 |
|
|
|
|
November 8th, 2011
09:51 AM ET
Mississippi amendment on 'personhood' divides ChristiansBy Rich Phillips, CNN Columbus, Mississippi (CNN) - In the Carpenter home, every meal begins with a prayer. Robin and his wife, Emily, are devout Christians. But they part ways with many other Christians over a measure that would expand the legal definition of human life. Their son, Luke, now 4 years old, was born through in vitro fertilization. The anti-abortion amendment being voted on this week in the state could restrict in vitro procedures, and the Carpenters are worried that if they wait too long to add to their family, they may end up breaking the law. Read the full story on divisions around Mississippi's proposed 'personhood' amendment |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
1. anti abortion is mainly a christian value. FACT: not all us citizens are christian. Don't shove your religious beliefs and practices down my throat. i am not a Christian. It would be the same if i forced you all to be vegans because of my pagan faith. all animals are sacred and to kill them for food is nothing short of canibalism.
2. my body, my business.. back the fu*k off!
On 11/9/2011, HeavenSent said the following to me:
HeavenSent
He skated around the question because he knows I've got him figured out. Anywho, he probably deserved what happened to him.
Amen.
She was referring to the fact that I was se xually molested by a pedophile when I was 12 years old.
I bring this to your attention because at one time, I thought HeavenSent was just a harmless old hag mad at the world. Now I realize she is far stranger. Perhaps dangerous.
No sane or decent person would make that kind of statement. I encourage you not to engage HeavenSent in conversation. In my opinion, she has clearly crossed the line. She is IN FACT a nut case.
My opinion only, but that is exactly what she said and that is really creepy. You be the judge.
If you check the DNA of the zygote, it is not the mother or the father, it is a new lifeform and as such should have our full respect. In every other court, doesn't genetic evidence hold up?
No. A fetus, a blastocyst, a zygote have one thing in common. They do not have the same rights as people who are born.
You dimwits don't get it. A woman is a person with rights to bodily autonomy. She doesn't lose those simply because she is pregnant.
I'm so proud of the people of Mississippi!
I would build an abortion clinic right next to a Catholic Church. Have great big golden arches, with the caption "Over a Billion Served"!
Woman's body! Woman choice!
This is a blow against anti-abortion groups everywhere. I am happy, happy, happy!
Cheers!
David, I second your sentiments. Right on.
This would not be happening if the following advice is followed:
Take your Pills ladies, wear your condoms guys (or have a vasectomy) and save yourself a lot of money and grief because if you don't, you could be making a very, very difficult decision to end the life of a growing human.
@Reality
You said: "This would not be happening if the following advice is followed:
Take your Pills ladies, wear your condoms guys (or have a vasectomy) "
It also would not be happening if god didn't give babies to women who don't want them.
If my 13 year old daughter became pregnant, by hook or by crook, the pregnancy would be terminated.
A tomato seed has all the necessary DNA to become a tomato plant. But the seed is not a plant.
A chicken egg, contains all the DNA necessary to develop into a chicken. But the egg is not a chicken.
A spiders eggs contain all the DNA necessary to become a spider. But, the egg is not a spider.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
And so, a fetus contains the DNA to become a baby. But a fetus is not a baby. It has the potential to become a baby, just as a carrot seed has the potential to become a carrot.
One more time:
"Roe v. Wade: The Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a const_itutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy.
She also has a right to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester, although the state may limit that right when the procedure poses a health risk to the mother that is greater than the risk of carrying the fetus to term.
In making its decision, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Const_itution." – Wikipedia
"However, the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability—that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb.
As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. " – Wikipedia
Hence, states allow abortions anywhere from 20 weeks to 24 weeks. The majority being 24.
The reason the 24 week max is chosen, is because the fetus in not able to live outside it's mother until 21 to 24 weeks, with 24 being the usual.
The fetus, less than 24 weeks is not a person. The fetus is not capable of feeling any pain until 24 weeks:
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, consists of a review of studies conducted since 1997 on the neuroanatomical and physiological development of the fetus. It concludes that fetuses at the 24-week stage of development do not possess the wiring to transmit pain signals from the body to the brain's cortex. Even after 24 weeks, the fetus likely exists in a state of "continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation," due to the presence of chemicals such as adenosine in the surrounding amniotic fluid.
Moral to the above story: The earlier you "pick" them, the better!
In 1995, 89% of all abortions in the United States were performed within the first 12-13 weeks after the last menstrual period. [Source: "Susan Dudley, Ph.D. "Abortion After Twelve Weeks" National Abortion Federation 1996]
Hell, put in a nail clinic. The lady can leave her nail trimmings and the lump of cells at the save time. No difference.
The womb belongs to the woman. The fetus, in her womb has no legal rights until it reaches a stage that it is able to live outside it's mothers body. At that point it can move out and begin its life as a citizen, with all the honors, Rights and Privileges Pertaining thereto. Well, unless you are an illegal. Then I guess you may get shipped back.
"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives."
— Ayn Rand ["A Last Survey — Part I", The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. IV, No. 2, 1975.]
Which brings to this:
13th Amendment : "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Women or any part of their bodies, cannot be owned. Not by the government. Not by religious nuts.
We can't legally force somebody to donate blood to save somebody else; it thus makes no sense to legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't want.
Women are not broodmares. They have the right to abort the parasitic fetus, until the fetus is viable.
This is not a religious debate. It is about a woman's right to do what she will, with her own body.
Cheers!
Some facts all parents should relay to their teenage daughters and sons:
"Facts on Contraceptive Use
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
January 2008
"WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?
• 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]
• 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are se-xually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a con-traceptive method.[2]
• The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use cont-raceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]
WHO USES CON-TRACEPTIVES?
• Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had int-ercourse have used at least one con-traceptive method.[2](and men?)
• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)
• 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had inte-rcourse; or are not se-xually active.[2]
• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using con-traceptives.[2] (and men?)
• Among the 42 million fertile, s-exually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing con-traception.[2] (and men?)
WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?
• 64% of reproductive-age women who practice con-traception use reversible methods, such as oral con-traceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]
FIRST-YEAR CON-TRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES
Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)
Method
Typical
Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2
Periodic abstinence 25.3
Calendar 9.0
Ovulation Method 3.0
Sympto-thermal 2.0
Post-ovulation 1.0
No method 85.0"
(Abstinence) 0
(Masturbation) 0
More facts about contraceptives from
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
"CON-TRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE
Cont-raceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002
Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
Pill 11,661 30.6
Male condom 6,841 18.0 "
i.e.
The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).
i.e. 0.087 (failure rate)
x 62 million (# child bearing women)
x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =
1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies
during the first year of pill use.
For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level)
1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.
The Gut-tmacher Inst-itute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
(35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).
o Conclusion: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.
If you check the DNA of the zygote, it is not the mother or the father, it is a new lifeform and as such to have our full respect
So why doesn't your "personal, loving" god give it the means to survive independently of its mother? Another design error by your "perfect" creator?
