Prolife Couple adopts Embryos to protect Life and give birth to Triplets!

[emilynghiem]

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.

Color and Race was also an issue this couple had to face.

I was brought up with the belief that the way spirits enter the world, this isn't the "one and only shot at it"
Although it is UNIQUE to that soul at that time.

It was later explained to me more in terms of the spirit being separate from the soul which is unique
and contains the spirit; so the spirit can reincarnate/manifest in many ways but it's the SOUL that
is unique to each person conceived and born. That explanation may make a bit more sense that
it isn't the soul that reincarnates but the spirit(s) of many people that the same soul can contain like a vase.

In any case I don't believe that each birth is the ONLY chance.
But it IS unique and it does cause undue suffering to disrupt the natural life process and flow.
Abortion ideally should be prevented but I don't agree with forcing one way of looking at it that
leads to judging and dividing people who don'tframe it the same way.
Similar to global warming, why not work on prevention from all angles that point in the same direction?
Why force ONE argument that "XYZ is causing global warming and climate chnage" or "life starts at conception"
and make that a condition of faith, when there are ways to reach agreement that don't require people to people the same things. We can still work out practical solutions without agreeing on all the different justifications behind what we believe or don't follow.

I still believe this couple did a wonderful thing to create a loving family. But I still believe if souls are meant to come into this world, the right peopleand circumstances will come together to make that happen.
And if some lives are not meant to come about, or they are meant to cut short early, that is part of the plan.
We don't have to make every single conception come to full fruition since we don't control that anyway.

id' focus more on not conceiving if it is going to cause problems; don't even have sex or generate extra embryos or fetuses if that's not necessary and is a sign of too much unnatural manipulation or lack of attention to consequences.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.

Color and Race was also an issue this couple had to face.

I was brought up with the belief that the way spirits enter the world, this isn't the "one and only shot at it"
Although it is UNIQUE to that soul at that time.

It was later explained to me more in terms of the spirit being separate from the soul which is unique
and contains the spirit; so the spirit can reincarnate/manifest in many ways but it's the SOUL that
is unique to each person conceived and born. That explanation may make a bit more sense that
it isn't the soul that reincarnates but the spirit(s) of many people that the same soul can contain like a vase.

In any case I don't believe that each birth is the ONLY chance.
But it IS unique and it does cause undue suffering to disrupt the natural life process and flow.
Abortion ideally should be prevented but I don't agree with forcing one way of looking at it that
leads to judging and dividing people who don'tframe it the same way.
Similar to global warming, why not work on prevention from all angles that point in the same direction?
Why force ONE argument that "XYZ is causing global warming and climate chnage" or "life starts at conception"
and make that a condition of faith, when there are ways to reach agreement that don't require people to people the same things. We can still work out practical solutions without agreeing on all the different justifications behind what we believe or don't follow.

I still believe this couple did a wonderful thing to create a loving family. But I still believe if souls are meant to come into this world, the right peopleand circumstances will come together to make that happen.
And if some lives are not meant to come about, or they are meant to cut short early, that is part of the plan.
We don't have to make every single conception come to full fruition since we don't control that anyway.

id' focus more on not conceiving if it is going to cause problems; don't even have sex or generate extra embryos or fetuses if that's not necessary and is a sign of too much unnatural manipulation or lack of attention to consequences.

Everyone is "pro life," including those who defend the privacy rights of women.

 

[emilynghiem]

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.

Color and Race was also an issue this couple had to face.

I was brought up with the belief that the way spirits enter the world, this isn't the "one and only shot at it"
Although it is UNIQUE to that soul at that time.

It was later explained to me more in terms of the spirit being separate from the soul which is unique
and contains the spirit; so the spirit can reincarnate/manifest in many ways but it's the SOUL that
is unique to each person conceived and born. That explanation may make a bit more sense that
it isn't the soul that reincarnates but the spirit(s) of many people that the same soul can contain like a vase.

