 |
|
|
|
|
October 25th, 2012
06:00 AM ET
When ‘God’s will,’ rape and pregnancy collideBy Wayne Drash, CNN (CNN) - The pregnant 12-year-old girl was strung out on heroin and looked like a walking skeleton when she arrived at the hospital. The conversation that followed, said Phoenix police chaplain John South, has stuck with him ever since. “Do you know who the father is?” South recalled asking her. “She said, ‘Yes, it’s my biological father. He’s the one who hooked me on heroin so he could continue to rape me whenever he wanted to.’ ” The Protestant chaplain has consoled about 50 pregnant rape victims - typically girls raped by their fathers - in his years working with the Phoenix Police Department. South describes himself as “pro-life,” but when it comes to dealing with a girl or woman impregnated by a rapist, he keeps his personal views to himself. “I don’t give them a lecture or preach at them,” South said. “I’ve seen crimes beyond comprehension.” Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock stirred controversy during a debate in Indiana Tuesday when he said pregnancies from rape are “something that God intended to happen.” The instant reaction in political circles was predictable: Democrats decried him, and many conservative Republicans defended his position as steadfastly “pro-life.” But theologians were quick with a more nuanced approach, saying the issue of pregnancies from rape strikes at the core of a timeless question: How do you explain evil in a world where God is loving? That said, many expressed outright dismay by Mourdock’s remarks. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter South wanted to know what Bible Mourdock reads because “what he’s saying is absolutely wrong. It’s not biblical.” The police chaplain said pregnancies from rape aren’t meant to be politicized and said the victims suffer from physical and mental wounds and are often suicidal. About 60% of the time, South surmised from his experience, the women or girls choose to give the baby up for adoption, as long as they never see the child at birth. “I hurt for these kids,” he said. “Rape is evil.” Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of the best-selling book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People,” said Mourdock’s remarks were off-base: “He’s invoking the will of God where it is not appropriate." People “should have compassion for the person whose life is messed up by this and not make her an instrument for our idiosyncratic, theological commitment,” Kushner said. “If you believe she has no right to terminate that pregnancy, you're free to believe that,” Kushner said. “But for you to write your preferences into law and compel another person to mess her life up because of what you believe, I think you're going too far.” “I continue to be bemused by the ultraconservative lawmakers who say they want smaller government and less government intrusion into people’s lives, except when it comes to who you can marry and how many children you should have.” Plenty of liberal Christians bemoaned how Mourdock was being perceived by some as the face of American Christianity. "Once again, expressions of Christian faith that honor the rights of women to choose their own health care options and what happens to their bodies are not seen or heard," wrote the Rev. Barbara Kershner Daniel, who pastors the Evangelical Reformed United Church of Christ of Frederick, Maryland, in a message that she circulated via email. "The lack of another voice, another perspective, another vision from the Christian community leaves an impression that all Christians share this single perspective about pregnancy through rape," she wrote. Father Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he found Mourdock’s comments troubling from a Catholic perspective because “God does not want rape to happen.” “Someone getting pregnant through rape simply means biology continues to function,” Reese said. “That doesn’t mean God wills it. “If we look at the Scriptures, we see a God who weeps with those going through pain, who is compassionate for those who suffer and condemns those who do injustice,” Reese said During the Tuesday debate, Mourdock was explaining his opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest when he made his remark. “I came to realize life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” said Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer. Amid the uproar Wednesday, Mourdock sought to clarify his comments, saying he was sorry if he offended anyone but said his comments were twisted and distorted for political gain. “The God that I worship would never, ever want to see evil done,” he said. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Paul Root Wolpe, the director for the Center of Ethics at Emory University, said Mourdock’s comments were the equivalent “of saying you shouldn't pull people out of the rubble because God intended the earthquake to happen or we shouldn't try to cure disease because it's God who gave us the disease,” Wolpe said. "That perspective was theologically rejected by virtually every major religion a long, long time ago,” Wolpe added. Mourdock has been an active member of Christian Fellowship Church in Evansville, Indiana, for nearly two decades, according to Mike Deeg, the executive pastor of the 2,000-plus member nondenominational evangelical church. Mourdock has gone on missions trips with a group connected to the church to Bolivia and is well-regarded among congregants Deeg said. Deeg says the church tries to remain largely out of politics. “We don’t think God is Republican or a Democrat,” he said by phone from Evansville, noting they encourage members to vote, the church just doesn’t say for whom. The pastor said of what he has read about Mourdock’s remarks, they largely lined up with the church’s teachings on the sanctity of life and their belief that life begins at conception. “I think rape is a horrible thing, and I think God would condemn rape as horrible,” Deeg said. “I think we’re made in the image of God regardless,” he added, “I don’t think the circumstances dictate whether God knows us and loves us, regardless of how our conception comes about.” South, the chaplain in Phoenix, said the 12-year-old girl he met years ago opted for an abortion and her father was ultimately convicted of rape. He said he grappled often with “why she was subjected to such horrendous pain and torture, mentally, physically and emotionally.” “Did it shake my faith? No,” South said. “Did I ask God why? Of course.” CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report soundoff (4,449 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next »
Next entry »Man who leaked pope's papers heads to jail
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, October 25
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Dear Lord,
Protect me from your followers!
