NationStates Jolt Archive

God would pick a better username.

Next ..

Too bad I can explain it away by claiming it all to be an "inescrutable plan". So, again, disprove the statement that I am God.

(Nice joke though.)

No, that's just it. You don't have proof. You point to scripture as proof, but you can't PROVE that the scripture is divine. You BELIEVE it, but you can't prove it.

Umm, no. Remember all that majesty of the style and such? That's the proof.
"Bull!" you say? That's it. You cannot be convinced of the proof without the inward working of the Holy Spirit.

You admit that your faith can be wrong. YOu admit you can be in error. You admit that every single belief you have can be absolutly and totally, 100% WRONG.

I never said that my faith can be wrong. It comes from God and therefore cannot err. I can be wrong, but the faith God has given me cannot be.

Then where the fuck do you get off telling ME how I should live MY life based on YOUR belief which you already admit can, quite possibly, be entirely wrong.

Me? I don't get off anywhere. I was commanded to spread the Gospel. And that includes pointing out our sin and our need for salvation.

But I can't tell you how to live your life. Only God can, in His Word. And if I add or take anything from it, I am in great sin.

How dare you tell me that I should follow rules you just admitted can be absolute, total bullshit?

They are from God so they cannot be wrong.

lol calm down leftie retards, a few points

1. This woman was arrested for a crime, not for being raped, but a crime irregardless, and thus has no right to bitch.

2. Not letting the woman take the pill was a good idea, because if any complications happened from taking it, it would be on the heads of the people responsible for her detention. Given the volatility of the stuff, the correct course of action was taken.

3. Most of you hippies feel sad that a possible abortion was prevented, I though most of you saw abortion as a heartbreaking last resort, way to blow that one into the water hippies.

4. On chemists not selling abortion drugs due to religion - THATS THEIR CHOICE YOU LEFTIST MORONS, ECONOMIC FREEDOM = LIBERTY

5. Abortion is not a good population strategy given the fact that the globe is still made up of nations.

Reading this thread, it almost makes me sad most of you have survived Roe v Wade, please go die in a stalinesque gulag or something ..

Warned for flaming.

This happened in FLORIDA? I could see some fucked-up little town in the deep south, but FLORIDA?

Then again, these people brought us 2000 elections and Katherine Harris...

And a woman being charged with "hunting without a license" for shooting an alligator that entered her home and tried to attack her dog.

And so on, and so on.... All sorts of strange legal situations come out of Florida.


I'm probably going to be lynched for saying this, but I support the worker's actions.

Emergency contraceptives (as well as all other hormonal birth controls) were shown in studies to have weakened the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized egg could not implant in the wall and would pass out of the body and die.

The birth control pill, if it works correctly, blocks ovulation so that no egg can be fertilized at all. But yes, Plan B works by preventing fertilization and, if fertilization occurs, implantation.

That is effectively the same thing as abortion, which is murder.

No, it isn't. Not by a long-shot. An abortion ends a pregnancy. With Plan B, as implantation does not occur, the woman is never pregnant at all.

Most fertilized eggs never make it to birth anyways. Any sexually active woman has probably had at least one fertilized egg fail to implant. This increases the chances that it might happen.

Though doubt has been cast on these studies, they have not been disproven.
Emergency contraception

What doubt? The very purpose of Plan B is to prevent fertilization and implantation.

The worker stood up for his beliefs and worked against the possible murder of a child. I support that. Will he be persecuted? Yes. Will he be tried for crimes (which ought not to be crimes)? Yes, most likely.

But he obeyed God and followed Scripture rather than Man. Providing that was his motivation (which we have no way of knowing), God will honor that.

Where in Scripture does it say, "Thou shalt not prevent pregnancy"?

They are from God so they cannot be wrong.

I repeat: I am God.

Umm, no. Remember all that majesty of the style and such? That's the proof.
"Bull!" you say? That's it. You cannot be convinced of the proof without the inward working of the Holy Spirit.

Prove the universe couldn't exist without god.


I never said that my faith can be wrong. It comes from God and therefore cannot err. I can be wrong, but the faith God has given me cannot be.

prove it.

Me? I don't get off anywhere. I was commanded to spread the Gospel. And that includes pointing out our sin and our need for salvation.

Prove that god commanded this.

But I can't tell you how to live your life. Only God can, in His Word. And if I add or take anything from it, I am in great sin.

Prove sin exists.

They are from God so they cannot be wrong.

Prove god said it.

And don't give me "the proof is the spirit" bullshit, because you can't prove the spirit exists, now can you?

how dare you argue with god? Don't you know god is infallable? If god chose that username it must be the right one.

Do you think you know better than god?

I know that nobody can prove god one way or the other, especially on an online forum, and thus god is a matter personal conviction.

Just watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Then leave me alone ..

I know that nobody can prove god one way or the other, especially on an online forum, and thus god is a matter personal conviction.

Just watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Then leave me alone ..

leave you alone? You came to the thread skippy, you showed up, you posted your beliefs.

Can't handle an argument? Go away.

Which is why I point (or at least ought to point) back to God's infallible Word.

Oh, that's right. You're one of those. :rolleyes:

God's infallible word--which doesn't match up with archaeological findings or scientific fact, that can't even keep its story straight from one chapter to the next, much less from one book to the next, that was put together by a bunch of 3rd and 4th century politicians who were jockeying for position to see whose church would come out on top...

That infallible word that, in its original language, has more disagreements between manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

Yeah, that one.

And you wonder why we mock you so?