There are approximately 760,000 members of the Immoral Majority in Mississippi assuming abortions are just as prevalent there as anywhere else in the USA. Although the final numbers are not in, it appears that ~500,000 voted to reject the Personhood amendment vs. ~400,000 voting for the amendment i.e. the Immoral Majority rules when it comes to abortion.
The "Immoral Majority" you ask?
The fastest growing USA voting bloc: In 2008, the 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies" whose ranks grow by two million per year i.e. 78+ million "IM" voters in 2012.
Nothing to actually add to the debate, just another Christian selfrighteosly proclaiming who is moral and who is immoral.
very good post, i was really searching for this topic as i wanted this topic to understand completely and it is also very rare in internet that is why it was very difficult to understand thank you for sharing this.
Fundoo Marketing
very good post, i was really searching for this topic as i wanted this topic to
understand completely and it is also very rare in internet that is why it was very
difficult to understand thank you for sharing this.
Fundoo Marketing
Oh, oh! Looks like life does not begin at the moment of conception! LOL!
I'm so happy, I many take a personal day tomorrow! This is a vote against foolish thinking.
A fetus is a person, when it can survive outside its mother. Until then, it is a parasite.
Your god is a joke.
Cheers!
They are parasites up until 18 years of age!
Sometimes much longer! There are 30 year olds still living with their parents.
Still boys, you may want to rein in the label 'parasites' a bit. It is still a woman's right to view her fetus as her developing child if she so chooses, and we guys are not immune to getting swept away with the excitement of becoming fathers. I know that I did when my wife became pregnant with our son, but his conception was a planned event. Likely we would not have been so excited about his coming if her pregnancy was unplanned.
Okay then I'll call them freeloaders or squatters. Get off my property!
Good News ... Initiative 26 was defeated. ... There could be hope...
.. and there was much rejoicing!
So there are a couple of people in that state who aren't complete idiots.
or inbred...
Cheers!
One more time as the polls in Mississippi are now closed and CNN projects the amendment lost:
This would not be happening if the following advice is followed:
Take your Pills ladies, wear your condoms guys (or have a vasectomy) and save yourself a lot of money and grief because if you don't, you could be making a very, very difficult decision to end the life of a growing human being.
Unfortunately, there are many fundiots who want to ban oral contraceptives and IUD's. And just look at the Catholics position on condoms.
@Reality
You said: "...very difficult decision to end the life of a growing human being."
Not a human until it can survive on its own, outside its mother. I asked my daughter and she said, "the decision would be no harder than deciding to get her ears pierced or not."
Cheers!
It's funny a state that lynched everyone they found to be "non whyte" now believes life is so precious.
Ok believers, I have another question.
If God allows free will, why shouldn't a woman be able to excercise her God given right to choose?
Further, if God doesn't not allow free will, ...
Psalm 139:16
New Living Translation (NLT)
You saw me before I was born.
Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
before a single day had passed.
...then God know that abortion is going to happen, in fact it's part of his plan.
Either way, you are going against the will of God.
Now if the faithful, are indeed faithful, they won't have an abortion. Why not let the rest make their own choices?
@ TOTS: "You intended it for evil, but God used it for good." (Gen.50:20)
You are mistaking God's sovereignty for determinism. They are different things philosophically. Humanity is still responsible for what we do.
Biblical anthropology: We rendered ourselves evil / broken. We are now slaves to sin (by our own action, our wills are in bondage – it's not God's fault but ours). God brings freedom from sin in Jesus Christ.
@The One True Steve "Ok believers, I have another question.If God allows free will, why shouldn't a woman be able to exercise her God given right to choose?"
=>because murder is illegal. Your right to do as you please doenst include killing me if I upset you in some way.
Does a women get to throw here baby in the dumpster if she's tired of taking care of it? What's the difference? The age of the baby is the only difference.
God DOES allow free will, which is precisely why killing unborn children is currently legal in the US. and breaking a Bald Eagle egg gets you 5 yrs in jail.
No, you stupid git. Babies are born and they have rights. Fetuses don't.
By the way, dimbulb, did you look up the difference between RU486 and the "morning after pill"? Because you screwed that up royally.
Why would any woman give a rat's patootie about what someone that ill-informed has to say about reproductive rights?
As if.
Tom, enough with the cry-baby insults. If you're going to pretend to be an adult, at least act like one. All I can picture is some old, bitter hag sitting behind it's keyboard flailing it's arms in protest. That's what your posts look like.
@Chad...
You missed the point. If God allows free will, then you are going against God by forcing your will on someone else. How can you justify going against the will of God?
...and you completely ignore Paslm 139:16, which clearly states that everything is predetermined. Therefore ...no free will.
@The One True Steve "If God allows free will, then you are going against God by forcing your will on someone else"
=>God grants us free will
=>Having free will DOES NOT MEAN there is no right and wrong.
=>God has MANDATED restricting "free will" in some areas. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good example.
So, certainly we would not be going against Gods will by legislating against that which He has already declared evil.
QED
Forgot your question on Psalm 139, which is a statement about the fact that God exists outside our space and time, therefor has already seen the entire expanse of my life and what actions I will undertake using my free will.
Psalm 139: 13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—
when I awake, I am still with you.
@The One True Steve
Christians say, "Free will is given to man, by God". Each person can choose to accept god's love and spend eternity in Heaven or to reject god and spend eternity being tortured in Hell. How is that freedom of choice when it is the same thing as The Godfather, making you an offer you cannot refuse?
The problem with free will is, that Christians have insisted on their god being Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.
No god can be all three at the same time. The attributes contradict each other.
If god knows what He will do in the future and because He is Omnipotent, does something else, then He is not omniscient.
If god knows what He will do in the future and cannot do something else, then He is not omnipotent.
See the problem?
If God knows the future, if the future can be known, that means that the future is predictable and unchangeable. This, in turn, means that our actions are predetermined. If god is all knowing, free will is an illusion.
This also binds god, in that He knows what he will do in the future, and He must do it.
Let's look at Jesus and his predictions that Judas would betray him and Peter would deny him.
Those were future events. Do you think Judas could have used his free will to opt out? Not, if Jesus/God was omniscient. Same goes for Peter.
The actions of Peter and Judas were predetermined. They had no choice.
When Moses was attempting to secure the release of the Jews from Egypt, God repeatedly "hardens Pharaoh's heart". God did not allow Pharaoh to release the Jews, until He had delivered His 10 plagues upon the Egyptian people. Pharaoh didn't have free will. The Egyptian people, who suffered the plagues, didn't either.
Biblical prophecy would not be possible, unless events and human actions were predetermined and there is no free will.
The fulfillment of a prophecy cannot be left to random chance.
What about the child who is murdered by a monster, or a people slaughtered by a stronger opponent (or a god)?
Did they choose to be harmed? Where was their free will? These acts show that the strong or the people in power have greater free will than their victims. Hmm... Isn't this a lot like what would happen if there was no god?
If god has a "plan for each of us", if there is an agenda, then that pretty much rules out free will.