Ok, continuing .... my ex was a child/product of a rapist. He was taken from his biological mother at age 1 (due to negligence) and adopted shortly thereafter by a loving, religious family. Despite a squeaky-clean upbringing, he has become an incessant liar and emotionally abused his first wife, twisted her arm into marriage at age 15 (for her) and somehow charmed her parents into allowing it (he was older). Many terrible stories there. She felt forced into the marriage. He left her suddenly to marry me - he claimed she was a lesbian (I later found out she wasn't). More on next msg ....
There is absolutely a genetic component to behaviors like that. I knw a family that adopted a daughter at birth, gave her a great upbringing, and she still turned into a drug-addicted sex trade multiple conviction princess, exactly like her biological other and grandmother, whom she never met.
Put the parents through hell, and everyone aroound them blamed them for it, because that is the commonly-held belief . . . the parents are to blame. And people are always looking for someone to blame. Those were good people, dragged through the gutter by genetics they could not forsee or control, and blamed by their community . . . especially the people they went to church with.
True story.
So, what hope is there for that kid in the story if the sins of the parent are automatically theirs? After all the rapist is her parent. Doesn't that make her equal genetically to the fetus she carries? Will killing the fetus help her to heal? Looks like it simply fulfills her genetic heritage according to your logic.
ONLY FOR NEW MEMBERS
And a prayer just for Mourdock and a-nalogous red-neck Christians:
The Apostles' Creed 2012: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
Ok, that one went through! I did not swear in my prior posts. I just want to share the real life story of the ex-wife of a man who was the child of a rapist. Can I say that much? I'll send this first ....
see the list below ...
Added details:
• The moderators of this blog have set up a secret forbidden word filter which unfortunately not only will delete or put your comment in the dreaded "waiting for moderation" category but also will do the same to words having fragments of these words. For example, "t-it" is in the set but the filter will also pick up words like Hitt-ite, t-itle, beati-tude, practi-tioner and const-tution. Then there are words like "an-al" thereby flagging words like an-alysis and "c-um" flagging acc-umulate or doc-ument. And there is also "r-a-pe", “a-pe” and “gra-pe”, "s-ex", and "hom-ose-xual". You would think that the moderators would have corrected this by now considering the number of times this has been commented on but they have not. To be safe, I typically add hyphens in any word that said filter might judge "of-fensive".
• Make sure the web address does not have any forbidden word or fragment.
Sum Dude routinely updates the list of forbidden words/fragments.
Two of the most filtered words are those containing the fragments "t-it" and "c-um". To quickly check your comments for these fragments, click on "Edit" on the Tool Bar and then "Find" on the menu. Add a fragment (without hyphens) one at a time in the "Find" slot and the offending fragment will be highlighted in your comments before you hit the Post button. Hyphenate the fragment(s) and then hit Post. And remember more than one full web address will also gain a "Waiting for Moderation".
Zeb’s alphabetical listing
o “bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN "awaiting moderation" filter:
Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
--–
ar-se.....as in Car-se, etc.
ba-stard
co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, lubco-ck, etc.
co-on.....as in rac-oon, coc-oon, etc.
cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
cu-nt.....as in Scu-ntthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
do-uche
ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, etc.
fu-ck......!
ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
ji-sm
koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
nip-ple
pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
sh-@t.....but shat is okay – don't use the @ symbol there.
sh-it
sl-ut
sn-atch
sp-ic.....as in disp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
wt-f....also!!!!!!!
–
There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.
-–
Allowed words / not blocked at all:
anal
anus
ass
boob
crap
damn
execute
hell
kill
masturbation
murder
penis
pubic
raping (ra-pe is not ok)
shat (sh-@t is not ok)
sphincter
none of my posts are posting. Hello???? I have a really important story to tell.
There is a filter. If you say "Consti.tution", you say the hidden magic word "ti.t", and off your post goes to never-never land. Same with "circu.mstance, which has cu.m in it.
Be like Beavis and seek out the naughty words, giggle, then do what I did.
Or, If you are a nincompoop, just scream in all-caps about conspiracies to prevent you from saying your ever-so-important insight. Make sure you misspell and mangle your grammar if you go this route.
The first is easier, but the second is much funnier for us.
On the other hand, it's not GOP's fault that they have this much support. Simply put, half of Americans are morons. No offence.
Half of this country has below average IQ's and considering the caliber of the average Republican voter these days it is easy to tell which half is voting for Romney.
Why is it OK for a mother to kill her child?
God killed fetuses all the time in the Bible. What's wrong with that?
Because it prevents dingbats like you from polluting the planet and wasting natural resources.
Get some education. there are circstances. If you don't know them, then go learn them somewhere and come back.
I'm sorry – my word should have been circumstances
so.. what makes it OK for a mother to kill her child?
Because it ps worth big bucks to Abortionists!
$300+ for each abortion x 1.5+ Million abortions a year in the US = $500,000,000 Yes 500 Million dollars a year for the butchers.
