Why do we use the word "abortion"?
Because that stops thinking from the first, which many people do not think in the first place. Because that prejudices the issue. What if we just asked some appropriate questions?
My Word Perfect thesaurus came up with the word "delivery". I Looked up delivery and I got "release", "liberation", and "salvation". What would we think about abortion when we call it liberation? What if we were pro life and pro choice? What if it actually is liberation for some souls that want to return to God after a very short mission? Why do we not ask the Lord Most High these questions? Are we humble enough to ask? Are we ready for the answers? Are we courageous enough to ask and then to listen?
Why would a "liberal" media prejudice this issue, by calling it "abortion"?
Why is the subject of abortion so controversial?
Because, the extreme positions, are the result of black and white thinking. "Black and white" thinking is a form of mental illness per cognitive therapy. "Should" thinking is irrational thinking. I know, it works great, to elect a Caesar, but it does not help heal our world. That is how our world of egos, works. But, how about looking deeper?
How can I help clear up my thinking on the subject of abortion?
It could help to take the abortion quiz, here.
Is abortion the right and or wise thing to do? I do not know, but I do know, that looking for solutions, is the right thing to do. Do you wish to be more loving or right? Are you more interested in solutions, than in being righteous? When that is so, read on.
Have you ever noticed, that those that support the "right to life", often support the "right to guns", and often support our "right to kill' and "torture", for their prisoners and often do not support "welfare". Then, those that support the "right to choice", often support "gun control", and often support "right to life", for their prisoners, and do support "health care". What is going on, at our deeper levels? Notice that both sides, can support some form, of right to life, and right to choice. It just depends what the life is for, and what the choice is for.
These conflicts, are related to our basic masculine, and feminine drives. These conflicts, even relate to our long term history. We were told to be fruitful and multiply in the old testament of the Bible. In new testament times, we have over multiplied. But then, we still have a lot of old testament legalistic thinking, that is not what the Master Jesus taught. That old testament thinking, about an angry god is what he came to demonstrate the higher levels. They could not kill him, or anger him on the cross. You can not kill, or anger God. However, killing killing and hurting others has consequences that return to the killer and hurter.
Masculinity, is certainly concerned with their right to their guns, their phallic symbol. They need their guns, to be in control, to be a warrior archetype, with the function of protecting their community. Since one can understand, putting their life on the line to protect lives, one can understand, their interest in right to life. One can understand, their biological imperative, to reproduce and protect. One can understand, their very low interest in welfare, since that is more the function of the feminine side.
The feminine side, is certainly interested in choice, they want to choose who's children they bear and nurse. It is the masculine, that proposes, and the feminine that chooses. They naturally want to choose, and control, which gun protects them. They are concerned with their welfare and health, and the welfare and health of others. Now, our collective welfare, has begun to be threatened, by us being over fruitful in our multiplying. We will proceed to extinction like in the far past from when it gets hot enough to poison the seas and atmosphere with H2S. See "Scientific American" of Oct06.
When we get past, our biological programming, we can look for better alternatives, and solutions, not just arguments.
1. Let's say that you believe in the death penalty, for premeditated murder. Let's say you believe that abortion is murder and by definition, premeditated. Then you must support the death penalty for the mothers, and the doctors, and any of the coconspirators, like the father and doctor's staff, to be consistent in your thinking. You are actually pro choice and pro consequences for the choice. Let's say that you believe in the death penalty, or a life sentence, for premeditated murder, but you believe that abortion, is not premeditated murder. Then you must support getting more of our government, off our backs in this area, to be consistent in your thinking.
2. Let's say that you do not believe in the death penalty for anything. You must be against abortion. You have said you do not believe in the death penalty, so you must be very pro life and pro choice. Then, to be consistent in your thinking, you must be for the life in the fetus, to become a happy, full of life, person. And, to be consistent, you must want everything, to make it possible for the family to thrive. I know that you are sad, about losing fetuses. I do not believe that you really want fetuses, aborted or ruined lives. Since you believe in life, you agree with the Highest Good. The Highest Good gives eternal life to everything and everyone. In that case, there is no problem, and nothing to be mad about.
