GOP official says God chooses to bless raped women with pregnancy

[Noomi]

So according to your logic, if we say gay people have no rights, we should be allowed to kill them?

Gay people are not fetuses, are they?

That would be why I made the analogy. To point out the flaw in your argument.

My argument is consistent.

 

[Sactowndog]

Life begins at conception. You might not believe that, but it doesnt change that people do know when life begins. That's when a new life has begun. An Individual with a unique strain of DNA now exists. That's a fact.

An organism with a unique strain of DNA exists. But the organism looks more like an amphibian than a human for much of early life. No one questions killing an amphibian. The question is when does the body become human and for me when does it possess a human soul. You don't have the answer to that question nor do I.

Funny. I could have sworn I just gave you the answer. But I understand the need to pretend otherwise.

No you gave me an answer as to when life begins but the standard is human life and in the early stages a fetus looks far from human. Not to mention for us believers human life doesn't begin until you have a soul. The question you need to answer is when human life begins and that is not nearly as clear cut as you believe.

 

[Noomi]

You don't understand the Atonement of Christ do you?

Is it really a child's fault that his/her father is a rapist?

Is it the woman's fault she was raped? No - so why should we force her to endure more pain and torment by making her give birth to a rape baby?

You arent forcing her to do anything. Nature is nature.

Why should you be able to kill your innocent child because of the wicked father?

You would force her to endure a pregnancy, making her torment even worse. Only a cruel son of a bitch would delight in the anguish of a woman pregnant with a rape baby...

Wait...that describes Republicans, doesn't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's great that Republicans want to spread the rapist's genes as far as possible and force women to be reminded of their rape every day for the rest of their lives.

You don't understand the Atonement of Christ do you?

Is it really a child's fault that his/her father is a rapist?

It’s not a matter of ‘fault,’ it’s a matter of privacy and the appropriate role of the state.

only it's age.

And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.

That's not a fact at all. That's total nonsense.

It’s a legal fact, then.

 

[Vanquish]

An organism with a unique strain of DNA exists. But the organism looks more like an amphibian than a human for much of early life. No one questions killing an amphibian. The question is when does the body become human and for me when does it possess a human soul. You don't have the answer to that question nor do I.

Funny. I could have sworn I just gave you the answer. But I understand the need to pretend otherwise.

No you gave me an answer as to when life begins but the standard is human life and in the early stages a fetus looks far from human. Not to mention for us believers human life doesn't begin until you have a soul. The question you need to answer is when human life begins and that is not nearly as clear cut as you believe.

First of all...who says?

Second of all, you've failed to prove ITS NOT human life. Does it have giraffe DNA? Moose and squirrel DNA? Of course not.

There's only one thing it will become...because there is only one thing is ALREADY is - Human. There's no biological mechanism by which two humans procreate and the result is non-human.

 

[Sactowndog]

Of course no one would risk killing a newborn baby. But if you had the choice between killing a toddler and killing an 8 week old fetus, the decision would be easier - for most.

Why would it be easier? And more importantly, why would anyone have to make that absurd choice?

They wouldn't and they shouldn't. My point is, there is a difference between a fetus and a child who is already born.

You believe. And I believe you have the right to that belief. But Noomi if God came to you tomorrow and told you with absolute certainty that the fetus was no different than an 18 mo. child would you still have the same opinion? Would you still sanction aborting a child, even conceived via rape, if you knew for a fact in your heart it was murder?

 

[Vanquish]

It's great that Republicans want to spread the rapist's genes as far as possible and force women to be reminded of their rape every day for the rest of their lives.

You don't understand the Atonement of Christ do you?

Is it really a child's fault that his/her father is a rapist?

It’s not a matter of ‘fault,’ it’s a matter of privacy and the appropriate role of the state.

And the fact that one is a person and the other is not.

That's not a fact at all. That's total nonsense.

It’s a legal fact, then.

Ahhh. I thought I detected a whiff of this in your posts earlier. Your only defense is that the state of the law supports your incorrect belief.

It was a legal fact that blacks were only 3/5ths human. Was that really true?

Come on. You've got to be smarter than this.

 

[auditor0007]

So...you know...one weird guy saying something...ok. He's just a kook. But intelligence has been described as sophisticated PATTERN RECOGNITION.

GOP official says God chooses to bless raped women with pregnancy - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com

You can find kooks saying the stupidest things on both sides. Obviously, this is one of those cases.

 

[Noomi]

Why would it be easier? And more importantly, why would anyone have to make that absurd choice?

They wouldn't and they shouldn't. My point is, there is a difference between a fetus and a child who is already born.