"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." [Jeremiah 29:11]
"You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]
You might argue, that while god has a plan for each of us, He doesn't force us to follow this plan. The problem with this argument, is that if a person does not follow god's plan, it may affect my ability to follow god's plan. A drunk driver may run me down. A robber may shoot me. My plan would be cancelled.
Ephesians 1:11 "We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
"this man [Christ Jesus] delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23a NASB).
The 5 point Calvinists believe our fates are sealed, even before we are born. This would mean that god allows humans to be born, knowing they will someday burn forever. Seems wrong to me, even for a mysterious god.
There is no evidence that a god gives or safeguards free will. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary.
Humans have free will not because of god, but because god does not exist.
Cheers!
The following just happened in the state I live in. Please read it and tell me how this child's suffering fit into god's purpose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/ame-deal-killed-over-popsicle_n_913646.html#s318754&t_itle=John_Allen
Ame Deal, Arizona 10-Year-Old, Killed By Family For Taking Popsicle: Police
First Posted: 7/29/11 05:49 PM ET Updated: 7/29/11 05:49 PM ET
"The family of a 10-year-old found dead in a trunk outside an Arizona home initially claimed the child died while playing hide-and-seek. But investigators now believe Ame Deal suffocated after her family locked her in the box because she took a popsicle from the freezer without permission.
Phoenix police claim Deal's grandmother, aunt and two cousins regularly subjected the child to horrific treatment, ultimately culminating in her July 12 death.
"This child died at the hands of those who were supposed to love and care for her. ... This case has turned the stomachs of some of our most seasoned detectives," said Phoenix Police spokesman Sergeant Trent Crump in a statement posted on the city's website.
Deal's passing was classified as a "death unknown" until July 28, according to the police press release.
But after Deal's cousin Samantha Allen, 23, and her husband, John Allen, 23, admitted putting the child in the trunk and padlocking it, authorities charged the couple with first degree murder.
John Allen was allegedly angry with Deal because she had taken a popsicle from the freezer, AZFamily reports.
Neighbors suspected abuse at home where girl was put in box
After four adults were arrested in the connection with the murder of a 10 year old girl, neighbors said they had heard loud scolding and witnessed the child being punished. CPS was not called to the house before July 12, when she was found dead.
The victim's aunt, Cynthia Stoltzmann, 44, and grandmother, Judith Deal, 62, were charged with child abuse and kidnapping after reportedly admitting to locking the child in the box on previous occasions.
Witnesses told investigators the child was regularly punished by being locked in the trunk. They also saw the caregivers force Deal to eat dog feces as punishment, crush cans barefoot and exercise outdoors in "extreme measures," according to ABC15.
Deal's aunt allegedly confessed to putting hot sauce in the child's mouth, striking her with a paddle dubbed "Butt Buster" and ordering the child to sleep on the floor of a stall shower because she had a problem with wetting the bed, the news station reports.
Deal, who weighed just 59 pounds and was discovered in soiled clothing, died in a box that measured less than 3 feet long, 14 inches wide and one foot tall, according to The New York Daily News."
Christians say their god gives each person free will. Where was this child's free will? Did she choose to live a life of abuse and die in a box struggling for air?
The bible says god has a plan for each person. Was this His plan for this child? Could He do no better for her?
Christians say their god is omniscient. If this is true, then He WOULD HAVE KNOWN of this child's suffering. He would have watched as she was imprisoned in a box...
Christians say their god is omnibenevolent. He would have WANTED to stop the child's suffering.
Christians say their god is omnipotent. He was ABLE to stop her torture and murder.
Yet, the child suffered and finally was murdered. Suffocated. Can you imagine this death?
The Christian god is very unlikely to exist. If He does exist, He is vile.
Cheers!
@Chad ...
Psalm 139:16 sums up the whole point ... God is saying ... I know every thing you are going to do, before you do it.
If he knows everything your are going to do from when your born till you die, then everything is already determined.
@David Johnson...
Was your "Free Will" response for me or Chad?
Cause, I basically said the same thing, when referring to Psalm 139:16 ... just not as good.
@ D.J.: you are assuming God is subject to time (which would make *time* the real god). Christians believe time is subject to God. That resolves your assertion that God's benevolence, omniscience & omnipotence contradict.
Also, you have given a seriously mistaken caricature of 5 point Calvinists. Actually, the position you've described is what is called Hyper-Calvinism, a position rejected by Calvinists. Note what I said above.
And to press your point to the central claim of the Christian faith: think about the cross.
a) God is aware of suffering & took the biggest suffering on himself (Rom.8:32). No other major religion claims that.
b) What he did already has changed what suffering ultimately does to us. Or as one poet put it: death used to be an executioner. Jesus made death only a gardener.
c) Suffering is an evil that Christians should work to end as best we can. It's exactly what Jesus' work is about.
No other religion can claim their God so readily identifies with those who unjustly suffer. And Jesus demonstrates what he is doing to end suffering – which calls Christians to pursue the same.
@The One True Steve "Psalm 139:16 sums up the whole point ... God is saying ... I know every thing you are going to do, before you do it. If he knows everything your are going to do from when your born till you die, then everything is already determined."
=>Suppose your mother could go back in time to when you were 6 years old. If she said at that point that she knew everything you were going to do before you did it, would that be abrogating your free will? No it wouldnt.
That is what God does, He alone has already seen the entire scope of history, past, present and future.
@Russ
You said: " you are assuming God is subject to time (which would make *time* the real god). Christians believe time is subject to God. That resolves your assertion that God's benevolence, omniscience & omnipotence contradict."
Can god change things that have happened in the past?
It doesn't matter if god is inside of or outside of time. It doesn't matter if He is made of spirit or yellow marshmallow, like an Easter peep.
If the future can be known, and god can know this future, then god is omniscient. If events in time are predetermined (by who / what?) then everything must happen as god sees them. Even His own actions would not be changeable. If god did change the future, then He would not be omniscient. He would not have seen the actual future.
Did god predestine events? Then, being perfect, there would be no need to change them. This would also mean no free will. Hmm...
If god is omnipotent, there is nothing He cannot do. No injury He can suffer.
If god has predestined an event. Umm... Maybe the crucifixion of Jesus, Then this event must happen. If god prevents it, because He is all powerful, then this would mean that god did not see the final outcome and is not perfect.
If god tries to prevent the crucifixion of Jesus but can't, because it is predestined...then god is not all powerful.
To say god uses time is dumb. Christians believe god has a purpose or a plan. God would be guiding, steering, pushing towards the fulfillment of this plan. Yes, and the path taken and to be taken may be "time". But, this is again, another form of predetermination / predestination. God is perfect. So any plan he constructs must be perfect and have no need of changing.
Any way you look at it, time is anterior even to god. These attributes assigned to god by believers are just like the fake medals and ribbons given to rulers of small, countries. They mean nothing. They look good at parades, or in the minds of the deluded.
On the Jesus thing:
There is no "evidence" that is not hearsay or justifiably disputed that an actual Jesus ever existed. Unless, you have a snapshot? Letter? Sp_ice Rack? Shroud?
