Active Users:1168 Time:22/11/2024 03:29:24 PM
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that. Joel Send a noteboard - 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM
First, when did we bring in the rape aspect?

When a House Republican wrote a federal abortion ban with exceptions only for "forcible" rape, and it was co-sponsored by the Republican Vice Presidential nominee as well as an IA Republican Congressman. The bills author then raised the ante by claiming rape cannot cause pregnancy, the Republican Senate nominee in ND raised it further by saying he would pass a federal abortion ban with NO rape exception, and the Republican Senate nominee in CT raised it yet more by saying taxpayer funded religious hospitals can refuse rape victims "morning after" pills, with the stipulation non-religious hospitals most provide it for "emergency rape" (but not, obviously, "NON-emergency rape.")

You brought in rape when your Vice Presidential nominee, 4 of your Senate nominees (including an incumbent) and 3 of your House incumbents referenced it.

, your lack of understanding the difference between ovum fertalization and two people "touching" and mixing DNA is astounding.

I understand there are significant differences; my point was there is no evidence they amount to a being.

Thirdly, in your third statement regarding God's knowledge of people in the womb, you're right. It doesn't make the assumption that the entire time they were in the womb they were people because God knew them. But neither does it put a timeline of "personhood" on the situation. You're the one placing an arbitrary timeline.

No, I am saying we do not know; inability to identify a precise cutoff point is precisely the problem. I doubt anyone believes newborns were not beings the previous day in the womb, but there is ZERO evidence a newly fertilized unimplanted zygote is a being: When is the transition? How can we be certain of the answer? It precedes birth, so it increasingly likely as birth approaches, hence late-term abortion bans are on much firmer ground than blanket ones, provided they contain exceptions to save the mothers life. Viability is a practically convenient (if still ambiguous) cutoff; it is reasonable (though unprovable) to say cells that cannot survive physical detachment from a parent are not distinct beings, and those that can are.

Yet it remains an educated guess, and guessing with peoples lives, not only literally but in childbearing/rearings impact on health and wellbeing, should be avoided. A fetus may or may not be a person, but pregnant women DEFINITELY are, and definite people have priority over possible people. As certainty a fetus is a being approaches certainty a woman is the balance shifts, but it is decidely uneven prior to the 20th week of pregnancy, and neither you, I nor the general public has the right or power to make our personal beliefs a thumb on the scale of anothers life. What happened to keeping Big Brother off our backs and out of our lives/wallets?

Fourth, the government makes all sorts of laws about what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. You can't sell your organs. You can't provide sexual services for cash (usually). You can't put certain drugs into your body. Outlawing abortion would be "you can't kill the person within your body." Mostly because, its not only her body being effected. None of her tissues is being removed.

Prove none of her tissue is being removed; prior to birth a fetus is part of her body in every meaningful sense. Regardless, citing various other government intrusions into our bodies that I oppose just as strongly reinforces rather than undermines my position here.

Lastly, I have zero faith in the Chargers. You can never underestimate their ability to loose a game.

~Jeordam

Well, I can at least agree on that; Denver does owe them a big sloppy kiss for conveniently losing to Detroit but beating Chokeland so we won the division. ;)
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.
Reply to message
God Distances Self From Christian Right - 26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM 1219 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM* - 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." - 26/10/2012 03:57:44 PM 549 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is.... - 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM 723 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin? - 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM 584 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but... - 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM 592 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon. - 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM 632 Views
Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance. - 26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM 583 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right? - 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM 513 Views
You're getting rather emphatic. - 26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM 581 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that. - 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM 567 Views
That's a dangerous stance to take as a Christian - 27/10/2012 01:11:14 AM 567 Views
I agree it is good reading; that does not make it binding. - 27/10/2012 01:37:20 AM 582 Views
Jesus that Greek sounds weird to my ears. - 27/10/2012 03:43:40 AM 678 Views
It's really just simplified Attic. - 27/10/2012 06:11:48 AM 563 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this. - 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM 636 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect - 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM 641 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no. - 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM 561 Views
If something should be illegal in its own right, it is nonsense to legalize it because criminals - 26/10/2012 11:40:41 PM 585 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive. - 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM 610 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all... - 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM 624 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal - 27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM 526 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are. - 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM 684 Views
People who want abortions badly enough to have one will, whether or not law makes it "convenient." - 27/10/2012 02:58:52 AM 528 Views
You're stuck. - 27/10/2012 07:07:36 AM 649 Views
not entirely - 27/10/2012 03:23:07 PM 650 Views
Give me facts, not supposition. - 27/10/2012 04:10:57 PM 596 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism - 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM 628 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative - 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM 604 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment. - 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM 528 Views
Or it could mean.... - 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM 583 Views
Re: Or it could mean.... - 27/10/2012 12:14:31 AM 564 Views
I agree - 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM 619 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend. - 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM 583 Views
Yes - 27/10/2012 02:20:46 AM 603 Views
I suppose it is splitting hairs. - 27/10/2012 04:32:43 PM 569 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. - 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM 575 Views
Re: Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. - 27/10/2012 01:17:04 AM 575 Views
Who said anything about denying them funds? - 27/10/2012 01:54:39 AM 600 Views
God intends everything. - 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM 660 Views
"Intends" is a big word. - 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM 604 Views
Re: "Intends" is a big word. - 29/10/2012 04:56:49 PM 547 Views
I am familiar with the Problem of Evil. - 29/10/2012 06:41:13 PM 559 Views
Absolutely agree. *NM* - 26/10/2012 11:47:04 PM 311 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM* - 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM 313 Views
It is sad partisanship trumps policy for so many. - 26/10/2012 10:52:34 PM 506 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM* - 26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM 331 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads. - 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM 547 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the - 26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM 558 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent? - 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM 560 Views
As a state senator in 2001 in illinois he was the sole opponent to the aforementioned bill. *NM* - 27/10/2012 12:14:08 AM 330 Views
[citation needed] - 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM 513 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM* - 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM 316 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose - 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM 552 Views
It is not hard to find, really. - 27/10/2012 02:40:06 AM 521 Views
Links: - 27/10/2012 12:51:12 AM 580 Views
Double post. *NM* - 27/10/2012 12:18:42 AM 311 Views
amazing - 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM 664 Views

Reply to Message