You believe. And I believe you have the right to that belief. But Noomi if God came to you tomorrow and told you with absolute certainty that the fetus was no different than an 18 mo. child would you still have the same opinion? Would you still sanction aborting a child, even conceived via rape, if you knew for a fact in your heart it was murder?

I do not believe in God so I wouldn't take any notice of what a God said to me.
If abortion was ruled to be murder tomorrow, I would still support it, because no woman should be made to endure an unwanted pregnancy - especially not a victim of rape.

 

[Noomi]

You don't understand the Atonement of Christ do you?

Is it really a child's fault that his/her father is a rapist?

It’s not a matter of ‘fault,’ it’s a matter of privacy and the appropriate role of the state.

That's not a fact at all. That's total nonsense.

It’s a legal fact, then.

Ahhh. I thought I detected a whiff of this in your posts earlier. Your only defense is that the state of the law supports your incorrect belief.

It was a legal fact that blacks were only 3/5ths human. Was that really true?

Come on. You've got to be smarter than this.

Blacks were people. They had been born. You are comparing the born with the unborn. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Sactowndog]

Funny. I could have sworn I just gave you the answer. But I understand the need to pretend otherwise.

No you gave me an answer as to when life begins but the standard is human life and in the early stages a fetus looks far from human. Not to mention for us believers human life doesn't begin until you have a soul. The question you need to answer is when human life begins and that is not nearly as clear cut as you believe.

First of all...who says?

Second of all, you've failed to prove ITS NOT human life. Does it have giraffe DNA? Moose and squirrel DNA? Of course not.

There's only one thing it will become...because there is only one thing is ALREADY is - Human. There's no biological mechanism by which two humans procreate and the result is non-human.

The burden of proof is not mine but yours because you are the one wanting to legislate a belief. Are they human cells? Yes sure but the body sheds human cells all the time. Just because they are human cells doesn't mean it is human life. The body disposes of malfunctioning fetuses all the time because that body can't sustain human life. Is that murder too? I don't think so. Is it human life when the organism has gills and a tail?

The point those cells become human life is unknown. It is not known by you or anyone else on this board. Hell no one knows if a life is human without a soul and when does the soul enter the body? These are not questions science can answer.

 

[Sactowndog]

They wouldn't and they shouldn't. My point is, there is a difference between a fetus and a child who is already born.

You believe. And I believe you have the right to that belief. But Noomi if God came to you tomorrow and told you with absolute certainty that the fetus was no different than an 18 mo. child would you still have the same opinion? Would you still sanction aborting a child, even conceived via rape, if you knew for a fact in your heart it was murder?

I do not believe in God so I wouldn't take any notice of what a God said to me.
If abortion was ruled to be murder tomorrow, I would still support it, because no woman should be made to endure an unwanted pregnancy - especially not a victim of rape.

It's irrelavent whether you believe in God or not and your ducking the question. By your logic it would be all right to murder a 6 month old because caring and raising a child is at least as much of a burden as carrying a fetus to term.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Depends if the politicans passing laws are basing those laws on opinions like the ridiculous comments we've seen the last two days.

I don't really see why laws protecting innocent children are any less important merely because someone has a stupid and incorrect reason for supporting them.

fact vs feelings

Fact: Abortion kills

Feeling: I don't want a baby.

You apparently support feelings over facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Too late.



Again, conservatives are entitled to believe whatever crazy nonsense they wish, provided they keep it to themselves.

This is in essence the problem: the continued effort by many on the right to foist their personal or religious views on the Nation as a whole by legislative means, in violation of the Constitution.

Would you then agree that the religious who fought against slavery were likewise wrong to end the practice through legislation?

While the end result was good, if they did it just because their religion told them to, and not because it was right thing to do, then they did it for the wrong reason.

It would be better to be a slave than not be a slave if religion was the reason you got free?

Guess who is letting feelings interfere with facts now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have a problem with people informing their conscience from their religious experience. I don't have a problem with people taking up arms together as a a religious group. Heck, there are many moral issues that I think religion can help people to make more ethical decisions about. Don't cheat on your taxes. Don't give a government contract to your friend. War should be the last option, if it's chosen at all.

What I do have a problem with is when religious people use religion to say that another group of people should be forced into inequality. Women and Homosexuals are constantly subjected to ridiculously horrible treatment under the rubrick of "God told me to control them."

That being said, I'm pro-life AND an atheist. How? Logic.

#1 At conception, does something exist and start growing? ANSWER: Yes.
#2 Is the DNA anything other than human? ANSWER: No.

So there's a living, growing human...that people want to stop from living and growing. Usually because it's inconvenient. Sure, it can be HIGHLY inconvenient. But it's still an innocent life human life that exists already.