Money apparently is FAR more desirable than morals, decency and respect for life.
Chad,
The Bible says God killed children and ordered his children killed all the time.
What was your point?
I'll pay Chad's mom big bucks if she has a post-term abortion and disenChadinates the planet.
Look up "child." Look up "blastocyst".. Then look up the laws on abortion.
If that doesn't answer your questions, Chard, then here's a solution: Don't ever get pregnant. Don't be female. Don't try to use your brain. It doesn't work very well.
Whoever the moron is that's whining about what a physician charges for an abortion, would you kindly grow a brain? Doctors are providing legal, needed services. Such services cost money. The doctor's time and skill are worth money. The autoclave, examining table and other equipment are expensive.
The nurse gets a salary. It costs money to turn on the lights. Computers and printers don't grow on trees.
Do you expect your dentist to pull a tooth for free? No? Then get a fvckin' clue.
The question was "why is it ok for a mother to kill her child"
premeditated, unjustified, killing.
I did not ask the question "why does God kill children"
God has His reasons, this universe is His, He created it. Humans do not share that position.
And now for the nitty-gritty:
The reality of se-x, abortion contraception and STD/HIV control: – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) 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 co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
And from:
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
Followed by:
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
Chad,
The Bible is full of commands from God to kill women and NEVER ONCE does God give a rip if they are pregnant or not. If God doesn't care, why don't you follow his example?
It is not ok for a mother to kill her child. It is ok, in certain situations, for a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy because doctors and legislatures have agreed under what conditions it should be permissible. The views of religious shamans should not be given any special meaning – if fact, they should be ignored because such people are delusional, liars or both (given that there is no foundation for their beliefs).
Describing abortion as a mother killing a child is equivalent to describing a crushed acorn as your neighbor cutting down the oak tree in your front yard.
Excuse my poor language in using the ugly word 'acorn'. I meant pre-oak-tree
The law prevents her from killing the rapist by dismemberment.
@GBus "Describing abortion as a mother killing a child is equivalent to describing a crushed acorn as your neighbor cutting down the oak tree in your front yard."
@Chad "plants are not equal to animals/humans in Gods eyes..."
==========
@0G "It is not ok for a mother to kill her child. It is ok, in certain situations, for a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy because doctors and legislatures have agreed under what conditions it should be permissible."
@Chad "it's not ok to kill a child unless doctors and legislatures have decided it's ok to kill a child?"
===========
@Observer "The Bible is full of commands from God to kill women and NEVER ONCE does God give a rip if they are pregnant or not. If God doesn't care, why don't you follow his example?"
@Chad "Because I'm not God.
God can have His reasons
It is clear that we can not have any valid reason for killing a child.
@chad
What. The. Frick.
First of all, you have no idea what a deity could possibly count as equal in its eyes. To think that you do would be considered pride, which is counted as a sin. Secondly if my wife was pregnant and the only way to save her life was to terminate the pregnancy, you better damn well believe that I would be for termination. I would mourn the loss of my unborn offspring, but the length of that mourning would be shockingly brief. Third: if you give a free pass to your deity on the subject of murder then you nor any other believer has a leg to stand on when it comes to your vaunted stances on morality and right and wrong. Fourth: there are several 'valid reasons' for killing someone under the age of 18.
@Chad "plants are not equal to animals/humans in Gods eyes..."
@Damocles "First of all, you have no idea what a deity could possibly count as equal in its eyes"
@Chad "pretty straightforward:
And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
======
@Damocles "To think that you do would be considered pride, which is counted as a sin."
@Chad "?? no.. see above"
======
@Damocles " Secondly if my wife was pregnant and the only way to save her life was to terminate the pregnancy, you better damn well believe that I would be for termination. I would mourn the loss of my unborn offspring, but the length of that mourning would be shockingly brief."
@Chad "killing a child to save the mothers life is a vastly different story than killing the child because you dont want it. When we are authentically in a position where it's "pick one or the other, they both cant live", the motivation for the act is dramatically different.
Remember God does not condemn ALL actions that result in the death of a fellow human being, the motivation is the key in understanding what is and is not condemned.
when you authentically have a situation where its "one or the other, mother or child, they both cant live", a decision has to be made, respecting the equal rights to life of both the mother and the child. That is certainly reasonable.
======
@Damocles " Third: if you give a free pass to your deity on the subject of murder then you nor any other believer has a leg to stand on when it comes to your vaunted stances on morality and right and wrong."
@Chad "Me, give God a free pass?
how do you figure I am in any position to give God a free pass?
I dont judge Him, He judges us, what He says goes, end of story, no sense arguing. His definition of morality is the ONLY definition of morality and that definition includes reserving to Himself the right to take life for His purposes, while withholding from us that right.
======
@Damocles "Fourth: there are several 'valid reasons' for killing someone under the age of 18."
@Chad "such as?"
Chad, terminating a pregnancy within the law is not killing a child no matter how many times you say it is.
@chad
1) A biblical quote is what a man thinks a deity said, not what the deity actually said. If you can produce actual deific words, I'd be happy to look at them.