3. Let's say that you believe, that the death penalty and life sentences, and choice and consequences are just continuing the cycles of violence, and that something better is needed. Let's say that you believe, that there are many causes of abortion, and societies with death penalties, is one of them. Let's say that you believe in the paradox, that we still live in a fair universe, where even the violence, is fair. Then you must support the reduction of violence, in all its forms, and the fears, that are the root causes. Then you must support all forms of loving, and understanding.
What do I support? Closer to 3. I believe that the soul dives down through the egg when the mouth to the anus is formed, but I also believe that you can not kill the soul any more than you can kill God. Neither 1 nor 2 make enough sense to me, although I can appreciate, them making sense to some of you. Each case is different, and I do not know what to do, in each case, but that which is the Highest Good does. If there ever was a reason to be still, and wait upon The Highest Good for answers for the highest good of all concerned, the decision for the mother and father to abort or not, is enough reason. When Good created the first man per the bible, he became alive when he was breathed upon by Good. Does that mean that we become alive, when we take our first breath? Is our first breath via the cord? When embryos fail to stay in the womb or miscarry is that murder? When pollen fertilizes a seed, are they alive or is it when the seed sprouts? When seeds fall on infertile ground and fail to sprout, is that abortion?
Are the police and justice system capable of being still and waiting upon The Highest Good, for an answer in any specific case? You know the answer to that, as much as I do. Our government and politicians often play God now, without being able to listen very often to His wisdom. It is usually an advanced case of Self Righteousness. But, this is a personal spiritual issue, and we theoretically have a separation between church and state. The Kingdom of God is about forgiveness and acceptance while the Kingdom of the World is about judgment and intolerance.
Personally, I do not believe in using death penalties or life sentences, since our system does punish a good percentage of innocent people and let go of a good percentage of guilty people. At least the life sentences give us some more time to undo some injustices and learn how to help people recover. When we are more enlightened, we will have done and uncover the research, to find how to help people reprogram and recover, instead of judging them. That is a more enlightened goal, than the blind gods of justice and punishment.
What might we all support?
The ones that believe in the right to life, must have enough compassion to want some quality of life in that life. The ones that believe in a right to choice, and the limits of government, must have enough compassion to want some quality of life, no matter what the choices. The ones that believe in a fair universe, but want to make things better, must have enough compassion to want some more quality of life. See: "The Social Welfare State, Beyond Ideology" for how that has proven cost effective in Nordic countries in "Scientific American."
How might we do that? We could support places that both incentivize wiser choices and life. Many mothers and fathers to be, need support and love and understanding. To support wiser decisions, they need places where they can walk and talk with the spirit of Highest Good, to help make their decisions. To support wiser decision, they need places, where they will have child care, training for the life of their dreams, training on how to have a better life, meaningful work to do. When you are in the number 1 position above, you must want to avoid the multiple tragedies of killing the baby, mother, father, doctor, staff. Then you would want to support loving supporting places, as a better way. When you are in the number 2 position above, you must want to incentivize freedom and choice, as a better way. Then you would want to support loving supporting places. When you are in the number 3 position above, you would want to support loving supporting places, as a better way. There is a better solution for all the positions that ultimately leads to where they all want to go. It is just a matter of patience to get there. Is that not where there is more rights to life, more quality of life, more freedom, more limits on government and more rights to choose? Is that not what we all want? Like Mr. King said, "Why can't we all get along?"
For those that still believe both 1 & 2 above, I hope you would be willing to reread this several times and willing to asking The Highest Good, what would be for the highest good and willing to be open to your answers at the level you are at. Then we need to be willing to be open to better answers as The Highest Good helps us to grow up spiritually.
What is God's stand on the abortion issue? Rev 1Nov06
Good, at the level I know The Highest Good, is both pro choice and pro life. The Highest Good I know is for choosing at the highest level we can. The Highest Good I know is for living at the highest level we can.
