Active Users:2141 Time:18/06/2026 04:29:19 AM
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 1487 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM* Dark Knight - 26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM 465 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 783 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is.... Jeordam - 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM 975 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin? Joel - 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM 818 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but... Tom - 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM 817 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM 883 Views
Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance. Jeordam - 26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM 828 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right? Joel - 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM 724 Views
You're getting rather emphatic. Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM 779 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that. Joel - 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM 816 Views
That's a dangerous stance to take as a Christian Tom - 27/10/2012 01:11:14 AM 811 Views
I agree it is good reading; that does not make it binding. Joel - 27/10/2012 01:37:20 AM 816 Views
Jesus that Greek sounds weird to my ears. Dan - 27/10/2012 03:43:40 AM 919 Views
It's really just simplified Attic. Tom - 27/10/2012 06:11:48 AM 795 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this. Narg - 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM 847 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect moondog - 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM 884 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 445 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 439 Views
At least you acknowledge it as a child. *NM* Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:28:30 PM 450 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no. Joel - 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM 787 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 816 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive. Joel - 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM 864 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all... Narg - 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM 860 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 792 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are. Narg - 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM 921 Views
This isn't necessarily true, though it is often due to other factors. nossy - 27/10/2012 02:48:00 PM 815 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 772 Views
You're stuck. Narg - 27/10/2012 07:07:36 AM 893 Views
not entirely nossy - 27/10/2012 03:23:07 PM 914 Views
Give me facts, not supposition. Joel - 27/10/2012 04:10:57 PM 828 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 768 Views
There is no proof that you would accept that a fetus is a child. Narg - 26/10/2012 11:31:50 PM 759 Views
Fantastic question. Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:43:51 PM 785 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 783 Views
Sure there is; show me a fetus acting indepedently and consciously. Joel - 27/10/2012 01:15:00 AM 839 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism Palatine - 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM 878 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative Sareitha Sedai - 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM 834 Views
yeah, but what do women know about women's issues? this is man talk time! moondog - 26/10/2012 05:01:58 PM 812 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment. Joel - 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM 770 Views
Or it could mean.... Jeordam - 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM 811 Views
Re: Or it could mean.... moondog - 27/10/2012 12:14:31 AM 786 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 815 Views
I agree nossy - 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM 856 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend. Legolas - 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM 815 Views
Yes nossy - 27/10/2012 02:20:46 AM 848 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 831 Views
I suppose it is splitting hairs. Palatine - 27/10/2012 04:32:43 PM 797 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. Joel - 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM 818 Views
Re: Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause. Cannoli - 27/10/2012 01:17:04 AM 837 Views
Who said anything about denying them funds? Joel - 27/10/2012 01:54:39 AM 867 Views
God intends everything. Palatine - 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM 899 Views
"Intends" is a big word. Joel - 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM 817 Views
Re: "Intends" is a big word. Palatine - 29/10/2012 04:56:49 PM 796 Views
I am familiar with the Problem of Evil. Joel - 29/10/2012 06:41:13 PM 809 Views
Absolutely agree. *NM* Legolas - 26/10/2012 11:47:04 PM 415 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM* random thoughts - 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM 425 Views
that's probably because it's more relevant to most people's lives *NM* moondog - 26/10/2012 06:06:10 PM 430 Views
It is sad partisanship trumps policy for so many. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:52:34 PM 732 Views
This entire scandal really speaks to the Calvinist heresy in particular. Tom - 26/10/2012 07:10:38 PM 771 Views
I was trying REALLY hard to avoid putting it in precisely those terms. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM 827 Views
Well, but really, the fundamental crux of the issue is precisely that. Tom - 27/10/2012 01:03:26 AM 791 Views
True, but disputing founding articles of faith benefits from tact. Joel - 27/10/2012 02:02:48 AM 753 Views
Come on, Tom. Dannymac - 27/10/2012 03:29:39 AM 797 Views
Are you really defending Calvinism? Be better at metaphysics. Dan - 27/10/2012 03:36:22 AM 867 Views
That's precisely the poor sophistry I'd expect from a Calvinist. Tom - 27/10/2012 06:06:31 AM 796 Views
I believe HE grasps the difference between predestination and determinism well. Joel - 27/10/2012 09:33:14 PM 843 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 421 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads. Joel - 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM 770 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 795 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent? moondog - 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM 771 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 429 Views
[citation needed] moondog - 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM 748 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM* Narg - 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM 432 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose moondog - 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM 820 Views
It is not hard to find, really. Joel - 27/10/2012 02:40:06 AM 747 Views
Links: Narg - 27/10/2012 12:51:12 AM 814 Views
Double post. *NM* Narg - 27/10/2012 12:18:42 AM 413 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 765 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 962 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress? Joel - 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM 871 Views
amazing imlad - 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM 922 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 791 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes