Active Users:1108 Time:22/11/2024 09:20:06 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right? Joel Send a noteboard - 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM
A woman's egg cell is no more a person then a skin or liver cell. It contains nothing but her genetic make-up. The same with a man's sperm cell. Its all him. That's not the case with a fertalized ovum. It is neither him nor her, as it is something unique and different in every aspect from the woman.

What has that to do with whether it is a being? Touching someone mixes DNA; it does not create beings.

I understand and agree with your logic in that if *you* don't consider it a person, because *you* have no proof, then *you* don't consider it murder. Essentially getting by the not murdering statute by technicality. I find that to be inconsistent with Christ, as *you're* not understanding something is a sin is no defense from it actually being one.

It is not about understanding or even knowledge, but what we can PROVE. We cannot say, "this is fact, because... just because." An unproven case is no case.

I also find it inconsistent with the passage that said that God knows us while we are still in the womb. In your post above, you are placing the qualification upon an arbitary date and time. That doesn't jive considering one mili-second before its nothing but cells? But all of a sudden having the human determined designation of fetus (much akin to newborn, infant, todler, child, teenager) makes the person a person.

People are in the womb for months prior to birth; saying God knew them while they were people in the womb would NOT mean they were people the entire time they were in the womb, or from the moment God formed their bodies there. It does not, in itself, even mean they were EVER people in the womb, because God is omniscient, knowing both past and future. Sure, He knew me in my mothers womb; He knew me before my mothers birth, too: He is God.

is interesting that you are willing to take on faith the Lord and Savior of your life....no proof. Belief equals eternal life. Yet when it comes to the life and well being of a child....no proof for you equals a complete disregard of compassion.