As far as god and suffering:
Hmmm...
It is said: "By your fruit you will be known."
Let's look at your god's "fruit".
God directly or at His insistence, murdered men, women and children including babies. This isn't evil? Is this moral?
God killed every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah and his family, because man was wicked. Afterwards, He decides He won't kill everything again, because man's heart is evil from his youth. This isn't evil? Is this moral? An all knowing god didn't know this BEFORE He murdered everyone on the planet? OOOooopsie!
God had a man believe he was going to sacrifice his son to Him. Do you know how traumatic that would be for a father and his son?
If you had the power would you do this? Would you be so insecure? This isn't evil? Is this moral?
There was a man who loved God. God made a bet with Satan that even if the man were tortured, his Possessions taken, and his children killed, he would still love God and never curse Him. God won the bet.
Would you do that? Would you kill a man's children for a bet? This isn't evil? Is this moral?
God sent a bear to kill a group of children, because they had teased one of His prophets.
Did the children deserve to die, because they teased a bald man? This isn't evil? Is this moral? Is this a just god?
God allowed a man to sacrifice his daughter to Him, for giving the man a victory in battle. Human sacrifice! This isn't evil? Is this moral?
God created a place He can send people to be burned for all eternity. Could an all benevolent god construct such a place of misery?
If a puppy wet on the floor, would you hold it over a burner? Even for a second?
I call Jesus, Himself as a witness!
Jesus had this to say:
Matthew 7:17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
Luke 6:43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
1. A god who is not evil, can't do evil things!
This is established, by Jesus' testimony.
2. The Christian god is guilty of horrid crimes against humans
Evidenced by the atrocities recorded in the bible and the Christian god's own admission:
Isaiah 45:7, KJV says the Christian god is responsible for at least some evil: "..I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
3. Therefore, god is evil. He bears bad fruit.
Read the examples of god's behavior again. Tell me in what reality or under what circ_umstances, these actions would not be evil?
Cheers!
P.S. Like most, you picked one of my arguments against free will. I mean them as a set. Tell me about those.
Your god is totally bogus.
@The One True Steve
Yes, it was to chad. Contrary to my belief, Evidence shows beer to not be a mental enhancement.
Mea Culpa my friend
Cheers!
@ Brokeback Mountain: you can shove it up your fundament and spin, dude. For someone who thinks gays should be equal, you have gall telling women to shut up and sit down.
Blow it out your ear.
@ D.J.: three fallacious arguments do not make a good one as a set.
1) if the god you are criticizing is not (as you put it) "anterior to time", then you are not criticizing the Christian God. "In the beginning was God..." (Gen.1:1) clearly is not talking about God's beginning but merely ours. You don't have to agree with Christians to engage in an honest discussion with us. If you want your argument to hold water, it's better not to misrepresent those with whom you are arguing.
2) Myths, legends, & fables take hundreds of years to arise. And they never contain the nature of detail the Gospels do. A brief reading of Lk.1:1-5 lets you know that the author does not intend to convey a myth, but is reporting eyewitness testimony. The same is true of Paul in 1 Cor.15:1f. These texts are making unprecedented claims as event reportage within 30-50 years of the actual event – and they're claiming many saw it. Christianity does not get off the ground without eyewitnesses. Again, you don't have to agree with Christians to see that *something* happened. To say there is no evidence for the real existence of the most discussed figure in history denies the unique manner in which Christianity came about (a claim that God came in the flesh conveyed with real life details, etc). For a lifelong expert on myths (& why the Gospels cannot be such), see CS Lewis' essay: Fern Seeds & Elephants.
3) As I said before, you are mistaking God's sovereignty for determinism. We are still responsible for our own actions. Per my above argument. We (not God) are responsible for the evil in this world. He is healing it. The cross makes as much clear: we deserve even worse than we've gotten, yet he is willing to take the primary suffering due to us upon himself.
We don't have to agree with each other to have the integrity to still accurately engage one another's arguments. If I have misrepresented you, I welcome your clarifications. But your arguments do not accurately represent Christian belief, and as such are not compelling to Christians – which I think is your intent.
@ D.J.: for example, your concern about 2 Kgs.2 – Elisha & the bear mauling. One of the most graphic pictures of judgment in the Bible. 42 kids mauled. Because the mocked a bald guy. Why?
If all these things in the Old Testament point to Jesus as Jesus claims (Lk.24:27, 44), what is this passage saying?
1) To mock God's representative is to mock God.
In the immediate, this passage is about the call of Elisha in replacing Elijah. A city that is actively involved in idol worship is angry that God's prophets would preach against it. The children of the city come out to mock & (by the sheer number, if 42 *of them* were mauled) potentially kill him. Their plans are premeditated (they come out of the city to attack Elijah). They view him as the enemy. God judges the sin of the city through their children.
What does that have to do with Jesus?
2) It's a picture of what we would do when God's ultimate representative would come (what we deserve) & what he would do for us...
Jesus was the greater Elisha, who was taken outside the city, wrongly mocked – and yet no one came to his defense. But also, the incredible hope of Christians: He was mauled in my place.
The radical message of the God of the Bible is most clearly seen in the cross which tells us two things:
1) We are worse off than we want to admit (the evil *we have done* means we ALL deserve to die – who killed Jesus? I did)
2) We are more loved than we ever dared hope (despite the depth of my evil, he was willing to die in my place).
Your stomach is rightly turned by the violence in the Bible. But recognize, for Christians, it is not God's violence that is turning our stomachs, but the mirror he is holding up to what we have done. The difficult yet incredible message of the cross: the very place we are most clearly shown what we deserve (worse than bear-mauling judgment) is the very same place we are shown the love & mercy of God (he takes what I deserve). I am that bad. He is that good.
@Russ: we get it already. God would be an ass-hole if he existed. Next topic please.
@Russ
I just noticed your post. My day is hectic and I am playing cards this evening.
I very much want to address your post. Please check back...probably Saturday.
Cheers!
@Russ
You said: "three fallacious arguments do not make a good one as a set.
[1] "if the god you are criticizing is not (as you put it) "anterior to time", then you are not criticizing the Christian God. "In the beginning was God..." (Gen.1:1) clearly is not talking about God's beginning but merely ours. You don't have to agree with Christians to engage in an honest discussion with us. If you want your argument to hold water, it's better not to misrepresent those with whom you are arguing."
The argument against the Christian god being both Omniscient and Omnipotent, is applicable to any god or being. The two attributes are not compatible.
Being all knowing binds god, as well as the rest of creation.
Many think that god created the Universe and time began. God then filled this time like a script in a movie. This would be predestination. God has actually determined (rather than simply seen) in advance the destiny of the universe and all god's little creatures. - Hence, no free will.
Others think that god created the universe. Time and events just occur. But being Omniscient, god can see the future. This is determinism. Everything is determined, but not preordained by a god. He does not cause or dictate the future, but can see it because of this attribute. But understand, that if god can see the future, If He knows the outcome of all of his creation(s), even before they exist, it still bodes badly for there being free will.