Abortion is not a "privacy" issue, it is an issue about the religions freedom to ask that which is most high, what to do, and the freedom to follow whatever is learned from that which is the most high. Freedom is about not being forced follow the rules of legislators that use religions to just get votes. The answers of questions to that which is most high depends on who is asking and where they are in their use of freedom of religion to find their own answers. In other words, it depends.
Is God for more laws to stop abortions?
No, that is of the World. No, that is Caesar's place, to make more laws. Many immature christians are playing Caesar and trying to control the World with the best of intentions. You know, paving the road to hell, with the best of intentions. Just saying No, only works for a few. Protection works for some more. But, since everyone is doing the best that they they are conscious of, with the challenges that they have, mistakes happen. The Highest Good I know does want us to be loving and compassionate to ourselves, and others, when mistakes happen. God is for more loving and understanding.
As to opposing abortion, as an immoral act, I offer the following: For Adam, life began when he first breathed the breath of God. On a mountain in the Old Testament, God wrote "Thou shall not kill." But, in valleys, God sometimes ordered killing everyone, including all babies. [Joshua 8:24, 1Samuel 15:3, Isaiah 13:18] In Deuteronomy 22:21-22 God said to kill women that were not virgins when married. So, those that think that "Thou shall not kill." is an absolute, would be wise to reconsider their thinking, at least from an Old Testament point of view.
Fortunately, In the New Testament, Jesus gave a commandment that He said summed up all the commandments. That commandment was to love God and everyone with all your heart. Then a woman's choice would be between herself and her God, as to what would be the most loving thing to do in their situation.
I do know, that I do not know what would be the most loving thing for everyone, but I do know that it would be spiritually and Constitutionally immoral for me, to force someone else to follow my choices.
What questions can we ask our politicians?
What would I ask any office holder? Do you really believe in preserving, protecting and defending all our religious freedoms, from any enemies, foreign and domestic? Doesn't religious freedom includes any woman's right to ask her God most high, what to do, about carrying their Zygote to full term? Doesn't carrying to full term, involve carrying your child for up to 18 years plus through college, & again when they come back? Should any office holder or anyone else, tell any woman, what her religious beliefs should be, or what her God should say? Could even heaven help them, when they try to play God, with her? Could women not learn more, from also asking the mothers that had lived this experience? Could we not incentivize more successful full terms? Didn't our Declaration of Independence say we were going to promote the general welfare? So, shouldn't we support any affirmative decisions to carry to full term, by providing universal health, wellness, & nurturing support, for all our children, so that a decision for life, is never a decision for a bad life? Could we not be pro God, pro freedom, and pro life, when we look from higher levels?
How can we have Religious Freedom without Freedom?
Carrying any Zygote, to full term, is not just about privacy. It is more about, the right of any woman, to really have her religious freedom. Today, full term for any child can be up to 18, or even through college and sometimes back again later, when things do not go well.
A personal decision of this magnitude, should really be between any woman and her God. If there ever was a time for any woman, to exercise her religious freedom to ask God, what to do, this is it. It could also be a wonderful time for a loving and understanding mate to participate with his mate in asking God, what to do, instead of telling God what God should say. This is not the time for any President, Bureaucrat, Judge or Legislator to tell any woman what to do, or to play God either.
My Constitution, that I swore to preserve, protect and defend from any enemies, foreign and domestic, gave any woman her right, to decide with her God. My Constitution took away any right from our government to decide for God, and or any woman. Only the truly arrogant, would try to decide for any woman, or to decide or God.
My Constitution did give our government the right to promote our general welfare, by nurturing and incentivizing any woman to take on such an awesome responsibility, to carry her Zygote to full term and on to a good life.
| Home | Resume | Daily Hint | Bookstore | Links | Site Index |
Copyright (c) 2000, 01,03,04,05,06 Michael Foster at phone and http://www.recoverybydiscovery.com