Pro-lifers need Psychiatric help?

[Sirona]

Obviously some pro-lifers need Psychiatric help, but does the belief that life begins at conception seem to you like it's a delusion or mental illness?

Does trying to get signatures to have such a thing on the ballot, even further strike you as being psychologically disordered?

As others have said before, this is not when "life" begins but which rights should be given to women or their unborm.

I think being pro-life by itself obviously is not a sign of mentall illness, but I think it's the other way round, that mentally ill persons are more likely to cling to fundamentalist or extremist ideas (which may lead to cruel and one-sided "solutions") because some of them may have literally lost the ability to see the "middle ground" or possibly enjoy provoking for provocation's sake, to gain attention they otherwise would not receive.

If a woman falls down a cliff, the unborn usually dies with her, regardless in which stage of development the unborn is.

 

[Spiderman]

No abortion by definition is not murder. Killing maybe. But the US still has the death penalty in play so it’s not like it can say anything about killing, without being beyond hypocritical. Most civilised countries did away with such barbaric practices years ago. Just FYI

So you don't believe in the death penalty? I actually did not know most countries civilized did away with the death penalty though.

 

[stvdv]

What is your opinion, do people who believe life begins at conception , need psychiatric help?

People are free to believe (entertain thoughts)

IF, however, they impose pro-life on a rape victim THEN they need psychiatric help for sure

IF, however, they impose pro-life on others THEN they need psychiatric help

OR read RF Rules on "respect each other's faith etc"

But probably psychiatric help won't cure their disease, according to hindu Scriptures. So, better not waste money on it

 

[Spiderman]

Fact: Soul does not enter at conception, but much later
Fact: Animal life also begins at conception

So, if pro-lifers are genuinely concerned about life, then:
1) They better watch their steps as to not kill bugs
2) They should not wear leather shoes, jackets...
3) They must become vegan, to avoid hypocrisy
4) They should not take mebendazol medicines
5) etc. etc.

IF they do the above THEN they maybe have the right to tell others about it

I don't like the Bible, but it promotes animal sacrifice and eating animals, as well as killing people sometimes.

And the commandment "thou shall not kill" does not apply to animals. The Bible never institutes laws for the average person to avoid meat, or we would have billions of vegetarians on earth.

People who follow the Bible have reason to not kill the unborn, because Scripture says God knew us before forming us in the womb.

When John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's womb, Scripture says "the baby leapt in his mother's womb".

There is no Scriptures saying God is against humans eating animals. But I don't follow the Bible.

 

[Spiderman]

People are free to believe (entertain thoughts)

IF, however, they impose pro-life on a rape victim THEN they need psychiatric help for sure

IF, however, they impose pro-life on others THEN they need psychiatric help

OR read RF Rules on "respect each other's faith etc"

But probably psychiatric help won't cure their disease, according to hindu Scriptures. So, better not waste money on it

I was NOT imposing anti-abortion beliefs on anyone, or even saying they are correct.

I'm saying over ten years ago I was actively involved in the pro life movement.

I have said that I think abortion has been sometimes the most merciful thing for the baby, the mother, and best for society, sometimes!

 

[stvdv]

The Bible never institutes laws for the average person to avoid meat, or we would have billions of vegetarians on earth.

Not correct. Genesis clearly states that humans should eat vegan. But human's ego wanted to eat meat and go against God's advice.

Same with Golden Calf. Also not God's Plan. But people have the Freedom of Choice, so they can go after Gold as well as non-vegan food

BUT it's a fact that God's first advice is the best and for our own good (IF you want the Holy Spirit). People complain that God don't talk to them. Sai Baba has been very clear about this "vegetarian lifestyle is a must for those who want Spiritual Life (contact)".

But He also said something like, if you choose to be a soldier then you should eat meat, otherwise you don't have that killer instinct (and you will get killed)

 

[stvdv]

The Bible never institutes laws for the average person to avoid meat, or we would have billions of vegetarians on earth.