So, again:
God, being all knowing, KNOWS the winning numbers in tomorrow's lottery drawing.
If, because He is all powerful, He changes them, so Betty can win, He is not omniscient.
If He cannot change the numbers, then He is not all powerful.
The 3 O attributes Christians assign to their god, make that god impossible.
[2] You said: "Myths, legends, & fables take hundreds of years to arise. And they never contain the nature of detail the Gospels do. A brief reading of Lk.1:1-5 lets you know that the author does not intend to convey a myth, but is reporting eyewitness testimony. The same is true of Paul in 1 Cor.15:1f. These texts are making unprecedented claims as event reportage within 30-50 years of the actual event – and they're claiming many saw it. Christianity does not get off the ground without eyewitnesses. Again, you don't have to agree with Christians to see that *something* happened. To say there is no evidence for the real existence of the most discussed figure in history denies the unique manner in which Christianity came about (a claim that God came in the flesh conveyed with real life details, etc). For a lifelong expert on myths (& why the Gospels cannot be such), see CS Lewis' essay: Fern Seeds & Elephants. "
Assumptions:
(1) Jesus died in about 30 C.E.
(2) Hearsay is not acceptable evidence.
Hearsay – hear•say/ˈhi(ə)rˌsā/
Noun: Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
Synonyms: rumor – report – gossip – whisper – scuttlebutt – crap (mine)
There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The Gospels were written by god knows who in the third person. The Gospels were written with an agenda i.e., Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.
We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)
The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
Mark was the first gospel (Markan Priority). Luke and Mathew copied from Mark and from a doc_ument called Q. 90% of Mathew's gospel, is copied from Mark. Why would an eyewitness need to copy from Mark? 54% of Luke came from Mark. John is different from the other three. The plagiarism from Mark, shows that it is highly unlikely that the three were eyewitnesses to, or even laid eyes on Jesus. If the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, why don't they describe Jesus? Why are they written in the third person, instead of first person? All eyewitness accounts are written in the 1st person.
There are no known secular writings about Jesus, that aren't forgeries, later insertions, or hearsay. NONE!
Most of the supposed authors lived AFTER Jesus was dead. Can you say hearsay?
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) a contemporary Jewish historian, never wrote a word about Jesus. This is odd, since Philo wrote broadly on the politics and theologies around the Mediterranean.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 BCE – 65 CE) A.K.A. Seneca the Younger. A contemporary of Jesus wrote extensively on many subjects and people. But he didn't write a word about a Jesus.
Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 AD – August 25, 79 AD), better known as Pliny the Elder, was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher. Plinius wrote "Naturalis Historia", an encyclopedia into which he collected much of the knowledge of his time. There is no mention of a Jesus.
The area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And nothing about the Jesus. Nada! Not even something chiseled on a wall or carved into a tree like: "Jesus Loves Mary Magdalene".
John 21:25 King James Version (KJV)
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
You would think a fellow this "gifted" , would have at least been mentioned by one of these historians.
There is a line in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar that says:"The rocks themselves would start to sing".
Hmm...
We don't even have a wooden shelf that Jesus might have built. Or anything written by Jesus. God incarnate, and we don't even have a Mother's day card signed by Him.
Mark 3:7- 8 King James Version (KJV)
7But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great mult_itude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea,
8And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great mult_itude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.
Yet, not one of these adoring fans, bothered to draw a picture, chisel a bust, or even write down a description. Even Mohammad has a description. Virtually all important people do. And god, being god, could have preserved it.
The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention Jesus or have any New Testament scripture, as some have claimed.
Jesus, if he existed, was not considered important enough to write about by any contemporary person. The myth hadn't had a chance to flourish. The future stories and miracles needed awhile to grow and spread.
Paul's writings were the first, about Jesus. But, Paul's writing was done 25 to 30 years after Jesus was dead. In a primitive, ultra-supersti_tious society, 25 years is a lot of time for a myth to grow. Twenty-five years was most of the average person's lifespan in the 1st Century.
Some people feel that Paul, not Jesus, is the real father of what most Christians believe today (Pauline Christianity).
Paul never actually met Jesus. His knowledge and faith was the result of hearsay and an epileptic "vision".
Questions on the Crucifixion story:
"Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save." Mark 15:31
"Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe..." Mark 15:32
It would appear, that the chief priests are admitting that Jesus "saved" others. If they knew this, then there is no reason for them to demand that Jesus descend from the cross, in order for them to believe. They already admitted to knowing of Jesus' "miracles".
This is just an embellishment by Mark. A work of fiction possibly constructed to make it appear that some Old Testament "prediction" was fulfilled. Like:
"I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting." – Isaiah 50:6
Here is another:
1 Corinthian 15:14-17 – Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection.
1 Corinthians 15:4 "4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"
Matthew 12:40 – Jesus said, that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights.
Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only 2 days at the most. Or, if you count Friday and Sunday as entire days, then you could get 3 days and 2 nights. This is a gimme though. The Mary's went to the grave at sunrise and it was empty.
Obviously, the Christians spin this like a pinwheel. I have seen explanations like: Jesus was actually crucified on Wednesday or maybe Thursday; The prophesy actually means 12 hour days, and not 24 hour days; The partial days are counted as full days. This one is true, but still doesn't add up.
At any rate, the crucifixion day and number of days and nights Jesus spent in the grave, is disputed.
It looks very much like, that Jesus was not in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. The prophecy was not fulfilled.
And what of this?:
Jesus had healed a woman on the Sabbath!:
Luke 13 31:33 KJV
31The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
32And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
33Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
NOTE that Jesus is saying, it is impossible for a prophet (Himself) to be killed outside of Jerusalem.
Yet, Jesus WAS killed outside Jerusalem!
Calvary or Golgotha was the site, outside of ancient Jerusalem’s early first century walls, at which the crucifixion of Jesus is said to have occurred. OOoopsie!
And there is this:
According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."
Yet not a single secular mention of a three hour ecliptic event got recorded. 'Cause it didn't happen!
Mathew 27 51:53
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ crucifixion and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
How come nobody wrote about zombies running through the cities? 'Cause it is all b.s.
An interesting note:
"The same phenomena and portents of the sudden darkness at the sixth hour, a strong earthquake, rent stones, a temple entrance broken in two, and the rising of the dead have been reported by multiple ancient writers for the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC." – Sources Wikipedia (John T. Ramsey & A. Lewis Licht, The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games, Atlanta 1997, p. 99–107
Hmmm...
If you can't even believe the crucifixion story how likely is the resurrection account to be true? In a book that is a mix of fiction and "fact", how do you know which is which? Especially, since all of the bible seems very unlikely and does not fit with the reality we see around us.?
If Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, who died for man's redemption, then this would be the most important event in the history of man.
Having gone to the trouble of impregnating a human and being born god incarnate and dying for mankind's sins, why wouldn't god have ensured there was tons of evidence that this was true? Multiple Writings by contemporary eyewitnesses – Jews and Romans and Greeks.
You are going to want to say that there IS lots of evidence, but look at reality: There are way more people, in the world, who are not Christians (67%) than who are (33%). Obviously, the evidence is not adequate to convince even a majority of the world's people.
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. – Carl Sagan
[3] You said: "As I said before, you are mistaking God's sovereignty for determinism. We are still responsible for our own actions. Per my above argument. We (not God) are responsible for the evil in this world. He is healing it. The cross makes as much clear: we deserve even worse than we've gotten, yet he is willing to take the primary suffering due to us upon himself."
The fundies claim, that god doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself to hell. Make no mistake. God sends people to hell. Believers always want to give their god a pass on evil. Satan does it, humans are responsible, etc.
If god is the creator of all things, then he is responsible for the bad as well as the good. He made the beautiful flowers and the worm that is eating a child's eye.
Hard to imagine an all good (Omnibenevolent) being spending time creating pathogens and parasites for the purpose of harming humans.
If God exists and is all good, we must have evidence that all of the evil we see are for a higher purpose. And none is unwarranted.
All the pain and suffering should have the purpose of teaching. But even Christians admit there is no evidence. That is why they must resort to talking about the mysterious ways in which God works or God's Great Plan.
There's no evidence at all, that 300 to 500 million people dying from Smallpox in the 20th century, is for a greater good.
Walk through a children's cancer ward some time. Come back and tell me what lessons are being learned there.
What lesson does the parent of a baby born without a brain take away from the experience?
What lesson is taught to a mother, who is watching her baby starve?
Even if evil and suffering is a teaching tool, an all good God would only allow as much evil or suffering as is absolutely necessary, in order to achieve a greater purpose. Any suffering above that necessary to learn, would have no purpose.
But when we look at the world around us, we find many instances of apparently pointless suffering from which no greater purpose seems to result.
Consider that Evolution is responsible for disease and nasty parasites. The disasters all have natural origins.
When you drop god from the equation, you eliminate much of human strife.
Cheers!
This is a sin. The bible says to go forth and procreate.
the bible also says to beat your kids... do you do that? it says that man is superior to women...are they? it says that to lie is a sin and for all sinners hell awaits...have you lied before? It does say that the importance of the many out weights that of the few... so why procreate if the world is over populated? Why should those who are dieing in africa of hiv procreate...because it says so in a book...interesting... i know a few books that say stuff too, should i take them as seriously as you take a book... have you all the books of moses, or just what you found between the covers of the bible? Ignorance is no excuse!
hippypoet
You said "blah blah blah I'm an idiot blah blah I know all things blah blah blah my words are facts because I'm a left winger from San Fransisco and I love the pet shop boys blah blah blah."
I have no response for this.
Amazingly enough, fred, I have no respect for someone who is so afraid of life and death that he spends his entire existence kowtowing to a mythological god and his mythology-filled handbook. No matter how hard you pretend or make excuses, there is no proof of your god, your heaven, or your hell. What is left is the fact that you are judging others based on your personal cowardice, and there is nothing respectable about that.
@fred
You said: "This is a sin. The bible says to go forth and procreate."
And the The Mad Hatter asked: Have you any idea why a raven is like a writing desk?
Both are fiction. Both are crap. Accept it.
Cheers!
What the hell did Lewis Carroll ever do to you!?
fred
The Bible said that at a time when the world's human population was only in the millions, and disease generally prevented about 30% of all children from reaching adulthood, so having large families was a way of hedging your bet.
I know that many of you believers are counting on Christ returning in time to cull the population before things get bad enough to affect us here in the USA, but considering how many generations have passed without this happening in their lifetimes you shouldn't be so confident that your Superman will arrive in time to save the day. We all really do need to commit to an alternative, more realistic, plan, right?
Fred, -The NIH reports, "It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%." Clinical miscarriages (those occurring after the sixth week) occur in 8% of pregnancies.
In your "God"-caused scenario, he's doin' oodles of killin', and fertility science saves many from that fate.
@Get Real, way to hit "bag o' hammers" fred with a tough one.
The question as posed to voters on the ballot:
Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?
YES
No.
Stop mast er- bating, Chard. You're so excited you're wasting precious sperm.
No, because leagally you are not a person until you are born.
I suspect that one of the reasons behind this law is to bring Roe vs Wade back to the Supreme Court, which is so utterly biased in the direction of conservative christianity, the const.itution will be spit upon and women will again be reduced to second class citizens in our country. Back alley abortions will return, women will die, and we will still have a horrifying number of children living in poverty and crime. But the christians will feel powerful and good about themselves and that is the only thing that is truly important to them.
They probably wanted to redefine "person" so that they could weasel their way into applying the rights we have as living breathing human beings to clusters of cells (fetus) not viable outside the uterus. By redefining the term they were attempting to backdoor their way into going after abortion rights, stem cell research, and anything having to do with little cells of "persons" living inside one big person.
@tallulah13
You are exactly right. Mississippi was chosen, because the Christian Right believes the Mississippians are inbred just enough to vote for. They hoped other states would follow. Eventually it would end up in the Supreme Court where Roe V. Wade would be overturned.
This is mostly a woman's issue. Men can't do everything for you. Women must fight the good fight!
I suggest an Abortion Betty doll. To start the game, you press on the doll's belly. This begins the pregnancy. The young abortionist has 24 seconds to vacuum out the fetus, before the doll gives birth. You can "recharge" the doll over and over, with any flavor of Jello. Also included is a purity ring and pledge. The pledge has odd stains...
The doll exclaims: "I thought the stupid purity ring was a contraceptive device!
Cheers!
The set also includes Christians with pitch forks and torches marching up and down the sidewalk.
If we say that fertilized eggs are potentially people and should be treated as such, should we all treat each other as though they are dead? Because everyone certainly has that potential.
The issue is not that fertilized eggs are potential people, but that they are, in fact, human beings from the moment of conception. Potentially people? No. Currently people? Yes.
Well said Jennifer 🙂
No. They are not 'people'. They are human. They don't have the rights people do.
Now wait for it: Chard will be along with some inane comment.
Obviously she meant
Human: Noun: A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
Person: Noun: A human being regarded as an individual.
People: Human beings in general or considered collectively.
@ Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "No. They are not 'people'. They[unborn babies] are human. They don't have the rights people do. "
=>Killing humans is ok? Not sure what you are saying..
So bundles of cells with not functioning heart or nervous system are humans? What are women then? Are they simply incubators? Does pregnancy reduce women to church property?
Unless you support government a-ssistence for impoverished single mothers, affordable health care, planned parenthood, and teaching children proper birth control, you are hypocrites who are actually encouraging abortion.
Wow! Inane comment from Chad! Tom Tom, you're a prophet. I nominate you for god.
Frankly, it is absurd to try to equate a zygote with a person. Until there is a brain functioning at higher cognitive levels there is no person, just the potential.
We should define life the way we define death which is based on the functioning of the brain. Hearts, lungs, kidneys, etc. are just life support for the brain. The brain is where we live and who we are.
