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
~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.
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.
God Distances Self From Christian Right
26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM
- 1329 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM*
26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM
- 392 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
- 640 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is....
26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM
- 817 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin?
26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM
- 680 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but...
26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM
- 655 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon.
26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
- 734 Views

Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance.
26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM
- 663 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right?
26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM
- 592 Views
You're getting rather emphatic.
26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM
- 647 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that.
27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM
- 661 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this.
26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM
- 700 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect
26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM
- 734 Views
So we legalize an illegal act because some are willing to harm themselves to do it? *NM*
26/10/2012 10:02:37 PM
- 359 Views
no, we legalize the act so that it can be performed safely without killing both mother *and* child *NM*
26/10/2012 11:08:52 PM
- 372 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no.
26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM
- 656 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
- 686 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive.
27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM
- 697 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all...
27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM
- 720 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal
27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM
- 624 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are.
27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM
- 781 Views
This isn't necessarily true, though it is often due to other factors.
27/10/2012 02:48:00 PM
- 681 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
- 610 Views
Telling a woman whose life was in danger not to save it with abortion condemned her to die
26/10/2012 10:48:53 PM
- 622 Views
There is no proof that you would accept that a fetus is a child.
26/10/2012 11:31:50 PM
- 624 Views
Fantastic question.
26/10/2012 11:43:51 PM
- 652 Views
No, I would err on the side of caution; have often said as much in just those words.
27/10/2012 01:18:19 AM
- 638 Views
Sure there is; show me a fetus acting indepedently and consciously.
27/10/2012 01:15:00 AM
- 656 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism
26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM
- 732 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative
26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM
- 697 Views
yeah, but what do women know about women's issues? this is man talk time!
26/10/2012 05:01:58 PM
- 654 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment.
26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM
- 621 Views
Or it could mean....
26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM
- 673 Views
Having addressed this in response to Legolas in moondogs thread on Mourdock, I will just link that.
27/10/2012 01:43:48 AM
- 681 Views
I agree
26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM
- 719 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend.
27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM
- 672 Views
There is a logically consistent way; you did not ask for it, so I will be brief.
27/10/2012 02:53:09 AM
- 656 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause.
26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM
- 677 Views
God intends everything.
27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM
- 751 Views
"Intends" is a big word.
27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM
- 671 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM*
26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM
- 349 Views
that's probably because it's more relevant to most people's lives *NM*
26/10/2012 06:06:10 PM
- 367 Views
This entire scandal really speaks to the Calvinist heresy in particular.
26/10/2012 07:10:38 PM
- 646 Views
I was trying REALLY hard to avoid putting it in precisely those terms.
26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
- 694 Views

Well, but really, the fundamental crux of the issue is precisely that.
27/10/2012 01:03:26 AM
- 654 Views
True, but disputing founding articles of faith benefits from tact.
27/10/2012 02:02:48 AM
- 603 Views
Come on, Tom.
27/10/2012 03:29:39 AM
- 630 Views
I believe HE grasps the difference between predestination and determinism well.
27/10/2012 09:33:14 PM
- 694 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM*
26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM
- 360 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads.
26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM
- 639 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the
26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM
- 651 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent?
27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM
- 641 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
- 364 Views
[citation needed]
27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM
- 608 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM*
27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM
- 343 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose
27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM
- 652 Views
The BAIPA became federal law 2 years before Obamas Senate win; he says he would have voted for it.
27/10/2012 02:33:26 AM
- 635 Views
Once he started taking fire for it he said he would have voted for it? Well that clears that up.
27/10/2012 07:09:21 AM
- 823 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress?
27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM
- 710 Views
amazing
28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM
- 757 Views
Women are certainly encouraged to weigh in, but everyone is entitled to thoughts on the matter
28/10/2012 02:22:55 PM
- 644 Views