God gave all "Freedom of Choice". Hence God does not judge. But your choice has consequences (called karma). So choose wise (if you want wisdom/God). It's that simple (not easy). The Bible also says "as you sow, so you reap", and many wise told us "You are (become) what you eat". So, to not follow God's advice (eat non-veg) is totally fine, but then don't complain if God doesn't speak to you etc.

Same as in a worldly University. If you don't study well and don't practise what you have learned then you don't get your degree (you don't get to speak to the highest professor/teacher/Master. Spiritual Life works similar.

 

[stvdv]

I was NOT imposing anti-abortion beliefs on anyone, or even saying they are correct.

I'm saying over ten years ago I was actively involved in the pro life movement.

I have said that I think abortion has been sometimes the most merciful thing for the baby, the mother, and best for society, sometimes!

I know

I was not speaking about you, but about "pro-lifers" who are not always consistent themselves. I just gave a common sense reply

If they would be more specific and say "pro human life" I would not have said much. Maybe I would have said "what about all the religious wars...not much pro-life there"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, lethal force in self defense sounds okay to me.

I'm saying, "is it a human being at conception"?. Well, do people who believe we are human at conception strike you as being ill psychologically?

It doesn't matter if you consider it a person or not in context of the abortion debate.
Let's just consider it a "person" for a moment with full free citizenship rights even.

What we have here are 2 individuals laying claim on the same body.
1 of them is the owner of the body.

The owner of the body, always wins. You have exclusive rights to your body.
This is why you can't just knock someone out and harvest a kidney.


So as to your OP question if that requires psychiatric help...
No. ***mod edit***
And as House said, you can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.

 

[stvdv]

I was NOT imposing anti-abortion beliefs on anyone, or even saying they are correct.

I'm saying over ten years ago I was actively involved in the pro life movement.

I have said that I think abortion has been sometimes the most merciful thing for the baby, the mother, and best for society, sometimes!

Pro-life is a good thing to follow IMO. I also do my best (non violence is very important in Hinduism). Pro-human-life is much easier though, unless one is a cannibal.

I have worms bugging me, and I might take an "anti life pil", unless I find a better solution.

Hence I don't tell others to go "pro-life" (no abortion), because I am about to "abort worms".

Ramana Maharshi had all worms and stuff eating him (in a wound) but he did not want to take their food away, I read. He was much more "pro-life" than I am. And Rama Krishana gave only advice IF He first practised Himself. Valuable lessons from Great Masters.

 

[PureX]

There's a lot of stupidity and dishonesty on the "pro-life" side of the issue. Not the least of which is that label. But they do have a legitimate basis for their position that cannot (or should not) be denied. So I certainly would not call them crazy. And in fact I respect their respect for the gift of human life, whatever the circumstances of it's creation.

I also think the "pro-choice" side can sometimes be arrogant and hypocritical. But they also have a profoundly important basis for their position, and I have to side with them because of it.

Abortions are not a good thing. They are not to be encouraged. But bodily autonomy must be respected. To sacrifice that ideal is to sacrifice the essence of our humanity, and then it makes no difference if the baby gets born or not.

 

[Heyo]

Legally it is killing a fetus, not a human, which is not bestowed on the fetus until birth

Correction: it is human - it is not a person.

 

[Spiderman]

Not correct. Genesis clearly states that humans should eat vegan. But human's ego wanted to eat meat and go against God's advice.

Same with Golden Calf. Also not God's Plan. But people have the Freedom of Choice, so they can go after Gold as well as non-vegan food

BUT it's a fact that God's first advice is the best and for our own good (IF you want the Holy Spirit). People complain that God don't talk to them. Sai Baba has been very clear about this "vegetarian lifestyle is a must for those who want Spiritual Life (contact)".

But He also said something like, if you choose to be a soldier then you should eat meat, otherwise you don't have that killer instinct (and you will get killed)

In the Old Testament in Egypt, God commands the slaughter of the lamb, put blood of the lamb on doorposts, and then eat the lamb.

I have no reason to believe eating meat will separate me from God.

But I don't like meat unless it is clam chowder, and lament the life of animals at slaughter houses.

