautiful on the outside but on the inside are filled with dead men's bones and uncleanness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matthew 23:13, 27-28, Most of the time the Pharisees were at odds with the Sadducees, another Jewish sect, but the two parties joined forces to conspire against Jesus.

They voted together in the Sanhedrin to demand his death, then saw that the Romans carried it out. Neither group could believe in a Messiah who would sacrifice himself for the sins of the world.

I know this is an abortion thread - but since a few of you seemed to want to better understand what @Dado meant.. I think, all that? ^^
 
Last edited:
Lol, that was a giant post. If it's too long and boring feel free to ignore it. Sorry it's long, but the text quoted from site really added to its length, unfortunately. :neutral::flushed:

EDIT: fixed copy / paste error. 0.0
 
Last edited:
What is interesting to me is that most people see the faithful as "religious" - in the essence that they only see 'rules' & 'dogma'. But this is why I quite dislike this word. Because in truth, as @Dado was trying to explain.. we undergo a metamorphosis that changes our heart & mind to 'desire' to do what is right.

It is easy to comprehend how in this metamorphosed state we undergo a great and powerful internal, spiritual shift in thinking which melts the gold commandments from constraints to liquid hearts desire. Through tribulation & leaning on God this liquifying process continues to purify our character, refine our strength, and bind our faith to the one who redeemed us from the fire..

And we will also all endure life's fires - whether we believe in God or not, no one is exempt, because of the free will we were all granted at birth.

That is the very strength of faith, itself though.- The assurance that, with him, we can survive the pain we all endure because we no longer endure them alone. The comfort that comes from never having to suffer alone and unguided from the moment we accept his hand, his love, and let him help us - far better than we can on our own.

Like a perfect father, he is always there. We will try to do things our way, stubborn & strong willed because we think' we always 'know' what's right. And sometimes we are right. But more often than not, we fail ( or people fail us ) big time.. and that is when our father is there to comfort, guide, and focus us in the right direction. He meets us in our mess.. That's the beauty of it. :)

In these moments we are once again liquifued, humbled, and ready to accept the path we stubbornly rejected the first time. ( or 10 times if you're like me )..

God doesn't want our half hearted 'obedience' of Dogma'. What he does want is to let us let him change us, from the inside out, so that we start to want to do what's right, from the heart, not because teacher is watching, waiting to smack our wrists with a ruler.

He wants us to finally feel that deep inner peace, love, and hope for the future - even as the flames of life rise around us - that abides in us once we let him in. And once we do so we learn that like any good father, his rules' were created to spare us pain and give us joy, not steal our joy and cause us pain. His comfort and love is unconditional.

In life we often spend years searching for the ideal mate. I too believe in soulmates, yes. But even if we are so lucky in this often dark world to find such a being and be happily married, this being can die.

This means we learn through pain and loss, that in life there is no one we can truly depend on forever, because nothing is promised. Trusted people die, and sometimes other people turn out to be bad, or disappear & disappoint. But God, never. He's the one solid thing in this world. He is steadfast & never lies. He is the one we can always trust. I find comfort in this, not dogma.

As far as our 'behaviour' / sense of "dogma" goes you can compare our 'obedience' ( which by the way even the best 'Christians' fail at every single day ) by using also marriage as another example.

When you marry a good man or woman you want to keep your promises to them. You want to make them proud, happy..so even when you are tempted to yell at them, get back at them, whatever it may be.. your love for them - that liquid, pure place in your heart you call love prevents the follow through ( most of the time ). It makes you want to do what is right, even when tempted by anger and pride to hurt or spite them. To rebel against the 'commandments/ constraints' of your vows..

You are no longer keeping to the vows' or rules' of your marriage simply because of 'dogma'. You are trying to do so from the heart. From love. This.. is what being faithful' is supposed to be about. Religious' and faithful' are two seperapte planes of existence in this deeper context.