2) A woman in danger trumps the rights of the fetus, she can not afford to have her life remain in peril while some people try to decide her fate.
3) You calim that morality comes from a deity. If a deity kills, it is immoral by virtue of the supposed morality it set down. To deny that your deity is an immoral killer is giving it a free pass. Much like how can a parent tell their child something is wrong if the child sees them doing it everyday?
4) Valid reasons: if my life is threatened, I have the right to end that threat. If you say I do not, then you are no longer valuing my life most likely due to the fact that I am already born and have no further value in your 'right to life' argument. If a child has proven itself to be a killer, it is unlikely that his or her personality is going to sweeten over the years and at least deserves the possibility of death. On a personal note, if my child had some incurable disease and was in pain, I would consider the option.
5) By the belief system that you hold near and dear to your heart, a woman merely has to say 'a deity wanted me to have an abortion'. You should be ok with that statement because, according to you, that would be the deity working through the woman to bring about a death.
@Damocles "A biblical quote is what a man thinks a deity said, not what the deity actually said. If you can produce actual deific words, I'd be happy to look at them."
@Chad "start here, there are many translations, but this one is good
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV
======
@Damocles "A woman in danger trumps the rights of the fetus, she can not afford to have her life remain in peril while some people try to decide her fate"
@Chad "demonstrably inaccurate, this kind of difficult situation is addressed all the time in problem pregnancies for babies that can not be legally killed by the mother. Neither right "trumps" the other.
======
@Damocles "You claim that morality comes from a deity. If a deity kills, it is immoral by virtue of the supposed morality it set down"
@Chad "again, demonstrably untrue.
Not all actions that result in the death of a human are illegal or even immoral. Accidents happen all the time for example, I am legally allowed to defend myself with deadly force if attacked as another example.
The issue that helps establish legal culpability is the motivation of the perpetrator.
We cant scrutinize God's motivation, we have in most cases, little idea why.
======
@Damocles ". To deny that your deity is an immoral killer is giving it a free pass. Much like how can a parent tell their child something is wrong if the child sees them doing it everyday?"
@Chad "again, the issue is the motivation, which we cant know.
You do stuff all day every day that you tell your child not to.
drive a car, handle a hot stove, withdraw money from the ATM, etc, etc.. Your child doesnt have the ability to handle the task that you have, so they understand that they are not allowed to engage in it. No problem there, right?
======
@Damocles " Valid reasons: if my life is threatened, I have the right to end that threat. If you say I do not, then you are no longer valuing my life most likely due to the fact that I am already born and have no further value in your 'right to life' argument. If a child has proven itself to be a killer, it is unlikely that his or her personality is going to sweeten over the years and at least deserves the possibility of death"
@Chad "what in the world are you talking about???
how can a baby be a killer??
"proven itself to be a killer?
what planet do you live on?
======
@Damocles ". On a personal note, if my child had some incurable disease and was in pain, I would consider the option."
@chad "nice of you not to give that option to the child...
you want me to give you a list of people that survived "incurable diseases"??
======
@Damocles "By the belief system that you hold near and dear to your heart, a woman merely has to say 'a deity wanted me to have an abortion'. You should be ok with that statement because, according to you, that would be the deity working through the woman to bring about a death."
@Chad "you need to distinguish between someone making a claim, and God making a statement.
right?
If God doesnt want the child to live, you think He needs an abortion to help Him???
@chad
Again you offer translations, not actual words spoken by an actual deity.
Yes, I agree that I do things that I do not allow my child to do. The things that you mentioned are a normal part of life, I tell my child that they are not old enough to do these things. Murder, or killing, or however you want to dress it up, is a bit different. If I tell my child that they can not kill except in defense of their country or themselves or loved ones, yet I'm out every weekend killing for the hell of it, I am being dishonest at best. If your deity's knee-jerk reaction to every perceived wrong is to kill X% of the population, I hardly think that places it on the top ten list of 'things I want to be associated with'.
My reference to child killers stems from the fact that there have been young people that have killed. A kid that has shown itself as a remorseless killer deserves the harshest penalty possible, including death.
You are correct that accidents happen and you most certainly are allowed to protect yourself. I ask what threat a human poses to a deific being that said deity would need to resort to murder to remove the obstacle? I also ask that if a deity covers up its acts of murder as accidents, why does it do so? Does it feel guilty?
The legal argument is invalid, unless you know of a way to put a deity on trial.
You can not make the claim that you know what a deity says to another person, therefor you have no way of proving if the woman is lying or not if she says her deity said to do so. If a child dies in the womb through no fault of the woman, I would have to imagine that would be a deity approved spontaneous abortion.
@Damocles "Again you offer translations, not actual words spoken by an actual deity."
@Chad "???
Unless you are prepared to say that "The God of Israel does not exist", you need to be open to the possibility that God DOES exist, and the Bible does indeed contain authentic details of Gods interaction with humanity, including when He speaks directly to us"
=======
@Damocles "Yes, I agree that I do things that I do not allow my child to do. The things that you mentioned are a normal part of life, I tell my child that they are not old enough to do these things. Murder, or killing, or however you want to dress it up, is a bit different. "
@Chad "not at all, again, you do things all the time you prohibit your children from doing. Do you think they understand why?
