If you want to hold a pro-life position that it is “wrong to kill life forms that fit these 3 criteria”, then you need to have a very Quaker or Buddhist position on life, or a non-aggression principal that goes very far. But I suspect you’re limited merely to human life only. Unfortunately, nothing in your definition distinguishes it from those other life forms.

 If you want to hold a pro-life position that it is “wrong to kill life forms that fit these 3 criteria”, then you need to have a very Quaker or Buddhist position on life, or a non-aggression principal that goes very far.
But I suspect you’re limited merely to human life only.
Unfortunately, nothing in your definition distinguishes it from those other life forms.
 I’ve seen it in a few different religions. Pro-life Quaker, Pro-life Buddhist, even 2 vegan pro-life Wiccans.
All tend to be kind of green-minded, vegan or vegetarian and all highly religious or ethical.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 × = thirty six

Leave a Reply