In any case I don't believe that each birth is the ONLY chance.
But it IS unique and it does cause undue suffering to disrupt the natural life process and flow.
Abortion ideally should be prevented but I don't agree with forcing one way of looking at it that
leads to judging and dividing people who don'tframe it the same way.
Similar to global warming, why not work on prevention from all angles that point in the same direction?
Why force ONE argument that "XYZ is causing global warming and climate chnage" or "life starts at conception"
and make that a condition of faith, when there are ways to reach agreement that don't require people to people the same things. We can still work out practical solutions without agreeing on all the different justifications behind what we believe or don't follow.

I still believe this couple did a wonderful thing to create a loving family. But I still believe if souls are meant to come into this world, the right peopleand circumstances will come together to make that happen.
And if some lives are not meant to come about, or they are meant to cut short early, that is part of the plan.
We don't have to make every single conception come to full fruition since we don't control that anyway.

id' focus more on not conceiving if it is going to cause problems; don't even have sex or generate extra embryos or fetuses if that's not necessary and is a sign of too much unnatural manipulation or lack of attention to consequences.

Everyone is "pro life," including those who defend the privacy rights of women.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
Everyone is also "prochoice" when it comes to choices WE want to defend for ourselves and don't want govt/party politics to mandate or regulate for us.
But too bad for those who believe in choices that contradict that agenda.

 

[The Great Goose]

If that couple is "prolife" I will literally eat my hat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.

Color and Race was also an issue this couple had to face.

I was brought up with the belief that the way spirits enter the world, this isn't the "one and only shot at it"
Although it is UNIQUE to that soul at that time.

It was later explained to me more in terms of the spirit being separate from the soul which is unique
and contains the spirit; so the spirit can reincarnate/manifest in many ways but it's the SOUL that
is unique to each person conceived and born. That explanation may make a bit more sense that
it isn't the soul that reincarnates but the spirit(s) of many people that the same soul can contain like a vase.

In any case I don't believe that each birth is the ONLY chance.
But it IS unique and it does cause undue suffering to disrupt the natural life process and flow.
Abortion ideally should be prevented but I don't agree with forcing one way of looking at it that
leads to judging and dividing people who don'tframe it the same way.
Similar to global warming, why not work on prevention from all angles that point in the same direction?
Why force ONE argument that "XYZ is causing global warming and climate chnage" or "life starts at conception"
and make that a condition of faith, when there are ways to reach agreement that don't require people to people the same things. We can still work out practical solutions without agreeing on all the different justifications behind what we believe or don't follow.

I still believe this couple did a wonderful thing to create a loving family. But I still believe if souls are meant to come into this world, the right peopleand circumstances will come together to make that happen.
And if some lives are not meant to come about, or they are meant to cut short early, that is part of the plan.
We don't have to make every single conception come to full fruition since we don't control that anyway.

id' focus more on not conceiving if it is going to cause problems; don't even have sex or generate extra embryos or fetuses if that's not necessary and is a sign of too much unnatural manipulation or lack of attention to consequences.

Everyone is "pro life," including those who defend the privacy rights of women.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
Everyone is also "prochoice" when it comes to choices WE want to defend for ourselves and don't want govt/party politics to mandate or regulate for us.
But too bad for those who believe in choices that contradict that agenda.

Wrong.

Everyone is not pro-choice – there are those who seek to deny women their right to privacy, to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law, taking from her the right to make that choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

My wife and I are white evangelicals. Here’s why we chose to give birth to black triplets.

Color and Race was also an issue this couple had to face.

I was brought up with the belief that the way spirits enter the world, this isn't the "one and only shot at it"
Although it is UNIQUE to that soul at that time.

It was later explained to me more in terms of the spirit being separate from the soul which is unique
and contains the spirit; so the spirit can reincarnate/manifest in many ways but it's the SOUL that
is unique to each person conceived and born. That explanation may make a bit more sense that
it isn't the soul that reincarnates but the spirit(s) of many people that the same soul can contain like a vase.