Which brings me to my other point. Even babies born from rape and incest are INNOCENT LIVES. I don't believe that TRASH that Ryan and Akin do...that there's some legitimate form of rape. That's bullshit. Even if it's date rape or statutory rape, its STILL RAPE.

I agree with women who hate that decisions are being dictated primarily by another gender, however, it's not just a women's issue, it's a human issue. I can only imagine how horrifically gruesome rape and incest are. They might feel worse than death, but I simply can't believe that they ARE worse than the death of an INNOCENT CHILD.

In the event of a medical emergency, here's the analysis I believe should be enacted:
1) the person (mother or child) with the higher probability of being saved should be the one saved.
2) the mother should be able to override that decision, should she want to sacrifice her life for her child.

Even with my pro-life views...the woman in the clip I posted in the first post is just flat wrong to associate the ideas of rape and blessing. Yes, what constitutes a blessing is different from person to person, but it's just too close to saying that "rape is a blessing".

Telling women that being pregnant is a blessing from God does kind of force men into an unequal status, doesn't it. I never actually looked at it that way before.

My guess is you haven't either, which is what makes your remark so stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is none of us truely know and the belief of when life commences is truely that a belief. As such, the government shouldn't impose one communities belief system on the other.

Think about that a bit more mathematically for a second. You've got a 50/50 chance to kill a baby or not to kill a baby. Does one choice seem smarter than the other, taking into account the probabilities?

Make it more direct than a pregnancy. Let's take an ACTUAL BABY. Hold a Springfield .40 cal to its head. The guy who gave it to you said "I've had that thing for 30 years. It only has a 50 50 chance of firing." Would you feel comfortable pulling the trigger? Of course not!

I really wish humans had evolved with clear stomachs during pregnancy. Maybe if people could SEE the baby...they'd respect its life.

Of course no one would risk killing a newborn baby. But if you had the choice between killing a toddler and killing an 8 week old fetus, the decision would be easier - for most.

Would it?

Suppose the toddler was a child you have never seen, and will never see, on the other side of the world, and the fetus is a child you have been trying to have unsuccessfully for over 10 years. The answer would be just as simple, but exactly the opposite of the one you thought. Admit it, you really aren't qualified to parse situational ethics, you don't think about all the possibilities.

 

[Plasmaball]

I really don't want to argue abortion with you. The moment a majority of medical experts define a zygot as a human being, I will hop on the pro-life boat.

And there in lies the reason this is a hopeless debate. If we were talking about a live child no one would argue against you don't take their life. While I am not pro-life I admire the conviction of Aiken and this women because they are willing to stand by their beliefs even in the most troubling circumstances.

The problem is none of us truely know and the belief of when life commences is truely that a belief. As such, the government shouldn't impose one communities belief system on the other.

Did Aiken and this women chose their words poorly? Yes. Did they use pseudo science to justify their actions. Sure but Republicans have been doing this for the past decade. The whole party is based on anti-intellectualism. That fact is who they are. But you have to admire people who stand by their belief in something as weighty as taking another human life even in a situation where it is sure to draw criticism. Instead of attacking Aiken democrats should be willing to say he is right and ask people are you so sure that life begins at conception that you are willing to demand a rape victim carry the resulting baby. This is the acid test of the pro-life movement.

Life begins at conception. You might not believe that, but it doesnt change that people do know when life begins. That's when a new life has begun. An Individual with a unique strain of DNA now exists. That's a fact.

opinion, not fact.....Moving on..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course no one would risk killing a newborn baby. But if you had the choice between killing a toddler and killing an 8 week old fetus, the decision would be easier - for most.

Why would it be easier? And more importantly, why would anyone have to make that absurd choice?

They wouldn't and they shouldn't. My point is, there is a difference between a fetus and a child who is already born.

Only if you think there is. There are many who argue that there is no difference, and that parents should be able to kill a child after it is born if the economic situation justifies it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's great that Republicans want to spread the rapist's genes as far as possible and force women to be reminded of their rape every day for the rest of their lives.

Believe it or not, propensity to commit crimes, or even be violent, is not a genetic trait. If you knew anything about science you would know that.

 

[Noomi]

Why would it be easier? And more importantly, why would anyone have to make that absurd choice?

They wouldn't and they shouldn't. My point is, there is a difference between a fetus and a child who is already born.

Only if you think there is. There are many who argue that there is no difference, and that parents should be able to kill a child after it is born if the economic situation justifies it.

There is a difference, and I would only support the euthanasia of a newborn if the baby was severely brain damaged or deformed.