I know that nobody can prove god (1) one way or the other, especially on an online forum, and thus god is a matter personal conviction. (2)

Just watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Then leave me alone ..

1- Will you stop talking about me as if I weren't right here?

2- No I'm not!

Too bad I can explain it away by claiming it all to be an "inescrutable plan". So, again, disprove the statement that I am God.

(Nice joke though.)

Ah why don't you prove that I am NOT god .. since you want to use logical fallacies, at least recognize that most of them are a double edged sword.

No, it isn't. Not by a long-shot. An abortion ends a pregnancy. With Plan B, as implantation does not occur, the woman is never pregnant at all.

An unborn child dies either way.

Most fertilized eggs never make it to birth anyways. Any sexually active woman has probably had at least one fertilized egg fail to implant. This increases the chances that it might happen.

In this case, she is not seeking to kill the unborn, it just happens.

What doubt? The very purpose of Plan B is to prevent fertilization and implantation.

Read the article I linked to.

Where in Scripture does it say, "Thou shalt not prevent pregnancy"?

I quote myself from anther thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotRodia
Let's have it then. Where does Scripture say abortion is wrong? I've tried to find solid scriptural backing for the "abortion is murder" line, but what I found in Scripture suggests that it's worthy of being fined at most.

Exodus 20:13

That speaks against murder. So what is not murder?

A note in my Bible says:

Quote:
The law distinguishes between manslaughter and premeditated murder. The verb here is never applied to Israel at war, and capital punishment was already authorized (Genesis 9:6; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:30-34). Human life is sacred because it bears God's image (Genesis 9:5,6).

God commands the use of excecution (as seen above), commands the use of war (Numbers 1:2-4; Numbers 10:8-10; Numbers 31:6-8), and allows self-defense (sorry, I can't find the verses I'm looking for).

So, anything else falls under the law against murder, the penalty of which is execution (Genesis 9:6)

What about abortion specifically? Well, if the fact that God has not said "It's okay to kill in this instance" is not enough, then there is Exodus 21:22-25

There is no reason to think that the harm is limited to the mother only. The English Standard Version (the translation in which I have provided the verses) translates word for word, not idea for idea.

Also, this is accidental. The woman got in the way and her child was hurt. Why should we think it's any less a crime if we intentionally harm the child?

Also, Genesis 25:21-22 points to value of the unborn as children.

Psalms 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, and Luke 1:41-44 all point to value for the unborn as one would value the born.

What about rape? Ezekiel 18:20

I know that nobody can prove god one way or the other, especially on an online forum, and thus god is a matter personal conviction.

Just watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Then leave me alone ..

You're just lazy. I'm not watching your video, and I suspect you won't be left alone, either.

Ah why don't you prove that I am NOT god .. since you want to use logical fallacies, at least recognize that most of them are a double edged sword.

I think you just proved his point.

Ah why don't you prove that I am NOT god .. since you want to use logical fallacies, at least recognize that most of them are a double edged sword.

I never said you're not God, I said I'm God. You can be God too, see if I care.

I know that nobody can prove god one way or the other, especially on an online forum, and thus god is a matter personal conviction.

Just watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Then leave me alone ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

Sorry, but I must say, Dawkins pwns.

Whoever's responsible ought to be fired and sued for compensation; simple as that.

leave you alone? You came to the thread skippy, you showed up, you posted your beliefs.

Can't handle an argument? Go away.

No I don't mind other people, just you seem stupid and thus not really worthwhile to have a discussion with.

I think you just proved his point.

Hey, kiddo, you're smart! Wanna be my prophet?

An unborn child dies either way.


If it's unborn, it's not alive. It can't have died if it was never alive to begin with.

Prove the universe couldn't exist without god.

There must be an uncreated Creator so that everything is accounted for.

Really, what more do you want. You have consistently said that I have no proof. So why do you insist that I provide some? I have no proof that can convince you.

Would you like to continue, or is that all you wanted?

No I don't mind other people, just you seem stupid and thus not really worthwhile to have a discussion with.

Kid, just because you've been unable to comprehend the arguments that have constantly owned your ass, doesn't make ME the stupid one.

Hint, for everyone you call an idiot...maybe you're just not smart enough to understand them.

No I don't mind other people, just you seem stupid and thus not really worthwhile to have a discussion with.

Imagine just how smart you seem to the "other people" when you dismiss your detractors so.

There must be an uncreated Creator so that everything is accounted for.

Really, what more do you want. You have consistently said that I have no proof. So why do you insist that I provide some? I have no proof that can convince you.

Would you like to continue, or is that all you wanted?

He would like you to prove the things you said about me and my orders to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

Sorry, but I must say, Dawkins pwns.

Funny you should bring him up lol, Dawkins is an ass, went to a talk with him at Uni a year or so back, for him to be right he would have to make many assumptions on god, and even more on the lack of thereof.

I have no time for religion haters masking their hatred as intellectualism anymore than I have time for mormon door knockers.

Which is why I oppose all forms of hormonal birth control.

You oppose the prevention of ovulation? Why?

There are very few instances when the life of the mother is truly in danger. And all but one of those can potentially be solved without abortion.

Is that the case, Dr. Chietuste? Do tell what you know that the entire medical community does not.

No, I support the death penalty if they undergo it willingly.

Your reaction to something that you think is killing is........killing? How wonderfully petty.

Provided it is not to save her life from imminent danger (not the potential of danger).

Once it gets to the point of "imminent danger", she's unlikely to survive, abortion or not. That's why we allow human beings to make medical decisions for themselves. They can weigh the risks vs. the benefits, rather than us forcing our decisions upon them.