They question their right to engage in those activities the same way you are questioning Gods right to engage in them. There is simply no difference at all.
=======
@Damocles "You are correct that accidents happen and you most certainly are allowed to protect yourself. I ask what threat a human poses to a deific being that said deity would need to resort to murder to remove the obstacle? I also ask that if a deity covers up its acts of murder as accidents, why does it do so? Does it feel guilty?"
@Chad "you are questioning the same way a child questions a parent engaging in activities that they forbid the child to engage in. The child simply doesnt have the experience or capacity to understand the valid reasons the parent has.
It is the same exact situation.
The Chad: "Bible does indeed contain authentic details of Gods interaction with humanity"
BULLSHIT. (certainly you meant to say alleged, not authentic)
The Chad: "They [children–C2EB] question their right to engage in those activities [things that parents do that they don't allow their kids to do–C2EB] the same way you are questioning Gods right to engage in them. There is simply no difference at all."
BULLSHIT. (children and their parents are real, gods as defined by men, are myth)
your ability to construct a coherent argument seems limited...
People, stop killing unborn babies!
Go get some help. You scream too much. Are u and old tard or a young tard?
Amen to that. God bless you.
young timmy- Go get an education, then you'd KNOW that life begins at conception.
Wait for them to grow up and send the to wars.
How are squirrels able to bury hundreds of oak trees by themselves? Unless those are are called acorns. In terms with your logic, pre-oak-trees, which are the same in all respects as an oak tree.
From now on, I will not refer to these two parties as Democrats and Republicans, but as Democrats and American Talibans.
Yaaaaawn!
When did the Taliban join the GOP?
Don't waste your time. If your comments don't fit the CNN Socialist agenda, they won't print it!!!!!
lol. Seems that way...I tried posting three times but nothing is showing up. So either I am spamming this board, or my pro-Mourdock, pro-woman, pro-life views are just not CNN friendly.
You both don't know what is going on. CNN has an automatic censor of obscene or offensive words. That will stop certain words that may contain characters that would be offensive by themselves.
Sorry to ruin your false consipiracy theory.
Typical paranoid behavior from you, Jim and pro-woman, but I'll help you out.
Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
---
ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
crac-ker…
cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, sopho-more, etc.
ho-oters…as in sho-oters
ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
inf-orms us…
hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
nip-ple
o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
p-orn… as in p-ornography
pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
que-er
ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
sl-ut
sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
sn-atch
sp-ank
sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
strip-per
ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, t-itle, ent-ity, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
wt-f....also!!!!!!!
There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).
–
There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.
Ahh–that makes sense.Thanks, Observer. And, you caught me, I do enjoy conspiracy theories. It's kind of like this whole supposed 'war on women' that the President claims is happening. ...he may be right, but I think he's got it all backwards.
Pray for our country when a man like Mourdock is vilified but a man like Obama is elected president.
So just to be clear: ra-pe is a good thing and if a child is conceived, that's bonus points. I gotcha.
So just to be clear: Mourdock never said, or implied, that ra-pe was okay. We just don't understand how any evil can ever be resolved by another evil.
You cannot shove Christianity down people's throats, and Moudock should be vilified. What a jerk. He gives Republicans and Christians a bad name. When everyone has to live their life consistent with someone else's faith is wrong. People have to live with the consequences of their actions, and if this poor girl could not go to term with the baby, she should be supported and provided counseling. The moral majority is neither, and the fact the the Republican party has become the party of nut jobs means that moderates have no party to support as both have gone over the deep end.
Interesting that the Republicans can't shove their morality on people, but it's okay for the Democrats? Abortion should be the 'choice' of the woman, they say. Then why are they forcing owners of companies who believe abortion to be immoral to pay for it through the HHS mandate? Why are there over 100 companies with lawsuits claiming that their religious freedom is being violated? If we want to talk about giving people choices, then I, and any person or private company, should have the choice not to support or fund abortions.
debg – make your mind up! Obama leads Christian prayers in the White House -– not a twitter from you deadbeats except to say what a great CHRISTIAN guy he is . Mind you I suppose from YOUR point of view Communist/Socialist "christian" is OK. You just can't stand the real thing! Pffft!
Let me get this straight. It is evil to dismember the guilty rapist. It is not evil to dismember the innocent fetus. I see Damocles, very interesting ethics you have there.
Sorry pww but how are they forcing company owners to pay for abortions?
So this old man is supposed to tell all women what is good for them?
What about the woman's mental state? Would that not impact the woman's overall health?
Is forcible pregnancy the Republican solution to lowering wages in America or something?
It is just sickening that this is even a debatable topic any more!!
It's not a debatable topic; it's a self-inflicted campaign wound that's looking pretty fatal.
The question is why? Simple, Religion makes no sense, and offers solace to the most ignorant of our society...most notably right wing voters. Simple answer, eh?
And accurate as well!
Prayer changes things ,
“Creationism is not appropriate for children”
– Bill Nye
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book can help you:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
by the Alzheimer's Disease Society
While I am indeed a leftist, I must say that I truly admire some things conservatives do that we are just not capable of. The Conservatives are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of us in the fine art of throwing themselves under the bus just before an election. Why just in the last few weeks, two conservative senatorial candidates successfully subbusinated themselves.
Very impressive, and there is still two more weeks to go!
Lol... And just when you start to think "Gee.. could they be any more offensive..." LOL!
I mean could they really make it any easier on us Democrats.... I mean.. at least everyone could respect John McCain.. but these this? LOL... I mean... c'mon... I'm Catholic, so I'm used to being exposed to antiquated philosophy, but who ever thought such a knuckle dragging bunch still existed?
John McCain was one of the first to subbusinate his character by standing up and publicly supporting Mourdock after his statement.
I stand corrected. Thank you for informing me!
John McCain never got out from under the bus after he threw himself there by hooking up with Palin.
Isn't it telling that Billy the Deacon hasn't shown up here to blather and spew his misogynistic nonsense about the mystical quality of pregnancy?
I can hardly wait.
Repubs, what a bunch of bs ers. How in the hell can you justify that Mourdocks statement. You cant, but you still back him.
You are a bunch of ignoramuses.
The now greatly missed George Carlin once said, "How come when it's with us, it's an 'abortion', and when it's with chickens it's an 'omelet'?"
I hate to dispel humor, but from where I sit, it's "how come it's so important when it's a clump of cells in someone else's body, yet completely irrelevant once it's born"?
@ apstar: b/c chickens were not made in God's image.
@ TTTPS: hi again. per our ongoing conversation...
a spleen is a *part* of a human being. the baby inside you *is* a human being.
@Russ: The creation of humans in God's image story is a metaphor to allow people to identify with God. If God appears as a being to a world where the smartest inhabitants resemble toads, He'd certainly be wise to appear as a toad. If Christ had appeared on earth as a toad, He'd have been squashed.
@ TTTPS: I apologize. Upon re-reading your comment, you were making a different point than before.
Yes, the Republicans are deeply mistaken in ignoring people after they are born (assuming that's a shot at not caring for "the least of these").
Chickens can likely tell the difference between a human baby and an embryo. That would put them ahead of some people.
Oh, Russ, honey? When it's in YOUR body, you can do as you please. If it ain't, you can't. Get a clue, dumbfvck.
And it's NOT a life. It's alive. So are skin cells. They don't have rights and neither does a clump of cells that can't survive outside a woman's body.
I suggest you figure out how to transplant unwanted fetuses into YOUR body, Russ. When they are viable, you should be forced to give birth through your penis. Get back to me after that occurs.
How do you know that chickens were not made in God's image? You might have chosen the wrong religion, and maybe the real God is a big chicken who is going to Kentucky Fry humans for our deep-fried and curried persecution of the true ones.
And you know that scenario has EXACTLY as much evidence supporting it as InvisoBuddy Jesus.
@ apstar: that's not the tact the Bible itself takes. it's precisely because Christ would come as a human (Php.2:5-11) that we are told Jesus Christ IS the exact representation (Heb.1:3) and the exact image of the invisible God (Col.1:15).
@ TTTPS: it's always the same argument with you – but never a metaphysical basis for your claims. Are we actually going to have a substantive discussion, or will you simply continue to toss insults instead of engage the point?
As I've asked before: upon what basis do you make your claim that this is not life?
Recognize: science itself cannot & does not define life (as any biology text book tells you on p.1).
So to what basis do you appeal?
@ Cluckles: I have not "chosen" a religion. I'm responding to the evidence. After all, it's Good *News*, not advice or fables.
A couple of recent scholarly pieces to consider:
NT Wright, "The Resurrection of the Son of God" (a comprehensive analysis of the *historical* reality of the resurrection)
Richard Bauckham's "Jesus & the Eyewitnesses" (dealing with the accounts themselves & their historicity)
Human lIfe exists LONG BEFORE conception, which never would occur if eggs and sperm hadn't had life at one time.
So should we save all human LIFE and outlaw condoms?
Oh, stick your metaphysical crap up your azz, Russ. Abortion is a practical issue to anyone who has a uterus. That would exclude you. Shut up and mind your own business, moron. If you can't get pregnant, you can devote all your waking hours to debating the number of fetuses you can force into a woman's uterus. Otherwise, your "metaphysical" arguments are dreck. They are meaningless. When a woman is pregnant and desperate, metaphysical = complete waste of time.
@ Observer: as I said before, a spleen is *part* of a human life (it shares the DNA, but removing it doesn't end that life). at conception, new DNA is formed – a new human life.
@russ
In all honesty it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that it is a legal choice for women. Discussions about when life is or what life is are philosophical. You don't agree with abortion? Great, don't have one.
Oh, and apparently, Russ, you have Alzheimer's Disease. I've already addressed you idiotic questions about whether a fetus is alive. If you can't recall my response, then you need to start setting up some sort of support system for organizing your thoughts, dear.
It's not my problem if you're dumber than a houseplant.