When you consider the billions of fertilized eggs that never implanted or failed to thrive after implantation, you have to realize that nature (or god) does not hesitate to allow those potential people to be discarded en mass in the process of procreation. These fertilized eggs do not have feelings or a soul or any such things.
"Not sure what you're saying."
I'm saying you are equating babies with fetuses. And that's because you're a dimwit.
@Tom
Your statement was "They[unborn babies] are not 'people'. They[unborn babies] are human. They don't have the rights people do."
Why would a human not have the same rights as people? Your statement makes no sense.
I suspect it was a slip on your part and you didnt mean to call unborn babies human.
Which speaks to the irrationality of calling unborn babies "tissue" and such.. It seeks to de-humanize them and thereby lessen the crime.
@Tom "The difference is that the decisions on "problem pregnancies" are now made BY THE WOMAN. This would have taken that decision away from her and given it to a third party."
=>Not true, in late term pregnancy complications TODAY, the rights of the unborn child are taken into account when evaluating the solution. We are ONLY talking about reducing the age at which the rights of the unborn child are respected.
That's just reality. We arent talking about a new situation wrt the law, we are only talking about reducing the age at which the rights of the unborn child are respected.
@MarkinFL[i] "Frankly, it is absurd to try to equate a zygote with a person. Until there is a brain functioning at higher cognitive levels there is no person, just the potential."[/i]
=>that's a reasonable argument (I disagree with it), but as the amendment only has the affect of reducing the age at which the unborn childs rights are respected, the only point to debate is what age it should be. I feel it should be conception.
No, Chad. "WE" aren't talking about that at all. YOU are talking about taking the right of a woman to choose away. Not going to happen, as you can see. Apparently the people of Mississippi are smarter than you are.
That's not saying much.
I love how anti-choice nuts like Chad attempt to bring late-term abortion into the argument as if it were relevant. The fact is that until a fetus is able to survive outside the uterus, women are the ones who decide what they will do about a pregnancy. And I seem to recall Chad talking about birth control methods and dismissing those that would be outlawed by this measure because they were used by only 1% of the population. Guess what, nitwit? Look up the stats on late-term abortion and tell me again why THAT fraction of a percent is relevant.
It is women who decide in the huge majority of abortions, because they occur long before viability and this law would have taken that right away.
And now it's been SOUNDLY defeated in a state that is so conservative that if it were going to pass anywhere, that would have been the place.
Give it up. You don't have a majority on your side; you don't even have a large minority. You are on the fringe and nobody is going to buy your drivel.
If this passes, then there must be a challenge to it, in the Supreme Court. They want to overturn Roe V. Wade. I think they will be successful.
Christian Right Agenda = Christian Theocracy
Theocracy = A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
Christian Right = Predominately Evangelicals
The Texas history books are rewriting history to give the conservative slant. The objective of this effort, is to create a Christian Nation, a theocracy with Jesus as Head of State.
The recent article about the letter to the Jews, from George Washington, must sting like a son-of-a-gun. We are a secular nation. Thank god!
A huge campaign is underway, to convince the American people, the founding fathers never intended a separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson's role as a founding father is played down. In some cases Jefferson is smudged.
Expect an attack on the 1st and 14th Amendments. The founding fathers will weep.
Most of the Tea Party are for a Christian Theocracy. The Tea Party is in bed with the Christian Right. A vote for any Tea Party candidate, is a vote for Christian Right domination.
The Republicans are the puppets of the Christian Right and Rich White Men. If you aren't rich or if you aren't white, then this is not your party. Remember Rand Paul's wish to have limited government that should not force private businesses to abide by civil rights law? Isn't that a tad racist or is it just me? Can you say: "You want me to sit where on the bus?"
You will see an amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman. Gay rights will dwindle and die.
Roe Vs. Wade will be reversed. Women will once again be forced to seek back alley remedies. Men may be forced to buy condoms on the black market. You will procreate! Or you will be abstinent! It is not up to you!
Stem cell research will stagnate. The hopes of damaged and sick people will be dashed. Little Billy better get used to that wheelchair.
All scientific research will be scrutinized by the Christian Right. "Whether or not a theory is in agreement with the Evangelical's interpretation of god's will", will be the new metric. Get use to hearing "God Did It". No one will dare question otherwise.
Science classes will be much easier. Much less to remember or think about. 90% of the answers will be "D" – God did it. 30% correct will be passing. 50% will be Valedictorian.
Makes it pretty easy to get their "sheep skin". Baaaaa!
Education doesn't matter! Jesus is coming soon. When Perry told of his poor academic performance, The Republicans (Tea Party?) applauded.
Let's glorify ignorance and stupidity!
You say you've developed a vaccine that will prevent women from getting cervical cancer? No, Mr. Scientist. You will pour it down the drain! And you will make drugs that prevent STDs no more! So sayeth the Lord...According to the Religious Nuts.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital $ex. Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV" – Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council
I would much rather my daughter was lying there dying of cancer, rather than having taken a shot that might have given her out of control urges.
There was a recent article on the Religious blog about how Evangelical young'uns are not waiting.
Little Betty is not praying so often, because she is so devout. She is praying for her Aunt Flow. Amen!
P_ornography will be illegal. The Religious Right will decide what is p_ornographic , as well as what is art. You will watch television programs approved by the Evangelicals. Lots of reruns of "Growing Pains", starring that Evangelical darling Kirk Cameron. Thank you Jesus!
Will museums exhibiting transitional fossils and other evidence of evolution, be deemed po_rnographic and closed? Their exhibits burned?
Creationism will be taught in public school, most likely alongside evolution rather than instead of, but no guarantees. Creationism/ Intelligent Design will consist of 10 chapters. Evolution will be mentioned on the book jacket cover.
Vouchers will enable parents to send their child to religious schools. Funds to public schools will dwindle. Quality education will be out of reach for the masses. The finite amount of money, will be spread too thin. Destroying the public school system is the purpose of the voucher system.
If each faith attends their own school, interacts only with children who believe as they do, Might this not interfere with the melting pot, we often brag about? Won't this increase prejudices? The Catholics once told their children that Jews have horns. *sigh*
Segregation, is not beneficial. We need to learn to get along, and work together. Toddlers are really good at playing well with others.
Little Johnny will believe in talking snakes and Zombie Messiahs. He will spend his free time watching the heavens, waiting for Jesus to return. The rest of the world is spending their time learning real science and math. Good luck Johnny. Can you say: "Would you like fries with that?" And you Betty! Lots of jobs overseas. With your qualifications, there is a pole with your name on it, waiting for you.
State-sanctioned Prayer will be in our schools. The Christian Right think they know better than the Founding Fathers and want to tamper with the Bill of Rights. They want to amend the U.S. Const_itution, so that the Government would legally sponsor and take over the activity of prayer. Only the one true god, the Christian god, will be given homage. The god(s), of all other faiths, will be subservient to the Christian god. Muslim parents will need to make this clear to their children. Will the Catholics and the Mormons be Christian enough? What about the Jehovah Witnesses? The Evangelicals / Jesus will determine this.
The non-Christians will be allowed to put their heads down on their desks, during the morning worship. They can contemplate their damnation, for not accepting Jesus.