~Jeordam

Accepting Christ was my personal decision; so is whether/when a fetus is a person. No one, ESPECIALLY government bound by the First Amendment, should dictate either decision for others. That is not "disregarding compassion," but the compassion to respect peoples God given freedom to make their own decisions, whether that is faith in Christ or belief fetuses are people. And by the way, faith is more than just stubborn belief absent either supporting facts or evidence. To take a random convenient example, BELIEVING the Chargers could not possibly blow a 24-0 halftime lead is qualitatively different than FAITH in Christ as Savior.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 26/10/2012 at 11:09:46 PM
Reply to message
God Distances Self From Christian Right Joel - 26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM 1221 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM* Dark Knight - 26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM 356 Views
Depends on when a fetus is a being, which the GOP contends is "at the moment of fertilization." Joel - 26/10/2012 03:57:44 PM 551 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is.... Jeordam - 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM 724 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin? Joel - 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM 587 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but... Tom - 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM 594 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM 632 Views
Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance. Jeordam - 26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM 586 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right? Joel - 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM 516 Views
You're getting rather emphatic. Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM 584 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that. Joel - 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM 569 Views
That's a dangerous stance to take as a Christian Tom - 27/10/2012 01:11:14 AM 570 Views
I agree it is good reading; that does not make it binding. Joel - 27/10/2012 01:37:20 AM 585 Views
Jesus that Greek sounds weird to my ears. Dan - 27/10/2012 03:43:40 AM 680 Views
It's really just simplified Attic. Tom - 27/10/2012 06:11:48 AM 566 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this. Narg - 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM 638 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect moondog - 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM 643 Views
So we legalize an illegal act because some are willing to harm themselves to do it? *NM* Narg - 26/10/2012 10:02:37 PM 317 Views
no, we legalize the act so that it can be performed safely without killing both mother *and* child *NM* moondog - 26/10/2012 11:08:52 PM 331 Views
At least you acknowledge it as a child. *NM* Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:28:30 PM 334 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no. Joel - 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM 564 Views
If something should be illegal in its own right, it is nonsense to legalize it because criminals Narg - 26/10/2012 11:40:41 PM 588 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive. Joel - 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM 610 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all... Narg - 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM 627 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal moondog - 27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM 529 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are. Narg - 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM 687 Views
This isn't necessarily true, though it is often due to other factors. nossy - 27/10/2012 02:48:00 PM 621 Views
People who want abortions badly enough to have one will, whether or not law makes it "convenient." Joel - 27/10/2012 02:58:52 AM 529 Views
You're stuck. Narg - 27/10/2012 07:07:36 AM 651 Views
not entirely nossy - 27/10/2012 03:23:07 PM 653 Views
Give me facts, not supposition. Joel - 27/10/2012 04:10:57 PM 598 Views
Telling a woman whose life was in danger not to save it with abortion condemned her to die Joel - 26/10/2012 10:48:53 PM 536 Views
There is no proof that you would accept that a fetus is a child. Narg - 26/10/2012 11:31:50 PM 530 Views
Fantastic question. Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:43:51 PM 566 Views
No, I would err on the side of caution; have often said as much in just those words. Joel - 27/10/2012 01:18:19 AM 551 Views
Sure there is; show me a fetus acting indepedently and consciously. Joel - 27/10/2012 01:15:00 AM 554 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism Palatine - 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM 631 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative Sareitha Sedai - 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM 606 Views
yeah, but what do women know about women's issues? this is man talk time! moondog - 26/10/2012 05:01:58 PM 572 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment. Joel - 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM 530 Views
Or it could mean.... Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM 584 Views
Re: Or it could mean.... moondog - 27/10/2012 12:14:31 AM 566 Views
Having addressed this in response to Legolas in moondogs thread on Mourdock, I will just link that. Joel - 27/10/2012 01:43:48 AM 594 Views
I agree nossy - 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM 620 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend. Legolas - 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM 585 Views
Yes nossy - 27/10/2012 02:20:46 AM 604 Views
There is a logically consistent way; you did not ask for it, so I will be brief. Joel - 27/10/2012 02:53:09 AM 592 Views
I suppose it is splitting hairs. Palatine - 27/10/2012 04:32:43 PM 571 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. Joel - 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM 577 Views
Re: Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. Cannoli - 27/10/2012 01:17:04 AM 577 Views
Who said anything about denying them funds? Joel - 27/10/2012 01:54:39 AM 602 Views
God intends everything. Palatine - 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM 662 Views
"Intends" is a big word. Joel - 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM 607 Views
Re: "Intends" is a big word. Palatine - 29/10/2012 04:56:49 PM 550 Views
I am familiar with the Problem of Evil. Joel - 29/10/2012 06:41:13 PM 560 Views
Absolutely agree. *NM* Legolas - 26/10/2012 11:47:04 PM 311 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM* random thoughts - 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM 313 Views
that's probably because it's more relevant to most people's lives *NM* moondog - 26/10/2012 06:06:10 PM 331 Views
It is sad partisanship trumps policy for so many. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:52:34 PM 509 Views
This entire scandal really speaks to the Calvinist heresy in particular. Tom - 26/10/2012 07:10:38 PM 546 Views
I was trying REALLY hard to avoid putting it in precisely those terms. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM 595 Views
Well, but really, the fundamental crux of the issue is precisely that. Tom - 27/10/2012 01:03:26 AM 562 Views
True, but disputing founding articles of faith benefits from tact. Joel - 27/10/2012 02:02:48 AM 537 Views
Come on, Tom. Dannymac - 27/10/2012 03:29:39 AM 534 Views
Are you really defending Calvinism? Be better at metaphysics. Dan - 27/10/2012 03:36:22 AM 618 Views
That's precisely the poor sophistry I'd expect from a Calvinist. Tom - 27/10/2012 06:06:31 AM 566 Views
I believe HE grasps the difference between predestination and determinism well. Joel - 27/10/2012 09:33:14 PM 598 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM* Narg - 26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM 332 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM 551 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the Narg - 26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM 560 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent? moondog - 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM 563 Views
As a state senator in 2001 in illinois he was the sole opponent to the aforementioned bill. *NM* Narg - 27/10/2012 12:14:08 AM 330 Views
[citation needed] moondog - 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM 515 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM* Narg - 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM 316 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose moondog - 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM 555 Views
It is not hard to find, really. Joel - 27/10/2012 02:40:06 AM 523 Views
Links: Narg - 27/10/2012 12:51:12 AM 582 Views
Double post. *NM* Narg - 27/10/2012 12:18:42 AM 311 Views
The BAIPA became federal law 2 years before Obamas Senate win; he says he would have voted for it. Joel - 27/10/2012 02:33:26 AM 537 Views
Once he started taking fire for it he said he would have voted for it? Well that clears that up. Narg - 27/10/2012 07:09:21 AM 742 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress? Joel - 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM 622 Views
amazing imlad - 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM 666 Views
Women are certainly encouraged to weigh in, but everyone is entitled to thoughts on the matter Joel - 28/10/2012 02:22:55 PM 542 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes