Gods Intention

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

And I suppose rape is fun for the whole family?

Who said that? Why do you need to put extremist, jibberish words in anyone's mouth.

Rape is a barbaric offense. But are you saying you cannot comprehend someone who would say that if a life is created as a result of the rape, thatthe baby doesn't deserve to be butchered for a crime that the baby obviously had no part of?

I'm not saying that I oppose laws that allo wfor abortion in the case of rape. What I'm saying is, I certainly understand the compassionate view of someone who says the baby should not be slaughtered for something he did not cause.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

And I suppose rape is fun for the whole family?

That you would suppose that is not surprising.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Unique IS extreme. That is the essence of uniqueness.

It would be more circular if it assumed a hard to justify generalization about the extreme. I don't think most people would find any generalization about rape...period.

Perhaps you meant redundant?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It would be more circular if it assumed a hard to justify generalization about the extreme. I don't think most people would find any generalization about rape...period.

Perhaps you meant redundant?

-spence

His reasoning is circular in that the proof of his redundancy (Murdoch's belief being uniquely extreme) is given by saying that it is like another, presumably, uniquely extreme belief, the Taliban. In other words, his belief is uniquely extreme because it is uniquely extreme.

That's why I supposed he meant something other than unique when he called it extreme, and that by extreme he meant something heinous rather than being innocuously unique. His comparison obviously made it other than unique. And the phrase "uniquely extreme" was not only redundant, but his reasoning was falaciously circular. There was no valid circularity since the Taliban and Murdoch's religion, though, in Sea Dangles opinion, they are both uniquely extreme (which could be said about all uniquenesses), they are different in their extremity.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

It is unique in its extremism.
Most don't take it to that level
I view the Taliban the same way
Just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree dangles

[buckman]

I find this thread fascinating .
Could some pro choice defender help be out with a couple questions ??
If abortion is ok and worth defending how can killing a fetus also be murder ??
At what point do you consider a fetus a life? Heartbeat? When you can feel it kick?
Never?
Would you morn a miscarriage ? Have sympathy for the baby?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

This is such a tough social topic. Personally, I honestly still don’t know how I feel and I vote Republican most of the time. I see some points from both sides. I guess I’m on the fence to some extent if that is possible. I don’t think it should be used for birth control but on the other hand every case is different and personal and this is where I struggle with it. I guess I tend to think a woman can do other things to impact the health and life of a baby if she wants to (drugs, drinking etc).

I think we all tend to look at life differently. When we look for life in space we look for the smallest, tiniest cell structure to prove that “life” exists outside of Earth. When we talk about abortion we sometimes defin life differently. We look at other factors of when a fetus is “life” like conception, heartbeat, etc.

Technically sperm alone and by itself is alive..................

Heavy stuff to ponder…………

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Piscator

This is such a tough social topic. Personally, I honestly still don’t know how I feel and I vote Republican most of the time. I see some points from both sides. I guess I’m on the fence to some extent if that is possible. I don’t think it should be used for birth control but on the other hand every case is different and personal and this is where I struggle with it. I guess I tend to think a woman can do other things to impact the health and life of a baby if she wants to (drugs, drinking etc).

I think we all tend to look at life differently. When we look for life in space we look for the smallest, tiniest cell structure to prove that “life” exists outside of Earth. When we talk about abortion we sometimes defin life differently. We look at other factors of when a fetus is “life” like conception, heartbeat, etc.

Technically sperm alone and by itself is alive..................

Heavy stuff to ponder…………

im with you. To quote our president, "above my pay grade"
If I knocked some girl up in high school, I am all for abortion. But I remember when my wife was just a few weeks pregnanat and we heard the heartbeat, amazing.