But, apparently, we should just anoint you as king and let you run everyone's life, eh? You can decide everyone's medical treatment with that medical degree you got....where?

There must be an uncreated Creator so that everything is accounted for.

Must there? Sounds dreadful.

I have no time for religion haters masking their hatred as intellectualism anymore than I have time for mormon door knockers.

I have no time for religion nutcases masking their wish to control women anymore than I have time for the IPU.

Imagine just how smart you seem to the "other people" when you dismiss your detractors so.

Heh its been done to me in this thread already, click back a few time.

Also what makes you think I care?

Must there? Sounds dreadful.

Yeah, he's talking about me. You know, God.

Funny you should bring him up lol, Dawkins is an ass, went to a talk with him at Uni a year or so back, for him to be right he would have to make many assumptions on god, and even more on the lack of thereof.

I have no time for religion haters masking their hatred as intellectualism anymore than I have time for mormon door knockers.

Please elaborate on your considered opinion of Mr. Dawkins. I'm sure we'd all appreciate your insight.

I have no time for religion nutcases masking their wish to control women anymore than I have time for the IPU.

People are already controlled to great lengths in their lives everyday, by law, society, science, among other things. Outlawing abortion would be adding one more to thousands, and a positive one at that, I'm not concerned.

Funny you should bring him up lol, Dawkins is an ass, went to a talk with him at Uni a year or so back, for him to be right he would have to make many assumptions on god, and even more on the lack of thereof.

I have no time for religion haters masking their hatred as intellectualism anymore than I have time for mormon door knockers.
Yet he is an intellectual, and a serious one at that. No masquerading here.

You're in the UK then?

Heh its been done to me in this thread already, click back a few time.

Also what makes you think I care?

I think you care because you persist in posting. What makes you think you care?

There must be an uncreated Creator so that everything is accounted for.

Why?

Really, what more do you want. You have consistently said that I have no proof. So why do you insist that I provide some? I have no proof that can convince you.

I want you to recognize that since you have no proof, you have no reason to believe that what you believe is true.

Heh its been done to me in this thread already, click back a few time.
And you just got warned for it too, you did notice that, correct?

People are already controlled to great lengths in their lives everyday, by law, society, science, among other things. Outlawing abortion would be adding one more to thousands, and a positive one at that, I'm not concerned.

Control based on logic, good. Results in an enlightened society.

Control based on religion, bad. Results in the Dark Ages.

You're not concerned because you're not a woman and the 10-pound ham is not leaving your uterus after you've been raped, while schizophrenic idiots scream at you that it was My supreme will.

You oppose the prevention of ovulation? Why?

I oppose the purposeful use of hormones which could kill an unborn child.

Is that the case, Dr. Chietuste? Do tell what you know that the entire medical community does not.

:rolleyes:
The only time that the mother's life is in danger and abortion is the only choice is when the egg implants in the fallopian tube. Someone told me that the baby can become a cancer or something like that (which I had never heard of), so that may be a second, but most times the mothers life is in
"danger" abortion is not the only option and never the most moral.

Your reaction to something that you think is killing is........killing? How wonderfully petty.

Take it up with God, not me.
Leviticus 24:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17&version=47)

Once it gets to the point of "imminent danger", she's unlikely to survive, abortion or not. That's why we allow human beings to make medical decisions for themselves. They can weigh the risks vs. the benefits, rather than us forcing our decisions upon them.

Poor choice of wording on my part.
The point is, you don't take radiation all the time because it's possible that you might have cancer.
The same with prenancy: you don't abort the child just because it might cause health problems for you.

Yeah, he's talking about me. You know, God.

Then dispatch a cadre of my protector spirits (the eight-legged ones, you remember) and sorta... I dunno, smote these theocratic arses - y'know, for old times' sake. It'd make 'em happy, in a twisted kinda Old-Testament sorta way.

C'mon God, you know me... I never make requests. Whaddaya say?

I've read the bible, and saw plenty of instances where 'god' was quite happy to order the deaths of unborn children, if he/she/it wasn't killing them himself/herself/itself.

Does God Kill Babies?

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9

The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Far from demonstrating a "pro-life" attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage, starting with the flood and the wanton destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, progressing to the murder of the firstborn child of every household in Egypt (Ex. 12:29), and the New Testament threats of annihilation.

Space permits only a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:

* Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
* Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
* Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
* I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
* 2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
* 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
* Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
* Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
* Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
* Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
* Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
* Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Then there are the dire warnings of Jesus in the New Testament:

"For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."--Luke 23:29

The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a "scriptural base" for their claim that their deity is "pro-life." Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate, with one medical study finding a spontaneous abortion rate of almost 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history!
Taken from This Site (http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php).
Biased? Probably, but no more so than most sites anti abortionists link to.

I am horrified that the woman in the start post wasn't allowed medical treatment after a rape based on someone elses religious beliefs. Just another reason for women not to bother reporting sexual assults.

He sent his son to die horribly to redeem mankind for something he did. That's a textbook example of brutality and cruelty. He is a monster.

His son had a choice. He could have called angels or God to save him at any point. BUT HE DIDN'T. And for "something he did?" WE screwed ourselves up; it's OUR faults that a sacrifice had to be made. Atheists and agnostics are constantly twisting up the Bible to their advantage; if you don't like Christians, just say it and leave it. Don't screw with our beliefs and the Word.

