So I am in this discussion on abortion in this other forum (and I am really missing IF) and the subject of right to live came up and it got me to thinking that my opponent was a real believer of the right to life but probably wouldn’t agree to people who are homosexual, ordained woman priests, transvestites or the countless number of extraordinary Frank Zappa fans.

Would this fall under the term hypocritical?

Is threre a difference to the right of life and the right to live?

Do we encourage the initial birthing life just so cultures and societies can direct or deny anyone another type of life?

Are we indeed denying the right of others because of our personal beliefs or faith and missing out in the Truth that even we know we rally and campaign for the defense of an infant that our society denies others (in some way) the right to a certain lifestyle or a way of living?

What kind of line is there to draw when everyone has their favorite opinion on where to draw the line.

How can we really be sure we are offering everyone (by not offending anyone) the right to a certain life?

__________________
"There is one thing that organized religion is not qualified to teach and that is an individual's purpose."-GOD

Cardero, Cardero, Cardero. In My Opinion!!! We are not in a position to judge others and the way they choose to believe (on any level, about anything). We have our opinions. We have our attitude. We have our behavior, our actions and reactions, our beliefs about right and wrong. The way we think changes as we grow spiritually, not because someone tells us what to think. The very same applies to everyone else! We can't tell someone how to act or think or behave any more than they can tell us.

In my opinion (and this can be a stretch for many), every incarnation has at it's core a reason for the time and place and relationships encountered during that physical experience. In many instances we are reunited with loved ones to continue along the path shared over multiple lifetimes. In some cases we enter into a family unit or circumstance for the sole (soul) purpose of dilivering a specific challenge or encounter that is intended to change the attitude of all concerned to a more selfless behavior, one in which they may start to put themselves in a subordinate role in favor of helping and serving all toward a more benificient and prosperous future.

That specific exercise, that appointment, that delivery of a most important lesson may take a lifetime to manifest to those intended to receitve it. On the other hand, it may be delivered without taking a single breath!

__________________
Only Love Prevails,
Don

The whole "right to life" issue has been very strongly debated over decades in many countries, and each will have to decide when it is proper to take another life, if ever. Most will allow abortion under certain circumstances; some will allow capital punishment; all will allow for war; etc.

But in a democracy, it's generally the morality of the majority that will ultimately decide these matters. One may complain about the decision, but that's the way it has to go if there's going to be a democracy.

However, with that being said, Jefferson also had warned us of the possible "tyranny of democracy" whereas the majority may stomp on a minority in such a way as to deny them any personal autonomy. That's one reason why courts have at times gone against the majority, and that may or may not always be justified.

Shalom,
Vern

Life is not "ours" it IS and that includes all living.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

You have a good point. Why fight for the right of life if you are going to stifle the life? It makes you wonder what they are really fighting for.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.