@ TTTPS: sadly, as I expected. why not admit the basis of your position – or at least the basis for your virulence?
metaphysics always matters. your view of existence *necessarily* affects how you live life practically – which is the whole argument. you are holding a metaphysical position that claims an unborn child is not a life (without disclosing your BASIS for so ardently claiming that) – and hence your free acceptance of abortion as merely a removal of tissue.
again, your metaphysical convictions have practical legs. are you willing to admit them and reveal your basis? or do you know your basis is flawed and that is why you continue to dodge the question?
And Damocles nails it: Russ's holy metaphysics are irrelevant. Abortion is a choice, it is legal, and women will continue to resort to it when necessary.
I'll be the thoughts of Russ's "metaphysical" objections to is won't even cross their minds.
@ Damocles: so you don't see a connection between our philosophical beliefs & our legislated ones? that seems a bit disingenuous.
Russd,
Sperm is living human life. Throwing it away kills human life. Guess we can't do that anymore, right?
Russ is nothing if not dense.
The boob can't get it through his skull that a clump of cells being alive does not mean said clump is guaranteed rights under law, and it certainly doesn't mean it has rights that trump those of the woman who is carrying said clump.
How stupid are you, Russ? Do you REALLY think a blastocyte should have legal rights that render its host a second-class citizen?
@ TTTPS: oh i remember. your basis was pragmatism – "hey, all that matters is law." but then when i raised the issue of changing legislation, you immediately jumped ship & said you'd object to such legal changes. you have a deeper view – but you were unwilling to disclose it.
@ Observer: re-read my former point. new DNA is formed *at conception.*
sperm is merely a part of a human – not a new one.
So? What of it, Russy?
You seem to be all bent out of shape because you can't fit my views into your parameters. Poor little, unimaginative you, Russ. I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that abortions are legal, that the women who need and want them aren't required to write a dissertation on why the need or want one, whether for metaphysical reasons or for practical survival.
Looks like you'll just have to work on growing that womb for yourself, Russ, so you can experience the wonders of pregnancy.
Evidence? What evidence is that? There is no evidence to respond to (and if you responded to evidence, you don't have faith – you have evidence).
I'm calling BS on your evidence.
@ TTTPS: it's not a request for a dissertation. it's an admission that you don't just build in the air. every building has a foundation. this argument (building) has its divergence in differing foundations. SO, if you want to debate the legitimacy of the arguments, it comes down to the legitimacy of the differing foundations.
I've been open about my foundation. You enjoy attacking mine. But you clearly are not forthcoming on yours.
Is that because you don't realize you have one or you know it is too flawed to admit what it is?
I'M SPERMICIDAL MANIAC! I'M KILLING THEM BY THE BILLIONS! STOP ME BEFORE I WANK AGAIN!!!!!
Russ,
Life existed in sperm BEFORE fetuses had any life and they couldn't have happened without it.. Same for egg cells.
@ Cluckles: I gave you over 1000 pages of scholarly works engaging the evidence.
@ Observer: the argument is not *if* the sperm is alive (it is), but whether it is *part* of the same human or not.
A spleen is alive – but it is not a separate human being. it is just part of one. that's why no one debates to removing one.
However, new DNA is formed at fertilization... at conception. That's a new human life – a separate one. A new life has begun – and should be protected as such.
Russ,
Well, "God" has "given" us the science and technology to preserve sperm and eggs and have conception occur in a dish ( and I can imagine that one day even gestation could take place outside of a human womb). So.... EVERY sperm and EVERY egg should be hooked up to make "souls" for "God", since he is so in need of them and can't make them any other way! We would be shirking our "purpose" otherwise!?
@russ
I can wax philosophical on a number of topics that I would run in terror if they were made legal. Philosophy is 'what if', not really based on anything, just letting your mind wander and see what it comes up with. Laws are, or should be, practical. The practical side of this argument is that a woman who chooses to have an abortion is going to and if she is, it is better if she does it without the horrors of going to a black market doctor.
@ OTOH: no, as I said – sperm does not need protecting. it is NOT new DNA. neither is an unfertilized egg.
it's a fertilized egg / conception that brings new DNA.
Russ, your philosophy is of no interest to me. I don't need to have a philosophical reason to defend a woman's right to abortion. She has it. You want to challenge that right, y0u have at it, dearie. Unless you convince the courts that your "metaphysical" arguments have any validity, I believe you're just sh!t out of luck.
Let us all know when you have a legal argument, Russ, because in this nation, that's all that counts.
@ Damocles: I'm not talking about the abstractions of a freshman philosophy class. i'm talking about the fact that everyone acts based on the metaphysical realities they base their existence upon. it's not waxing eloquent, it's admitting your foundation.
why is racism wrong? almost everyone here believes it is. WHY? evolution gives you no such basis for that claim. neither does science. upon WHAT do you base that? people have inherent value because... why?
see, your philosophical beliefs get legs in your practical existence.