Then dispatch a cadre of my protector spirits (the eight-legged ones, you remember) and sorta... I dunno, smote these theocratic arses - y'know, for old times' sake. It'd make 'em happy, in a twisted kinda Old-Testament sorta way.

C'mon God, you know me... I never make requests. Whaddaya say?

Nah. I'll give you the address of this guy I know in R'Lyeh that will solve these guy's problems, though, deal?

The sermon never falter...

*sigh*

Self-control based on logic, good. Results in an enlightened society.
Fixed.

When someone else causes you harm, the result is restitution/punishment, not so much control.

*sighs* The problem with your type of generalizations are that they can easily be disproven by someone in the group your stereotyping not going by your stereotype. For instance: I don't believe that the morning after pill is bad. The original statement was that anti-abortion people disagreed with the morning after pill, therefore you sir are wrong.

No, that was not the original statement, nor is it a statement I made. In fact, I pointed out explicitly that I am personally anti-abortion and that I have no problem with Plan B. I was also explicit in stating that, although I believe the evidence is clear that most who are anti-choice (ie. those who would actually make abortion illegal) are most often opposed to Plan B as well, there are those who support such action without being opposed to Plan B.

Also, I'm not a sir.

So, it would seem that the only thing in your post that might be accurate is your description of your own opinion.

Take it up with God, not me.
Leviticus 24:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17&version=47)

For the nth time, I AM GOD.

And I disapprove of this CRAP those morons wrote. Stoning people to death? Fire and brimstone? What kind of psycho do these guys think I am???

Fixed.

When someone else causes you harm, the result is restitution/punishment, not so much control.

I agree, but I was trying to say it in terms he'd understand.

Don't screw with our beliefs and the Word.

The only time 'word' should be capitalised is when the name 'MicroSoft' precedes it.

:p

For the nth time, I AM GOD.

And I disapprove of this CRAP those morons wrote. Stoning people to death? Fire and brimstone? What kind of psycho do these guys think I am???

The kind who demands women suffer unenduringly, apparently.

*drums fingers*

Hmm?

Control based on logic, good. Results in an enlightened society.

Control based on religion, bad. Results in the Dark Ages.

You're not concerned because you're not a woman and the 10-pound ham is not leaving your uterus after you've been raped, while schizophrenic idiots scream at you that it was My supreme will.

Ah but you see abortion is not logical because it is not based on logic (science), or for that matter religion or national interest, and does not come with a shred of proof or morality.

Its a product of leftism and secular humanism, its an attack on the individual (in this case a fatal one) for a perceived greater good. Funny you should talk about the Dark Ages, as science now proves that human is human from day one, its exactly your kind of "logic" that belongs back in those times.

Your so called 10 pound ham is no less human than you, a perhaps 70 kilo ham.

Funny you should talk about the Dark Ages, as science now proves that human is human from day one, its exactly your kind of "logic" that belongs back in those times.


Day one perhaps. Not, however, day -270

Ah but you see abortion is not logical because it is not based on logic (science), or for that matter religion or national interest, and does not come with a shred of proof or morality.

Its a product of leftism and secular humanism, its an attack on the individual (in this case a fatal one) for a perceived greater good. Funny you should talk about the Dark Ages, as science now proves that human is human from day one, its exactly your kind of "logic" that belongs back in those times.

Your so called 10 pound ham is no less human than you, a perhaps 70 kilo ham.

So you call yourself advanced for putting your need for controlling OTHERS ahead of the well-being of them. All based on a book I did NOT write.

So you call yourself advanced for putting your need for controlling OTHERS ahead of the well-being of them. All based on a book I did NOT write.

Come now its a simple matrix equation ..

No Abortion = Child Lives, Mother Lives
Abortion = Child Dies, Mother Lives

Therefore No Abortion is the rational outcome, both for individual and collective good.

Therefore No Abortion is the rational outcome, both for individual
She's burdened with a child she doesn't want. Not good for her, not for the child either. Hardly Pareto optimal. :)

and collective good.
Irrelevant.

Come now its a simple matrix equation ..

No Abortion = Child Lives, Mother Lives
Abortion = Child Dies, Mother Lives

Therefore No Abortion is the rational outcome, both for individual and collective good.

No abortion forcefully = Mother ceases to have control over her own body. Child lives a miserable life because mother resents it.

This sounds like a no brainer- but honestly, this is as bad as rape itself, if not worse. This is a crime where because of some idoit's beliefs which were imposed on another who couldn't escape them, this women could become pregnent and have a rappist's child. Great. So either the women A) gets an abortion after all, and sufers the pain and regret of giving up a child that way or B) gives the kid up for adoption which can cause mental damage to the woman. (There is a C) option of keeping the child, but how could you?) how is it okay to allow this lunitic to impose such horrible choices on this woman? its not. So all i have to say to the person that wouldn't giver her the pill:

:upyours: F**K YOU!!! :upyours:

It sure as Hell doesn't give you (or anyone) a passcard to not do your job properly, though.

I could answer each of these individually, but since this one is representative of the rest, I'll save myself some typing and sayt his once.

Read along with me kids.

I
never
said
it
was
right
to
force
your
religion
on
anyone


Read that twice. Then proceed

I
already
said
that
if
a
person's
religion
interferes
with
their
job
they
should
work
elsewhere.

if you can't be bothered to read my posts for substance rather than simply trolling for something to argue against, don't expect me to waste any more of my time coddling you.

:upyours: F**K YOU!!! :upyours:
Wow, two perfect textbook n00b posts in one thread in one night. :D

Come now its a simple matrix equation ..