$ex education will consist of abstinence only. Studies have shown it is a worthless concept. But, it will please the religious fanatics. Why did little Betty have her purity ring reshaped into a tongue stud?
The war against unions, commenced during the Reagan administration, will continue. Labor will be humbled. They will accept the wages they are offered and should be grateful to get it. The Mexicans won't come here for jobs, anymore. The rate of pay won't justify the effort.
Say goodbye to enti_tlements. Medicare will be changed to a voucher system. When Grandma is out of vouchers, she is out of luck. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme! We will reduce Grandmas' pension a % for each, predetermined, increment of life.
Our elderly will die earlier than they would like. But, they have the promise of an afterlife to comfort them. Unless of course, they haven't accepted Jesus. Then, they will burn in a place created by an all loving and all just god, for all eternity.
Best for them to concentrate on the pie in the sky. Works better than opium for a lot of people.
Go toward the light, Grandma... Grandpa is waiting for you.
We love you Grandma. But, the Republicans have taken away Medicare and cut your Social Security. Go to sleep, now.
The government will turn over Medicade and the rest of the programs for the p_oor, to the Christian Right. They will decide who will receive help and who will not. No longer will the criteria for receiving help, simply be income. Every dime given, will have "strings". The poor will be beholden to the Evangelicals.
The Christian Right has embraced Paul as the moral lawgiver. Paul's First Ep_istle of Paul to the Thessalonians, is often quoted by the Republicans. You never hear them quote Jesus' advice to the rich. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Jesus will understand.
The Republicans applaud the executions, of human beings. The more the merrier. They will be a burden to the state, no more! If it turns out some were actually innocent, god will set it right... Providing they have accepted Christ.
Perhaps trials aren't necessary. Send the accused directly to god's justice! We are a Christian nation!! Are we not the hand of god?
The accused are of another faith, you say? Give them a chance to pray the Sinners Prayer, and send them to judgment.
The Republicans screamed, "YES", when asked if an uninsured man should be allowed to die.
If you read the Good Samaritan parable told by Jesus, you might come away with the idea that Jesus wouldn't agree.
But, I bet Jesus will change His mind once the Evangelicals rule in His name.
Could be, Jesus will feel compelled to rewrite the entire bible, leaving out those obviously unclear parts. The Evangelicals will help Jesus clear them up. Guaranteed!
Jesus will be the Head of State! He will be represented by an empty chair at the head of the leadership table. Only the Evangelicals will be able to hear His voice. They will tell the rest of us His will.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The Evangelicals will rule in the name of a non-existent demigod.
"Theocracies generally do not tolerate freedom of expression. They believe their dogma is divine; that it comes from divine revelation (directly from God as in Moses on Mount Sinai) and therefore, no dissenting opinion can be accurate or helpful. This often leads to widespread abuse of basic human rights."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/T/Theocracy.aspx
WoW! If the above quote doesn't make you wanna puke...
The Evangelicals are not content to run their own lives. They want to get, by political means, what Jesus never has and never will give them, by returning.
Vote for the Dems in 2012. There are a lot of things I would like to see changed in the Democratic Party, but at least they are not insane.
Thank God, this country is a secular nation.
Remember, Jesus won't really be in charge. It will be an Evangelical idiot.
Cheers!
May I correct your oqisteun; it is not Apostolic Churches who baptize in the name of Jesus, but non apostolic churches. Apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox etc) baptize as Jesus commanded (Matthew 28: 19). Protestants and Pentecostals have invented this new baptism which is anti-scriptural. Since they do everything against the word of God, this is no surprise. While Jesus commanded to pray in silence, they shout and blabber in the name of prayers. While Jesus commanded to do the will of his father to attain salvation, they teach that just faith in Jesus is enough for salvation. Don't marvel at their teachings for they do not represent God, but Devil in disguise.
Oh believers, how do you justify killing the mother in the event of an ectopic pregnancy? The fetus is not going to survive and if it continues to grow it will kill the mother. There isn't an option for saving the mother in the amendments current form.
Don't be insane steve.. god won't allow it.. and if it happens.. just pray.. pray a lot more till the fetus bumps into the womb.. god would have that happen.. and if he doesn't then the mother or the fetus must be a sinner..
.. insane argument but I can bet 20 bucks that this is what an evangelical would say.. otherwise.. they have the ever ready fallback argument.. "god works in mysterious ways"..
"There isn't an option for saving the mother in the amendments current form."
=>absolute utter nonsense
EVERY DAY (now, as in now, today..) Doctors and families make judgement calls in at risk pregnancies as late term abortions are outlawed.
The only difference is the age of the baby. That's the only difference. There is nothing new here with respect to the necessity of weighing two humans rights in difficult circu mstances.
@Chad...
No, there would be something new. The blastocyst would be considered a person and an abortion would be illegal. Both the Doctor and the Mother could be charged with a crime. Currently, it is up to the Doctor and the family to make their "judgement call", without fear of arrest and prosecution.
@The One True Steve "No, there would be something new. The blastocyst would be considered a person and an abortion would be illegal. Both the Doctor and the Mother could be charged with a crime. Currently, it is up to the Doctor and the family to make their "judgement call", without fear of arrest and prosecution."
=>it would be new only in the sense that the action of killing that unborn child would be illegal whereas it is now legal.
What is NOT NEW is the difficult process of evaluating the rights of both persons in that situation, that is what you asserted in your original post.
your statement "There isn't an option for saving the mother in the amendments current form" is incorrect as I have shown, weighing the rights of both individuals involved in problem pregnancies is already done daily and would obviously continue when this amendment is passed. The only difference this amendment would have on that situation is in that the age of the child when it comes under protection of the law is changed from late term to conception.
AAAAANNNNNNNNNDDDDDDD you lose, CHAD!
Good for Mississippi.
Suck on that, Chad.
It's only temorary.
"Temorary"? Did you mean "temporary"? Oh, right. Like R v W is "temporary".
And Chad is, as usual, wrong. The difference is that the decisions on "problem pregnancies" are now made BY THE WOMAN. This would have taken that decision away from her and given it to a third party.
Idiot.
"Oh, right. Like R v W is "temporary"."
Nah...more like temporary like the State of Israel is temporary.
Entil'za
Ooooh, is that supposed to be scary, or something?
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son "The difference is that the decisions on "problem pregnancies" are now made BY THE WOMAN. This would have taken that decision away from her and given it to a third party"
=>.nonsense
all the amendment would have done would have been to make the age at which the unborn child came under protection of the laws of this country from it's current age (viability), to conception.
Difficult decisions are made TODAY weighing the rights of the mother vs the baby in problem pregnancies. Nothing would have changed except the age. nothing except the age.
You must be truly desperate, Chard.
You can't even refute the points I made.
Doesn't matter, though. Women still have rights and your side has been trounced. Chew on that a while.
I'd love to see you prove that "difficult choices are made" by a third party when a mother's health and life are in jeopardy.
If you were a plant, we'd have to water you.