Abortion: Your Views...

[SOLDIER #819]

Silverdragoon: It's good that you're getting involved and asserting your opinion so early on.

Ironically, while you mostly destroy life and consume it in the case of animals, apparently plants are better in that case: they remain alive, and even after digested, are supposedly better than destroyed life.

That's an interesting way justify something, haha. It's the first time I've heard of it.

Some opinions aren't meant to coexist. One must eclipse the other, no matter how valid it may end up being.

I do not believe that this is a matter of oil and water. One person does not have to meld and conform to both viewpoints. They simply have to live with the fact that not everyone share their own. Casting tolerance aside to assert one's beliefs over another just paints a very sad picture for me.

I can understand where you're going: it's not like, say, legalizing homosexual marriage will end up forcing people to become homosexuals. The premise is ridiculous in theory, as it is a concept of personal rights and moral points of view.

It's weird that you'd mention this. I have a friend who, at least at one point, seriously believed this. It seems similar to your example about becoming a "tool of Samsara," barring that the school of thought I am familiar does not believe that you could drag someone else "down" with you through your actions alone. However, I think that forcing your beliefs on others would do more to hinder than help you in either form of ascension. I am no theologian though. Either way this is moving away from the point.

I must respond with "what about the rights of that potential?", what about respecting my belief that said being is a human being in formation, that it probably has life, that it probably will become a citizen of the country where I live in, and that it has rights that cannot be violated.

One issue is something I have stated in a previous post. Potential has not yet been realized so far as science is concerned. If we are to judge by your belief system in place of science, then I can only ask why we do so. While science's laws are assumed by man and science itself is not without its limits, it appears to explain many aspects of the physical world with a stunning degree of accuracy and the benefits (and sometimes tragedies) it provides are quite real. What gives your belief system priority? What evidence makes you assume that it is truly something all people should follow? Though it should be noted that what I am speaking of is more of a question of definition of human life and not one of morality, the latter of which I am not sure science can ever answer.

The second point refers to something you said later on. You claimed that my respect for your beliefs has its limits. That is only true if you attempt to surpass your boundaries and attempt to exercise control over mine. This, I personally believe, is why harm to others is construed as a crime. It attempts to forcibly twist a person to the whims of the offender. Banning abortion is akin to this in that there is little reason for it other than forcing one's boundaries to conform to that party's beliefs. If you believe the justification is greater than that...

... then we are led back to my first point. There is little to suggest in our world of senses that a life form can exist as a human without something like a working human brain. Even if down the line we are forced to shorten the valid abortion period it would be completely dependent on what we observe within that particular organ and does not point to conception. If you were to then rely on something beyond empirical evidence, such as your beliefs, how can you weigh them against another person's belief system? Personal beliefs when set against each other can only push at one another with equal force. That is to say, neither one will ever win out on its own merits and we're back to square one. What then is the determining factor? I would say it is what we find empirically. It really is all we have left.