No Abortion = Child Lives, Mother Lives
Abortion = Child Dies, Mother Lives

Therefore No Abortion is the rational outcome, both for individual and collective good.

Sense when is adding another human to the already over populated earth for the collective good?

Sense when is adding another human to the already over populated earth for the collective good?

By that logic why have any more babies at all?

Good God, my home towns gone to hell.

And what's with the jail time? She didn't pay a fine? What the hell?!

Good God, my home towns gone to hell.

And what's with the jail time? She didn't pay a fine? What the hell?!

I would venture a guess that they trumped up the charge IN ORDER to prevent her from taking the medication.

if you can't be bothered to read my posts for substance rather than simply trolling for something to argue against, don't expect me to waste any more of my time coddling you.

How... refreshing. Coddling? Oh then by all means, NB - do please let's have you take the proverbial kid gloves off. Get to the heart of the matter. Speak your mind. Spill your guts. So to speak.


*Edit: Oh, and yes I did read your posts already. I was still moved to write as I did in your quotation.

By that logic why have any more babies at all?
That was not "by my logic" at all ... not caring to add one more un-necessary baby != no babies at all. You have some weird view on logical progression.

Might help to trim it down specially for those that don't want them after being forcibly raped. The ones that wish for them should be plenty enough for the "collective good"

How... refreshing. Coddling? Oh then by all means, NB - do please let's have you take the proverbial kid gloves off. Get to the heart of the matter. Speak your mind. Spill your guts. So to speak.

My folks' dog spilled his guts right in the corridor. I hope they clean it when they wake up.

Did Jesus ever say that we are not to use the death penalty? No.
Did he ever say you could?
The instance of "Let he who is without sin..." was His sovereign right as Creator and Lord to forgive above the Law. We are not allowed to go against the Law and therefore are still to use the death penalty for the crime prescribed in Scripture and for those crimes only.
So, disobeying your parents, for instance. Nice. But wait, that’s only in the OT, so maybe you feel it deosn't apply. However, that can't be true because of:
The whole beginning of Numbers is God commanding a census to prepare for war.
So how exactly do you determine which parts of the bible to follow? An elaborate game of cards, I’m hoping.

So how exactly do you determine which parts of the bible to follow? An elaborate game of cards, I’m hoping.
I'd guess it's more of a "Whatever justifies my views" type of thing.

Since you can find scripture to justify anything you never run the risk of not having a reason.

How... refreshing. Coddling? Oh then by all means, NB - do please let's have you take the proverbial kid gloves off. Get to the heart of the matter. Speak your mind. Spill your guts. So to speak.


*Edit: Oh, and yes I did read your posts already. I was still moved to write as I did in your quotation.

Then you're not bothering to read carefully, and I can't make you. I was very clear in stating those items, you still chose to respond as if I'd said the opposite. What can I do?

You can lead a horse to water...

That was not "by my logic" at all ... not caring to add one more un-necessary baby != no babies at all. You have some weird view on logical progression.

Might help to trim it down specially for those that don't want them after being forcibly raped. The ones that wish for them should be plenty enough for the "collective good"

Of course it was. If your justification for abortion is linked with the planet's population then abortion and newborn babies all count the same. In any case, it has to do with adding to the population.

I've already said my peace on the rape issue. RTFF.

Of course it was. If your justification for abortion is linked with the planet's population then abortion and newborn babies all count the same. In any case, it has to do with adding to the population.

I've already said my peace on the rape issue. RTFF.
No the poster I quoted said that continually adding to the population was good ... I said that adding 100 percent of potential is not necessarily a good thing. I never said that adding less then 100 percent of potential would not be a better option.

Just because I reject H0 does not mean that H2 is necessarily true You have to first test H1

You can lead a horse to water...

"I hate water - fish fuck in it." - W.C. Fields

She's burdened with a child she doesn't want. Not good for her, not for the child either. Hardly Pareto optimal. :)


Irrelevant.

No empirical evidence, all you have is negative assumptiveness, not gonna fly.

No empirical evidence, all you have is negative assumptiveness, not gonna fly.
It doesn't even require empirical evidence, it simply stands to reason.

No empirical evidence, all you have is negative assumptiveness, not gonna fly.

As to your empirical evidence of the positive?

No empirical evidence, all you have is negative assumptiveness, not gonna fly.

Umm, I think the fact that she requested emergency contraception as part of the rape kit counts as empirical evidence that she didn't want to be impregnated by her rapist.

Sense when is adding another human to the already over populated earth for the collective good?

The population problems in the west are the other way around, the only reason out Earth is overpopulated is China and India.

It doesn't even require empirical evidence, it simply stands to reason.

Nothing stands to reason without evidence.

Nothing stands to reason without evidence.

surely that holds true for religion then, yes?

Nothing stands to reason without evidence.
1+1 = 2. A is not non-A. Production is antecedent to consumption.

Gee, ought I prove these things so that they stand to reason? :rolleyes:

The population problems in the west are the other way around, the only reason out Earth is overpopulated is China and India.
And you got this idea from where now?

And you got this idea from where now?

Reads like the contents of a middle-school geography textbook circa 1961, don't it?

And you got this idea from where now?
What he meant to say, you see, was that the Aryans are being outbred by the dirty furriners, and that's the real problem.

The population problems in the west are the other way around, the only reason out Earth is overpopulated is China and India.

Just because they are a bigger problem does not mean we are also not a problem ... we are hardly under populated

Maybe one of you fellow old timers can help me with this--is it just me or does Chietuste remind you of Christofi from the old days? Like Christofi on Xanax perhaps?