What I get from all of these replies is something that troubles me with liberals. Tolerance. Why are liberals tolerant of some extreme views and not of extreme views when they relate to christianity? I GUARANTEE you that some libs driving around with the religious tolerance sticker on their prius are furious over these remarks. Why? cant you be tolerant of others views even if they disagree with yours? If you read through this whole thread, its the conservative crew that is at least trying to understand different points of view. Libs would have this guy tarred and feathered.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

im with you. To quote our president, "above my pay grade"
If I knocked some girl up in high school, I am all for abortion. But I remember when my wife was just a few weeks pregnanat and we heard the heartbeat, amazing.

What I get from all of these replies is something that troubles me with liberals. Tolerance. Why are liberals tolerant of some extreme views and not of extreme views when they relate to christianity? I GUARANTEE you that some libs driving around with the religious tolerance sticker on their prius are furious over these remarks. Why? cant you be tolerant of others views even if they disagree with yours? If you read through this whole thread, its the conservative crew that is at least trying to understand different points of view. Libs would have this guy tarred and feathered.

I agree with the first sentence of your post Jim whole-heartedly. Then you lose me.
Are there foaming-mouth liberals incensed over this? Yes. For me, it is not a question tolerance. I respect their belief structure. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control. Instead, given all the heavy discussion here, the point of 'choice' is exactly that. If your beliefs don't allow you that choice, so be it.

This guys words got twisted on him a bit... Todd Akin is just a moron....

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.

Absolutely. And you have the right to vote or not vote for that person, based on YOUR beliefs, and their beliefs...

And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level

but it is your right to vote for him, or Murdock or Akin based on YOUR beliefs, and what you know about theirs, just as if I lived in Indiana, it would be my right to vote for or against Murdock for the same reasons.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

RI, doesn't everyone have a point of view or a belief? Don't all politicians have the ability to "try" to impose this belief on the rest of us? My argument through many threads here is that's human nature, and the founding documents were based on that nature. The founders understood that danger very well, so they crafted a form of government that would best protect individuals from the imposition of others, at least from that imposition being directed from an all-powerful central government. They gave that central government specific and limited powers which would give it the strength to protect and preserve the union but not give it the ability to impose personal beliefs.

Mourdock is running for a FEDERAL seat in Congress. If the Constitution were being followed as intended, he would have no business imposing his belief on other individuals. And if he understood that, and believed that, and acted on those constitutional principles, he would function within the powers granted and not even try to impose his belief. Simply put, he would not have the ability to do so.

Could your "finding it troubling" be based on the obvious fact that we are no longer operating under the strictures of the Constitution at a Federal level? That you see impositions being imposed, some of which you agree with, from which individuals have no defense? Don't we now assume that Congress can do as it wishes as one Congressman blatently admitted? Don't we just accept Supreme Court decisions that even on their face are dictatorial? The power to tax action or the absence of action at will? That is the power to punitively impose whatever amount on virtually anybody, thereby having the ability to impose any legislation derived from any belief on any and every individual--really? Is that what the Constitution intended or even says? No. But that is the state in which we find ourselves. So it is no wonder that people have, if not an explicity overt fear, at least a subliminal one, of a U.S. Senator imposing his beliefs. And, on the contrary, a desire to elect those who will impose the beliefs we have and agree with.

Isn't the problem that allows your fear to seem to be a reality, the functionally all-powerful, anti-constitutional, administrative state that has replaced a government that was once constrained by the Constitution?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I agree with the first sentence of your post Jim whole-heartedly. Then you lose me.
Are there foaming-mouth liberals incensed over this? Yes. For me, it is not a question tolerance. I respect their belief structure. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control. Instead, given all the heavy discussion here, the point of 'choice' is exactly that. If your beliefs don't allow you that choice, so be it.

This guys words got twisted on him a bit... Todd Akin is just a moron....

'The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control."

Excuse me? That's not even close to the liberal position. The liberal position is that the woman can choose an abortion any time she wants, for any reason. Please show me where the liberal position is that abortions are immoral if used simply as after-the-fact birth control?

Obama's position was to allow 'abortion' after the baby was born, outside the womb, and no longer connected to the mother. Anotehr word for that is 'infanticide'.