But if I am in an institution/facility that serves meat, I have the option of eating the meat or being malnourished.

The animal is already dead, so I'm not saving a life by refusing to eat the meat, and I have no reason to believe it will separate me from God, based off a Bible that commands people to eat meat.

But I would prefer no meat or slaughter houses, (but maybe clam chowder, if clams don't think much or have much feelings). I don't know enough about clams to know the answers!

 

[wellwisher]

What is your opinion, do people who believe life begins at conception , need psychiatric help?

The only reason this is in the religious debate section, is because the belief that life begins at conception, is a religious belief, in it's essence and intrinsic nature.

I couldn't fathom how you could be an atheist who believes that life begins at conception.

If you look at the science definition for life; Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli. The fertilized ovum at conception follows all these criteria.

What you are talking about is not based on science, by a political talking point which is not the same as a science POV. Roe v Wade and abortion could not use the science definition or else it would shoot it own foot. So they needed to add politics which is more subjective. A fertilized ovum divides like single cells in a tight cluster. If bacteria did this same thing ,we say they are alive. I do not recognize the authority of wishful politics over the inconvenient truth of science.

As a self test, look at any definition of life that is offered by science and do the check list for the period of time after conception. If it quacks it is a duck. Eggs and Sperm are not fully alive, since neither can grow or replicate on their own. But once their DNA mix, equilibrium changes and all the boxes needed for life can be checked. Religion did follow the science but left wing politics try to refine science with its own rigged subjectivity.

Those who deny the science definition of life need psychiatric help. How culture deals with all or some forms of life, is a philosophical question, that exists beyond the science definition for life. But is good for females to know what is life, according to the science definition of life, so they are not later overwhelmed by harming their instincts due to misinformation. I am not saying what to do but the more we know the better choice one can make.

 

[ChristineM]

Correction: it is human - it is not a person.

my bad, thanks

 

[Heyo]

If you look at the science definition for life; Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli. The fertilized ovum at conception follows all these criteria.

So does a parasite or a tumour.
But that was never a part of the discussion, at least not among educated people. The legality of abortion is a legal question, not a religious, biological or philosophical one.
There are only two relevant questions: 1. personhood (which is usually granted at birth) and 2. the conflict of right to life of a potential person versus the right of bodily autonomy. All else are red herrings.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Legally it is killing a fetus, not a human, which is not bestowed on the fetus until birth

I'd say it's human but it's not a legal person with rights until birth.

 

[stvdv]

The animal is already dead, so I'm not saving a life by refusing to eat the meat

That's the worst argument if you just think twice you know why. There is a Law about "supply and demand". If nobody eats it, well nobody feels this need to kill the animal

Much better to just acknowledge "okay, I indirectly kill animals, but that's fine with me". That's the truth. I don't judge you, God doesn't judge you.

I killed indirectly and directly animals till ca. 1995. And maybe accidentally sometimes I eat cheese with rennet (from calf stomach)

But I don't try to find excuses. I just admit that I coincidentally kill animals now and then

 

[ChristineM]

I'd say it's human but it's not a legal person with rights until birth.

You are correct, i should have said and meant personhood but it obviously came out wrong and i did not see it to correct it.

It is now corrected

 

[Spiderman]

That's the worst argument if you just think twice you know why. There is a Law about "supply and demand". If nobody eats it, well nobody feels this need to kill the animal

Much better to just acknowledge "okay, I indirectly kill animals, but that's fine with me". That's the truth. I don't judge you, God doesn't judge you.

I killed indirectly and directly animals till ca. 1995. And maybe accidentally sometimes I eat cheese with rennet (from calf stomach)

But I don't try to find excuses. I just admit that I coincidentally kill animals now and then

It seems you missed my point entirely.

In an institution or facility that serves meat, if I don't eat the meat, I go hungry and the food goes in the trash.

The food has already been purchased, so it does NOT affect supply and demand at all, whether I eat it or not, because the meat has been purchased, whether it goes in my stomach, or goes in the trash!