In any case I don't believe that each birth is the ONLY chance.
But it IS unique and it does cause undue suffering to disrupt the natural life process and flow.
Abortion ideally should be prevented but I don't agree with forcing one way of looking at it that
leads to judging and dividing people who don'tframe it the same way.
Similar to global warming, why not work on prevention from all angles that point in the same direction?
Why force ONE argument that "XYZ is causing global warming and climate chnage" or "life starts at conception"
and make that a condition of faith, when there are ways to reach agreement that don't require people to people the same things. We can still work out practical solutions without agreeing on all the different justifications behind what we believe or don't follow.

I still believe this couple did a wonderful thing to create a loving family. But I still believe if souls are meant to come into this world, the right peopleand circumstances will come together to make that happen.
And if some lives are not meant to come about, or they are meant to cut short early, that is part of the plan.
We don't have to make every single conception come to full fruition since we don't control that anyway.

id' focus more on not conceiving if it is going to cause problems; don't even have sex or generate extra embryos or fetuses if that's not necessary and is a sign of too much unnatural manipulation or lack of attention to consequences.

Everyone is "pro life," including those who defend the privacy rights of women.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
Everyone is also "prochoice" when it comes to choices WE want to defend for ourselves and don't want govt/party politics to mandate or regulate for us.
But too bad for those who believe in choices that contradict that agenda.

Wrong.

Everyone is not pro-choice – there are those who seek to deny women their right to privacy, to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law, taking from her the right to make that choice.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
To CLARIFY I don't limit prochoice in this reply to mean only "legalizing choice of abortion"
What I MEAN by everyone is prochoice is everyone is for
defending THEIR OWN Free choice and free will, ie right of consent.

The problem is we don't respect that of other people.
We don't trust them to choose by free will without govt regulation,
but we pick and choose WHICH issues we DO or DO NOT trust people/govt etc.

Ex:
1. choice of free will on purchasing and using DRUGS or depending on GOVT to regulate
(because of the debate over marijuana, and even processed sugar and fats in goods sold and served publicly,
this has brought into question issues of alcohol, tobacco, drug abuse of other legal substances and prescription drugs, and business/consumer laws in general)
2. choice of free will on GUNS and ARMS or to what extent we TRUST GOVT to regulate
3. right to vote and how to ensure responsibility and legality/accountability without either infringing on rights by discrimination or enabling fraud and rewarding political "conflicts of interest" with govt to influence voting
4. right to health care choices, how much to trust PEOPLE and how much to TRUST GOVT
5. termination issues: abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, suicide
some people do not believe in, agree to or trust GOVT to regulate in these matters
6. marriage laws and now discrimination policies by gender or orientation, that becomes a CREED issue
7. immigration laws and how much responsibility to put on people, states, federal govt, the public etc.

Another disturbing issue that has come up after a string of controversial rulings by the Supreme Court:
what about free choice of people NOT to be under rulings that are still contested as unconstitutional?

Who is responsible for damages that occur between the time of
A. a law or ruling enforced, that deprives certain individuals or groups of liberties without due process and/or in a discriminatory manner, that is LATER ESTABLISHED AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL as the complainants had protested BEFORE the law or ruling was made, especially during arguments
B. when the law or ruling is revoked or replaced

Do we have the free choice to set up alternatives until the contested law is corrected
so that we LIMIT the damage caused by a bad law or ruling?

If not, then WHO is responsible for the debt or damage incurred,
and shouldn't the public have the choice to hold the people responsible who PASSED
the law or ruling when these objections were known and expressed, but deliberately ignored and
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST because of political bias of those people who excluded the objections
and thus violated the equal rights and representation of that portion of the population who objected
on Constitutional grounds.

 

[Mudda]

NOW WHY DIDN'T THAT NUMBSKULL DOLEZAL THINK OF DOING THAT?