[RIJIMMY]

this is a very intersting thread and I hope all could keep the dialog civil. I really like the opposing views.

BTW - someone from this site recomended 'A History of God" I am currently reading it, so far very good

[fishbones]

Maybe God is sitting up on his cloud and and thinking of ways to get people all pissed of about stuff so he can amuse himself (or herself if you belive that). That's the best explanation I can come up with. Or, maybe there's no God and Allah is really the one messing with everyone. Who knows? I never understood why one person's superior being was better than another's.

[Swimmer]

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

Not only did he not say rape was OK, he said was "horrible". Also, like you said, his statement was that the unborn baby does not have a say in how he is conceived. I think you can make a compelling case that there's no justice in killing a baby for something he didn't have a say in.

Basswipe and Likwid, I'm glad you're here to spout off your opinions, vile though they may be. You are implying that my concern for the baby, is the same thing as being in favor of rape. Not so. Teh act or rape, and the well being of an unborn baby, are two distinct things.

The funny thing is, if anyone makes light of rape, it's not conservatives, who are typically very tough on crime. Do you think a rapist would rather have a jury of 12 cowboys in Texas, or 12 Harvard professors in Massachusetts?

Have fun with that one...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

thank you

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that 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."

if you replaced God with Nature in his comments, would that make them less offensive to some of you God-o-phobes in the context which he meant, which was that the creation of a human life is the result of something more than simple accident....and that he places the same value on each life created as he does his own....

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from Nature. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that Nature intended to happen."


interesting that our President was very clear on Leno the other night in stating that...

"RAPE is RAPE"....glad to hear he's found such clarity on that issue

sadly...he's apparently found no such clarity on these related issues...

LIFE is LIFE ?......not so much
KILLING is KILLING ?.....not so much

Mourdock's comments are some of the least offensive comments in this thread

interesting how many platitudes reagrding equality, justice, fairness, compassion get thrown out the door at some arbitrary point between conception and...well....you pick the date....

if Religion is forever tainted by the number of lives interrupted by those that have used Religion through history to their disturbing ends or goals, how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

[Sea Dangles]

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.

like I said, Moudock's comments are some of the least offensive in the thread, thanks for adding yet another

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.

Here's the difference...on those rare occasions when a Christian terrorist kills an abortion doctor, everyone in the mainstream Christian community immediately condemns the attack.

And yes, thank God for Foxnews. Foxnews has its share of zealots like Hannity. But it'sthe only place to get fair-minded reporting from the hard news folks there. For example, they broke the story about the CIA paramilitary heroes asking for help, and being denied. Where was CNN and MSNBC on that scoop?

Do you disagree that objective reporting is vital?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

Wow.
Just wow.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Wow.
Just wow.

Can you specify as to what yoru outrage is here?

Every study ever done, and there have been several, show that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, and nothing to do with the life of the mom being in jeopardy. Rather, the vast majority of abortions are after-the-fact birth control done precisely for the convenience of the mother. I'm not saying it's a casual decision...but the facts speak for themselves...the vast majority of abortions are done for the "convenience" of the mother.

Reasons U.S. women have abortions... [Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Why Do Women Have Abortions
Why Do Women Have Abortions?

Sorry to interrupt your rant with, you know, facts.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by scottw

how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is suggesting otherwise?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Piscator

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

noone said that it wasn't, including Mourdock, he made a simple and honest statement regarding the value that he places on "life", I'm amazed at the tangents this sets many of you off on.....

God doesn't "allow" rape, humans commit rape, murder and many other acts which violate the tenants of most religions

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Piscator

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A God that gives you the free will to do it or not--with all the appropriate consequences to the rapist and the victim. If the implication of your question is that God predestines and is responsible for all actions, then you have eliminated the human need for a god. Such a god, that gives no choice, need not be pondered over nor obeyed. Any thought or action you have or do are this god's choice not yours. All that exists is not separate from this god but are a part of it. All that is done or thought, are done so by this god.