This concept is so easily seen in the parable of the tax collector and the pharisees. The pharisees out in the streets screaming of God and asking for money, pretending to be holy and pure of heart, but behind closed doors being full of greed and a closed heart to God.. condemning others. Whereas the tax collector was loathed, yet loved God and had a close relationship with him. Below is an excerpt from a cool site that explains:

What Did the Pharisees Believe and Teach?
Among the Pharisees' beliefs were life after death, resurrection of the body, importance of keeping rituals, and the need to convert Gentiles.

Because they taught that the way to God was by obeying the law, the Pharisees gradually changed Judaism from a religion of sacrifice to one of keeping the commandments (legalism). Animal sacrifices still continued in the Jerusalem temple until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., but Pharisees promoted works over sacrifice.

The Gospels often portray Pharisees as arrogant, but they were generally respected by the masses because of their piety. However, Jesus saw through them. He scolded them for the unreasonable burden they placed on the peasants.

Because they taught that the way to God was by obeying the law, the Pharisees gradually changed Judaism from a religion of sacrifice to one of keeping the commandments (legalism). Animal sacrifices still continued in the Jerusalem temple until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., but Pharisees promoted works over sacrifice.

The Gospels often portray Pharisees as arrogant, but they were generally respected by the masses because of their piety. However, Jesus saw through them. He scolded them for the unreasonable burden they placed on the peasants.

In a scathing rebuke of the Pharisees found in Matthew 23 and Luke 11, Jesus called them hypocrites and exposed their sins. He compared the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs, which are beautiful on the outside but on the inside are filled with dead men's bones and uncleanness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matthew 23:13, 27-28, Most of the time the Pharisees were at odds with the Sadducees, another Jewish sect, but the two parties joined forces to conspire against Jesus.

They voted together in the Sanhedrin to demand his death, then saw that the Romans carried it out. Neither group could believe in a Messiah who would sacrifice himself for the sins of the world.

I know this is an abortion thread - but since a few of you seemed to want to better understand what @Dado meant.. I think, all that? ^^

You explained it well. A lot of people dont see faith from perspective that you presented. They see it from outside without ever trying to live it and see for themselves and so they judge it without knowing what they are missing out...
 
You explained it well. A lot of people dont see faith from perspective that you presented. They see it from outside without ever trying to live it and see for themselves and so they judge it without knowing what they are missing out...
Yup. :grin:

And even more amazeballs than the comfort & guidance he gives through the 'Valley of the shadow' we all face in life, bonus.. he says life is but 'the blink of an eye' compared to eternity. An eternity he offers which is free from bad guys, sickness, death, & bills! Woop! :tonguewink:
 
Last edited:
Hmm! While I may be very cautious about quoting religious texts because sadly so many people have had bad experiences with bad religion, I may very well rely on them myself precisely because they are fundamentally about human beings ;). The trouble is that by excluding a religious perspective a humanist viewpoint can polarise public opinion into non-communicating opposing camps - just as the opposite is also true.

But intriguingly, I don't think the thread has really focused sharply yet on the heart of this issue, which is at what point a fetus becomes a person, a human being. There is nothing I'm aware of in the scripture canons to deal with this as far as I know, simply because it wasn't an option to abort safely when they were written.

Now I don't think anyone in the thread is saying it's OK to kill an unborn human being - where we are in disagreement is when a fetus becomes close enough to being a person that they have independent rights. That is why my own views are liberal on this - I follow the Catholic view that you are a human being from conception, but many others do not accept that. It saddens me deeply that so many people's lives are ended through abortion, and it feels very wrong to me - but I don't think that those who consent to it are guilty of that wrong as long as they are clear in their own hearts that they have not ended another person's life.
I think that so long as the fetus is wholly dependant on it's mother's biology to survive, the concept of fetal rights should not supersede the woman's right to choose. It's been turned into an issue of who has more right? A fetus or the woman it depends on to form into an independent being?

