(May 28, 2014 at 4:23 pm)Heywood Wrote:(May 28, 2014 at 4:08 pm)One Above All Wrote: I am a gnostic (no; the space is not a typo) atheist. I am pro-life (in the true sense of the word: I think all life should be preserved, within reason. Most others who call themselves "pro-lifers" are actually "forced birthers": hey believe women should be forced to give birth, but, afterward, the baby can go to Hell for all they care) and pro-choice. Let me explain:
I think all life should be preserved, within reason. Therefore I do not approve of abortion. However, I do approve of women's right to choose to have an abortion. I believe this to be the most sensible option/opinion in this case.
What does "within reason" mean? In the event that your own life is at risk, I think you would be justified to kill some one (if they were threatening you) or some thing (if you needed nourishment, for example, or they were threatening you). Note that "justified" does not mean "right".
(May 28, 2014 at 4:13 pm)Losty Wrote: I am pro-life in this sense that I believe that all life should be preserved within reason.
I am pro-choice in the sense that I am no so arrogant as to think what I believe should have any bearing on what another woman does with the contents of her own uterus.
I've always felt that views like this are copouts.
I've always felt that saying "this is a copout" without explaining why it is a copout, is a copout.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?