Maybe one of you fellow old timers can help me with this--is it just me or does Chietuste remind you of Christofi from the old days? Like Christofi on Xanax perhaps?
It's Edwardis. Now before that... hmm... What was the name of that girl who used to quote bible verses at the drop of a hat, lived in Mississippi or there-abouts?

It's Edwardis. Now before that... hmm... What was the name of that girl who used to quote bible verses at the drop of a hat, lived in Mississippi or there-abouts?

I think you've just described half the population of Mississippi, there. Literally.

I think you've just described half the population of Mississippi, there. Literally.
Well... yes, but this one was on NSG a lot and I remember her and Nazz tangling about abortion and evolution time and time again.

It's Edwardis. Now before that... hmm... What was the name of that girl who used to quote bible verses at the drop of a hat, lived in Mississippi or there-abouts?

Yeah--I was trying to trace back farther than that. There are some people who have gone through so many incarnations it's damn near impossible to keep up. Just speculating. That was an awfully long time ago.

It's Edwardis. Now before that... hmm... What was the name of that girl who used to quote bible verses at the drop of a hat, lived in Mississippi or there-abouts?

Oh, I remember her; she was an entertaining one. Sadly, I cannot remember her name, which is now going to annoy me for the rest of the evening. :p

The only time that the mother's life is in danger and abortion is the only choice is when the egg implants in the fallopian tube. Someone told me that the baby can become a cancer or something like that (which I had never heard of), so that may be a second, but most times the mothers life is in
"danger" abortion is not the only option and never the most moral.



Take it up with God, not me.
Leviticus 24:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17&version=47)


1. Take a female physiology class. It would be an enlightening experience for you.

2. Babies are little people that breastfeed. When a zygote becomes a cancerous growth, trust me... it doesn't much resemble anything we'd call a baby. Though, you think a zygote counts the same as a toddler, so maybe you would.

3. God has been posting on this very thread for some time now and so has the prophet Arthais. Why are you ignoring god and the prophet?

No abortion forcefully = Mother ceases to have control over her own body. Child lives a miserable life because mother resents it.

The sort of nightmare that God is telling of isn't just a theoretical case. One of my friends was incredibly abused by her mother as a child because... well... of the circumstances surrounding her conception. Her life has pretty much been misery because to her mother, she is a sort of symbol of the violation that took place.

God speaketh the truth.

And call it whatever you want, if you're killing a unique cell-dividing (ie. living) mass of human DNA, its murder, no matter how many bullshit clinical terms you wanna use, there's no two ways about it.

Interesting. So pretty much every woman who is, or ever has been, sexually active is a murderer for having her period and flushing it down the toilet.

Actually, by that definition, every doctor who has removed a tumor is a murderer.

And I have said nothing which has not been stated in Scripture.

You've said all sorts of things that aren't stated in Scripture. Your personal interpretations of Scripture may lead you to believe they are true, but I can't think of a single thing you've said in this thread that is explicitly stated in Scripture.

I believe that a secular society is nothing but a theocracy for agnostics and apathists.

I also believe that all parts of our lives are to be brought under God's Law, including our government and society.

So much for give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, eh?

A secular society allows all people to follow God (or not) as they see fit (without harming others). It allows you to practice your faith, me to practice mine, and my Muslim friend to practice his. It allows my fiance to choose not to practice any faith at all. It allows us all to find God in our own way.

I already said that I can be wrong. That's why it all rests on God and not one me.

And if God tells me that you are wrong?

I never said that my faith can be wrong. It comes from God and therefore cannot err. I can be wrong, but the faith God has given me cannot be.

It may come from God, but it is filtered through your head. Unless you think your faith has made you infallible, your faith can be wrong.

Do you think you are infallible?

They are from God so they cannot be wrong.

And you are infallible and thus interpret them perfectly?

An unborn child dies either way.

Depends on how you define "child". Your viewpoint certainly isn't Biblical. In OT times, life was not thought to begin until after birth. In later times, it was placed either at the first breath or at the "quickening", where the mother could begin to feel movement. The idea that life begins at fertilization is a very, very, very new standpoint in the scheme of things.

In this case, she is not seeking to kill the unborn, it just happens.

Her actions can contribute. If she does not eat well, or works a stressful job, or doesn't take the right vitamins, or any number of things, her body may block implantation or spontaneously abort a pregnancy. Should she be held responsible?

Meanwhile, a woman who is taking Plan B is not "seeking to kill the unborn." She is seeking to prevent pregnancy, just as someone practicing the rhythm method, using condoms, using spermicides, or using the birth control pill is.

Read the article I linked to.

Why? You are claiming that the main purpose of a drug is a side effect. If your article claims that, it is wrong.

I quote myself from anther thread:

In other words, you have nothing. The reference to causing a miscarriage actually demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the unborn is not considered the same as the born. Were such a struggle to kill a born human being, the penalty would have been death. But, since it was the unborn, it was simply a fine paid to the father for his lost chance at offspring.

References to putting one together in the womb or knowing one before/during gestation have to do with God knowing all things, not with abortion or the point at which life begins. God knows us all before we are even conceived - before our parents are conceived.

You are personally interpreting certain passages as speaking to the abortion and contraceptive debate. You cannot point to a single place which explicitly, or even obviously, states that Plan B is wrong.

Sorry, but I must say, Dawkins pwns.

Hardly. Dawkins suffers from many of the same misconceptions about science that his opponents often do. At best, he panders to those who do not understand science and the scientific method. At worst, he makes all atheists look like militant assholes.