People have compared the rights of adults or children in comas or vegetative states who are utterly dependant on others for care as being the same as a woman's relationship to a fetus. But I think it's different because one is fully dependant on another person's biology to survive.
 
I think that so long as the fetus is wholly dependant on it's mother's biology to survive, the concept of fetal rights should not supersede the woman's right to choose. It's been turned into an issue of who has more right? A fetus or the woman it depends on to form into an independent being?

People have compared the rights of adults or children in comas or vegetative states who are utterly dependant on others for care as being the same as a woman's relationship to a fetus. But I think it's different because one is fully dependant on another person's biology to survive.
But that is a fail example because a fetus is a growing human in perfect health.

Plus, my son is 5. If I fail to feed him he will also die. 0.0

Our newborn babies continue to depend upon their mothers bodies to be fed, even after birth.

Babies depend on mothers for survival far beyond the womb. Whether you like saying it or not, ( God card excluded ) it is the killing ( murdering ) of another human life, period.
 
But that is a fail example because a fetus is a growing human in perfect health.

Plus, my son is 5. If I fail to feed him he will also die. 0.0

Our newborn babies continue to depend upon their mothers bodies to be fed, even after birth.

Babies depend on mothers for survival beyond the womb. Whether you like saying it or not, ( God card excluded ) it is the killing ( murdering ) of another human life, period.
If you fail to feed him someone else can. He is not dependant on your physiology to survive. He is a separate being capable of his own biological functions. You don't have to consume the food first in order for him to gain nutrients like a fetus. Same as a newborn. It's completely different.

I understand the crusade to defend a fetuses right to life. I'm communicating my side. My side is that a fetus' rights do not supersede the mother's rights as it is biologically a part of her body and she has the capacity to make her own choices. I understand the emotional aspect to this. I'm saying it should be a decision by the person carrying out the biological function of carrying the fetus to term... regardless of what other people's religious convictions dictate.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the top most thing this thread has opened my eyes to it's that if we cannot remove religion/faith from a political discussion even with a group of INFJs who tend to be able to see both sides of the coin, then we'll never be able to remove it from government. #WellThereGoesThatHope :hushed:
 
If you fail to feed him someone else can. He is not dependant on your physiology to survive. He is a separate being capable of his own biological functions. You don't have to consume the food first in order for him to gain nutrients like a fetus.

Consuming food is something you do every day, whether pregnant or not. Next. You don't get a commendation for not killing a child by simply doing what you do every day anyway.

Again, I repeat, there are loads of agnostic folk who also find abortion to be what it is, by very definition- the intentional killing of another human. Murder is a legal term, not a biblical one.

And, I do comprehend your take. But it is still just a loophole to kill. The woman isn't being maimed.

Besides..

If you carry the child to term and give it away then no worries, because as you so eloquently pointed out ^^ "If you fail to feed him someone else can."
 
I think that so long as the fetus is wholly dependant on it's mother's biology to survive, the concept of fetal rights should not supersede the woman's right to choose. It's been turned into an issue of who has more right? A fetus or the woman it depends on to form into an independent being?

People have compared the rights of adults or children in comas or vegetative states who are utterly dependant on others for care as being the same as a woman's relationship to a fetus. But I think it's different because one is fully dependant on another person's biology to survive.
Yes, I'm sure that your view is shared by many people. I obviously disagree, but I respect it. It seems to me though that the situation is not usually symmetrical - it's rarely a choice between the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, but between the life of the fetus and a greater or lesser hardship for the mother. I can see from your own situation why you may consider it if the situation ever arose, because that could be pushing you towards the extreme of which life to preserve.

Btw when there is a serious and maybe imminent risk to the lives of both mother and child because of a medical problem, I don't think this is the same situation at all. Whatever it takes to achieve the best possible outcome is my view - at any stage of the pregnancy. There are probably hard choices to be made under these circumstances, and I say there but for the grace of God, and offer my love and prayers for a safe outcome, not judgements.