Russ always resorts to this nonsense about needing a "metaphysical foundation" for any view. I wonder what kind of foundation he's find meaningful or relevant if he were transported into the body of a13-year-old girl who was repeatedly ra ped by male relatives and became pregnant as a result. Would she have time to ponder the metaphysical ramifications of her straits? Maybe she's make like Russ and smoke a Meerschaum whilst paging through tomes of philosophical thought, and musing on the most philosophically honest course of action.
Really, Russ, what kind of friggin' dope are you smokin'?
@ TTTPS: ok, so there are other countries where women are truly regarded as less than human & have no rights to speak in court. upon what basis do you object? or do you not care that there are countries like that right now? do you not care about your fellow human beings? don't you suddenly care about *their* philosophical basis for oppressing women?
where does this intrinsic notion of human rights come from?
this is not an abstract discussion. this is just a matter of being open & honest.
saying "i just don't have a foundation" is either exceedingly naive or – at best – intellectually dishonest.
@ TTTPS: now we're talking! yes, let's talk about the girl who was r.a.ped. what hope would you offer her & why? what BASIS would you have for ever encouraging her that her life had any REAL hope for healing, change, etc. – or even more directly, upon what basis would you claim what happened was EVIL? Doesn't even the word evil presume an underlying metaphysical grid? of course it does!
OR would you admit that pragmatism has to say: well, sorry, kid. su.cks for you. that's life.
OR would you lie & offer some hope completely contrary to your current position?
No, I'd talk with her about how evil what happened to her was. Ultimately I'd shut up & listen for a long time – especially if it were my daughter & I wanted to walk with her for a long time in this pain. But when the time came, I'd want her to know: this act was evil, she was deeply wronged, but she is absolutely loved – AND, there is a promise of healing...
how can I say such a thing?
Here's how Dostoevsky put it:
“I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contrad.ictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the desp.icable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened.”
Blah, blah, blah. Yeah, Russ, I'm sure she'd be just all goo-goo eyed at you, telling her to remain pregnant and give birth.
Dream on, you boob. If she isn't retarded, she'll tell you to go suck your mother and leave her alone to make her own choices instead of attempting to persuade her to do what you think she should.
I'll bet you're as welcome at a clinic as herpes.
You don't get it, Russ. No "foundation' is needed by me or by you. If someone is pregnant, she'll decide what's best for HER. I wouldn't dream of interfering in her choice. Obviously such an intrusion wouldn't bother YOU a bit, you dolt.
You must be such a welcome guest at parties, Russ.
What a social misfit.
That pregnancy so poignantly related by the chaplain in the story was way beyond the clump of cells phase, Tom. We do not dismember a rapist because that would be barbaric. We do dismember a week 23+ fetus (just like the ones in NICUs across the country) instead. I guess that makes it ethically superior, hmmm.
@ TTTPS: again you hide behind insults & anger. yet you continue to have no statement of your own position or basis.
and for the record, I never said I'd force her to do what I say. But I'd want her to know real hope in the face of such evil.
Again – do you call it evil? if so, why & how? to what "good" are you appealing?
or are you unable to say that much because it's just too "philosophical"?
@ TTTPS: are you really not seeing the connection here? even your incessant appeal to her rights & her choice is based in your underlying (metaphysical) beliefs. where do those convictions come from? or are they fake – and should not be defended?
@russ
Telling someone that a deity is going to set things right in an afterlife is not justice, it is false hope. Justice is seeing that the person who did the crime is punished for it.
Racism was not always thought wrong, russ. Right and wrong, 'morality' are fluid concepts. You can call abortion 'wrong', based on your views, but that still doesn't take away the option of having one.
@ Damocles: and what do you say to the victim who never sees her attacker get justice? just the facts of life? there is no justice? or "morality is fluid"?
is racism inherently wrong or not? were previous societies wrong in promoting it?
either there is an objective reality of Justice or there is not. upon what basis do you make such a claim?
Russ,
Spin it anyway you want, but nothing changes the fact that a fetus would not have life in it if BOTH HALVES of the cells that formed it did not have PRIOR LIFE.
@russ
No, I would say that I would keep trying. What would you say? It's 'god's will' that the attacker not be brought to justice at this time? My deity wants your attacker to do more bad things to other people before he decides we've had enough? In the eyes of my deity your little sob story doesn't cut it, but when your attacker attacks someone of True Worth, then the sparks are going to fly?
If anything was 'inherently' wrong, it wouldn't be done. Biblical morality states that slavery is ok, as long as you treat them a certain way.
@Russ: You quoted "... and the exact image of the invisible God (Col.1:15)." OK, so in that +literal+ sense, Christ would appear on earth in the shape of a human - an invisible human. Now that would +really+ freak out the people of the first century...
@russ
Another thing: does morality rely on a consensus? Let's say that the majority of the world says it's ok to run naked through the streets shouting whatever comes to mind on the second tuesday of the month. Do I now have the moral obligation to shuck my clothes on that day and sing tralalala down main street?
"is racism inherently wrong or not? were previous societies wrong in promoting it?"
To us today yes, to those then, no.
Don't forget that even during slavery the bible was used to justify it and there were priests that owned slaves.
Republicans continue their campaign against women because they think it is working out so well for them.