A God that "allows" rape, allows the free will He has given you to do so or not. This God "allows" all actions but disapproves of and punishes, now or later, actions that trespass HIS will or are destructive to the order of His creation. This God allows you all that is "good" in His creation, and all that is "evil." Any other type of supernatural god is irrelevant. A god you might name Fate or Destiny, and a god you might name Chaos, either leave you no possibility of a separate choice nor a meaning that might result in choice.

The God Mourdock believes in has created us in His image and we are commanded by Him to husband the rest of His creation, the natural world, in accordance to His will and in a way that maintains His order. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, believes in founding principles of free will and the responsiblity of molding that will to the natural order--nature and nature's God. And he will also believe that it is not an all-powerful central government which imposes its will on the people, but that it is the free and God given natural will of the people that allows that central government limited responsibility, and allows the people to build and create the good and goods in free and diverse ways which respond to their individual needs thus expanding the wealth of the nation--a sort of expansion of the biblical command to be fruitful. He would also, therefor, believe that "reproductive rights" would be those allowed by local and state governments as an expression of their people. So he would not be a threat to impose his personal belief on the entire nation as a Federal Senator.

Mourdock's God is the creator of man.

The other type of god that is relevant to humans is the god created by man. Those who believe in this type of god, believe all the other gods are created by man, and therefor fictions. The god they create is not supernatural, though it reigns over man and nature as if it were. Their god does not "allow" free will or unalienable rights to citizens who consent to a limited government, but from an all-powerful seat, grants those citizens limited rights. It also punishes those who trespass the boundary of rights that it allows. The rapes, mayhem, disorder, wars, all evils, also occur under this god even though they are not "allowed." This god is under the duress of constantly finding ways to control populations by instilling new rules and methods of order. Of distributing to and defining needs that constantly expand in response to the distribution. Of constanly narrowing the scope of rights it grants in order to maintain the satisfactions of various groups and majorities that it caters to. Because it limits more and more the rights of the people in order to control and satisfy them as groups rather than individuals, it has to control more and more the means and ownership of wealth and its distribution. The bibical command to be fruitful is limited by this god, and the fruits of labor shrink to those allowed by this god.

This god, of course, is unlimited centralized government--the one size fits all that so many seem to want. Because it is not supernatural, it has only fictive powers (similar to the fictitious god of predestination) over nature and the nature of man. It is not founded on nature nor human nature, it seeks to control them. It is the type of humanly created, unnatural god that has usurped the Constitution and its form of government. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, would rather restore constitutional principles.

He obviously does not approve of rape or believe that rape is God's will. He views it as Man's will, an act which is against God's will, and a violence against God's natural order-- that natural process of conception of life--a process which is his God's will. I would guess Mourdock believes that the victim of rape who gets pregnant would have to make the choice of seeing that natural process to its finish in conception. Presumably, that conception, not rape, perhaps not even the method, would be God's will. I doubt that Mourdock wants to impose his belief on her God-given free will to make her own decision. I would guess that he would wish her to conceive the child, if not for a fruition of God's will, at least as a concern for the child itself.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A God that gives you the free will to do it or not--with all the appropriate consequences to the rapist and the victim. If the implication of your question is that God predestines and is responsible for all actions, then you have eliminated the human need for a god. Such a god, that gives no choice, need not be pondered over nor obeyed. Any thought or action you have or do are this god's choice not yours. All that exists is not separate from this god but are a part of it. All that is done or thought, are done so by this god.

A God that "allows" rape, allows the free will He has given you to do so or not. This God "allows" all actions but disapproves of and punishes, now or later, actions that trespass HIS will or are destructive to the order of His creation. This God allows you all that is "good" in His creation, and all that is "evil." Any other type of supernatural god is irrelevant. A god you might name Fate or Destiny, and a god you might name Chaos, either leave you no possibility of a separate choice nor a meaning that might result in choice.