I oppose the purposeful use of hormones which could kill an unborn child.

Even though their purpose is to prevent any "unborn child" from forming in the first place.

Do you know how many medications can possibly kill or harm a developing fetus? Should we deny women all medication because of this? Note that some women need to take birth control for medical conditions. In fact, some such women will be sterile much sooner in their lives and will likely never be able to bear children if they are not on birth control until they wish to conceive.

:rolleyes:
The only time that the mother's life is in danger and abortion is the only choice is when the egg implants in the fallopian tube.

And in cases of severe hydroencephaly. And, often, in cases of preeclampsia. And in cases where the fetus has died within the womb. And in cases where the mother has been diagnosed with cancer and must begin immediate treatment. And so on, and so on....

If you don't have a medical degree, or at the very least an advanced degree in biology, don't purport to tell us all of the possible situations in which an abortion might be necessary.

Take it up with God, not me.

My God isn't petty. Christ's message was, in fact, not to be petty. Thus, it's you.

Its a product of leftism and secular humanism, its an attack on the individual (in this case a fatal one) for a perceived greater good. Funny you should talk about the Dark Ages, as science now proves that human is human from day one, its exactly your kind of "logic" that belongs back in those times.

Science proves what now? That a zygote/embryo/fetus is human? Well, yeah. So is my liver. So are the cells that slough off when I scratch my arm and the cells currently being killed by my stomach acid.

*SNIP*
You're getting as bad as Kat about multi-replies. ;):p

You're getting as bad as Kat about multi-replies. ;):p

Well, I come back you you guys have put on over 10 pages. I reply to a page at a time, and it still gets ugly. hehe

Science proves what now? That a zygote/embryo/fetus is human? Well, yeah. So is my liver. So are the cells that slough off when I scratch my arm and the cells currently being killed by my stomach acid.

As usual, the fundy doesn't know what he's talking about, which leads to being massively owned.

I'd just like to state that I agree with pretty much all your posts regarding the matter. Unfortunately, Chietuste will continue not to know what he's talking about and ignore everything that contradicts his arguments.

I oppose the purposeful use of hormones which could kill an unborn child.

as has been stated repeatedly, the drug prevents the ovum from implanting into the womb wall - therfore no conception occurs - therefore nothing dies or is killed

The only time that the mother's life is in danger and abortion is the only choice is when the egg implants in the fallopian tube. Someone told me that the baby can become a cancer or something like that (which I had never heard of), so that may be a second, but most times the mothers life is in "danger" abortion is not the only option and never the most moral.

tell that to my dead daughter, whose brain failed to develop sufficiently in the womb for her to be able to participate in the birth process, therefore clearly endangering the life of the mother trying to birth an inert mass
this wasn't discovered until the sixth month, at which point we had no legal recourse to a voluntary abortion, but the doctor approved one out of necessity to protect the mother
if you had your way and blocked that termination, all i'd have ended up with was a dead baby who couldn't have survived anyway, and the serious possibility of a dead partner as well
stick your cruel god somewhere else

the thing is though that nobody, NOBODY, not even the most die hard anti abortionists actually believe that an embryo is a human being, equal to you and I.

The ultimate moral implications of such a standpoint would make you a monster.

as has been stated repeatedly, the drug prevents the ovum from implanting into the womb wall - therfore no conception occurs - therefore nothing dies or is killed

Just to be absolutely clear, conception (which is generally used as another term for fertilization) can possibly occur when Plan B is used. If used right away, it is likely to block fertilization. However, if fertilization does occur, it will likely block implantation - which is the point at which pregnancy begins.

So a zygote may be formed, and may even develop to the blastocyst stage, but, if the drug works properly, no pregnancy will ever occur.

tell that to my dead daughter, whose brain failed to develop sufficiently in the womb for her to be able to participate in the birth process, therefore clearly endangering the life of the mother trying to birth an inert mass
this wasn't discovered until the sixth month, at which point we had no legal recourse to a voluntary abortion, but the doctor approved one out of necessity to protect the mother
if you had your way and blocked that termination, all i'd have ended up with was a dead baby who couldn't have survived anyway, and the serious possibility of a dead partner as well
stick your cruel god somewhere else

I'm sorry for your loss and your partner's.

Too many people don't realize how many women (and their partners) have had to go through this sort of situation. With bans on D&X being attempted all over the country, many women who have gone through similar situations have been interviewed by lawmakers. All too often, these women - who desperately wanted a child and were devastated by the necessity for an abortion - were treated as if they were selfish women who wanted nothing more than to murder infants. It is ridiculous for any society to be so lacking in empathy.

the thing is though that nobody, NOBODY, not even the most die hard anti abortionists actually believe that an embryo is a human being, equal to you and I.

The ultimate moral implications of such a standpoint would make you a monster.

Well, they try to believe it, while simultaneously advocating very different legal treatment of embryos and not caring at all that most embryos never even make it to the fetal stage. They also will often advocate killing this equal human being if the woman carrying it happens to have been raped. They also usually try to justify support for in vitro fertilization, which has probably killed more embryos than Plan B ever will.

The position isn't logically consistent, but many do try and hold it.

Well, they try to believe it, while simultaneously advocating very different legal treatment of embryos and not caring at all that most embryos never even make it to the fetal stage. They also will often advocate killing this equal human being if the woman carrying it happens to have been raped. They also usually try to justify support for in vitro fertilization, which has probably killed more embryos than Plan B ever will.