The God Mourdock believes in has created us in His image and we are commanded by Him to husband the rest of His creation, the natural world, in accordance to His will and in a way that maintains His order. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, believes in founding principles of free will and the responsiblity of molding that will to the natural order--nature and nature's God. And he will also believe that it is not an all-powerful central government which imposes its will on the people, but that it is the free and God given natural will of the people that allows that central government limited responsibility, and allows the people to build and create the good and goods in free and diverse ways which respond to their individual needs thus expanding the wealth of the nation--a sort of expansion of the biblical command to be fruitful. He would also, therefor, believe that "reproductive rights" would be those allowed by local and state governments as an expression of their people. So he would not be a threat to impose his personal belief on the entire nation as a Federal Senator.

Mourdock's God is the creator of man.

The other type of god that is relevant to humans is the god created by man. Those who believe in this type of god, believe all the other gods are created by man, and therefor fictions. The god they create is not supernatural, though it reigns over man and nature as if it were. Their god does not "allow" free will or unalienable rights to citizens who consent to a limited government, but from an all-powerful seat, grants those citizens limited rights. It also punishes those who trespass the boundary of rights that it allows. The rapes, mayhem, disorder, wars, all evils, also occur under this god even though they are not "allowed." This god is under the duress of constantly finding ways to control populations by instilling new rules and methods of order. Of distributing to and defining needs that constantly expand in response to the distribution. Of constanly narrowing the scope of rights it grants in order to maintain the satisfactions of various groups and majorities that it caters to. Because it limits more and more the rights of the people in order to control and satisfy them as groups rather than individuals, it has to control more and more the means and ownership of wealth and its distribution. The bibical command to be fruitful is limited by this god, and the fruits of labor shrink to those allowed by this god.

This god, of course, is unlimited centralized government--the one size fits all that so many seem to want. Because it is not supernatural, it has only fictive powers (similar to the fictitious god of predestination) over nature and the nature of man. It is not founded on nature nor human nature, it seeks to control them. It is the type of humanly created, unnatural god that has usurped the Constitution and its form of government. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, would rather restore constitutional principles.

He obviously does not approve of rape or believe that rape is God's will. He views it as Man's will, an act which is against God's will, and a violence against God's natural order-- that natural process of conception of life--a process which is his God's will. I would guess Mourdock believes that the victim of rape who gets pregnant would have to make the choice of seeing that natural process to its finish in conception. Presumably, that conception, not rape, perhaps not even the method, would be God's will. I doubt that Mourdock wants to impose his belief on her God-given free will to make her own decision. I would guess that he would wish her to conceive the child, if not for a fruition of God's will, at least as a concern for the child itself.

If a woman is raped, she should be able to make the choice not to have the baby. If she chooses to do so, good for her. She is a very strong and brave woman. If she decides not to do so, she should not be ashamed ridiculed etc. etc.

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Funny that a bunch of men are arguing this case. Also ironic that many of these posts point that it’s done out of convenience to the woman, don’t you think the man might be persuading many of those decisions????? It’s a convenience to the woman and most times the man……………………

[Piscator]

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Why not? If the baby is unimportant enough to abort due to rape, what makes it important enough to deliver if the woman doesn't want it?

detbuch, Sorry, don't see eye to eye with you on this. My personal belief.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Piscator

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Why not? If the baby is unimportant enough to abort due to rape, what makes it important enough to deliver if the woman doesn't want it?

detbuch, Sorry, don't see eye to eye with you on this. My personal belief.

OK. Your personal view just seems a bit inconsistent, perhaps some conflicting notions about the issue. Personal beliefs can lead to disagreement and not be resolved so long as those beliefs are maintained. Discussions between different believers, as long as they remain civil, usually involve a degree of persuasion, a desire to show the rationale of one's belief against the other's negative view, even a desire to change minds. But that takes open discussion. I have to respect your view which is probably more representative than mine. The Taliban in me, don't you know.