The position isn't logically consistent, but many do try and hold it.

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

Imagine, you are walking late and night and you come across a fertility clinic ablaze. You being the brave soul you are, rush in. FOrtunatly it is night time and the clinic is entirely empty, save for Bob, the Janitor. Bob is currently passed out near the door, and will likely die soon to the fire and smoke.

You think you can reach Bob, grab him, and make it to the front door, both alive. You are actually virtually positive, and believe that you would have a 80% chance of success at getting out alive the two of you. Unfortunatly that means you also have a 20% chance of dying.

You can also simply turn around and walk out, an activity that will with 100% certainty, spare your life. It will, unfortunatly, with equal 100% certainty, kill Bob the Janitor.

So you can run, and assure your survival, and bob will Perish. Or you can attempt a rescue, and risk the 20% chance that both of you will die.

But lo, what is this? You notice a cooler next to bob, with a sign that reads "one fertilized human embryo inside". Let's say, if you decided, you could grab the cooler and run. You'd make it out with 90% certainty. But if you attempt to rescue the cooler, and bob, all 3 of you will perish.

Now you have a third choice, save yourself with 100% certainty, save bob with 80% certainty, or save the cooler with 90% certainty.

Anyone on this board will give one of two answers, some will opt to attempt to save bob, and the more risk averse will chose their own life.

Nobody, ABSOLUTLY NOBODY will say "I will attempt to save the cooler". Nobody would. Either they'd risk their lives to save another living, breathing human being in Bob the janitor, or they would run, and assure their own life.

However, if you believed, if you TRULY BELIEVED that the fertilized egg sitting in that cooler was a human life, the same as you, and me, and bob, then you would be morally bound to rescue the cooler, and not bob. Anyone who actually, TRULY believed that this embryo was a life, would eitehr save themselves, or, given better odds, would save the cooler over bob. If you actually believed that the cooler contained human life you would chose to save the cooler and not bob, based purely on the odds.

Which is where the flaw comes, nobody would do it. They'd either save themselves, OR attempt a rescue of bob. Some would risk death to save another human being. Nobody, NOBODY would risk death to save a cooler. But for those who believe an embryo is human life, saving Bob and saving the embryo are one and the same, and one should save the cooler, not Bob, because the egg in the cooler is more likely to survive.

Now some would admit "ok, so maybe the embryo isn't FULLY human, but it's 'human like', somewhat 'fractional' human." So fine, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's So instead of one embryo in that cooler, instead the sticker read 2. Or 10. Or 10,000. Or a million. Or 10 million (embryo's are small, after all). But now it holds 10 million, so it has to be rather bigger. Now the odds of you getting out alive with that cooler are 80/20. Exactly the same odds as trying to rescue Bob the Janitor.

If that cooler contained 10 million tiny frozen embryos, then, according to the belief, that cooler contains TEN MILLION HUMAN LIVES. How many people here if given the answer would risk a 80/20 split on their own life if it meant saving TEN MILLION PEOPLE. How many people would take the bet on their life if success meant saving as many people as the holocaust killed?

Would anyone refuse, really? Would anyone here not be willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of death if success meant saving 10 MILLION lives? I'd take that bet, and I suspect most would too.

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.

Would anyone do it? Anyone? Would anyone risk the 20% chance of excuciating death and leave a helpless man to die for a cooler of frozen embryos? If you TRULY believed that an embryo is a human life, then that cooler contains TEN MILLION human lives. The result of that belief is that Bob the Janitor dies in that fire, because who among us would chose the life of one stranger, over the life of 10 million strangers? The belief that those embryos constitute 10 million human lives would compell you to leave Bob for death and save the cooler. And nobody, NOBODY would do it. As I said, the moral implications of such a stance would make you a monster.

And since not even the most die hard anti abortion fanatics would sacrifice bob to save one, or 10, or 10,000 or 10 million little tiny frozen embryos, the implication is they are not willing to lose one person to save 10 million. So either your belief turns you into a monster, or you don't REALLY believe it.

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

And I essentially agreed with you. The problem is that people don't want to face those results, and so they intentionally hold inconsistent viewpoints. They will tell you with absolute certainty that a zygote is just as important as Bob, while also telling you that they would save Bob before a freezer full of embryos.

It isn't impossible to hold inconsistent beliefs. People do it all the time. It would be more correct to say that nobody is willing to consistently uphold such beliefs. No one is willing to investigate every miscarriage as possible manslaughter/murder, even though the parents are at least scrutinized in any sudden death of a child. But they will still tell you (and you can only take someone's beliefs at the value of their words) that they believe the embryo to be equally a human person to that born child.

And if God tells me that you are wrong?

I told him numeous times.

stick your cruel god somewhere else

A man-made God is only as cruel or as good as His or Her followers.

snip
[/abortion debate]

God has been posting on this very thread for some time now and so has the prophet Arthais. Why are you ignoring god and the prophet?

Well, with a capital G, Mine it's a proper name after all, but yeah. I think if I Myself appeared to him he'd ignore it.

no, not even the "no abortions, no in vetro firtilization, no planned killing of an embryo EVER" people do not really, TRULY believe that an embryo is a human being. The results, as I said, would make you a monster.

Imagine, you are walking late and night and you come across a fertility clinic ablaze. You being the brave soul you are, rush in. FOrtunatly it is night time and the clinic is entirely empty, save for Bob, the Janitor. Bob is currently passed out near the door, and will likely die soon to the fire and smoke.

You think you can reach Bob, grab him, and make it to the front door, both alive. You are actually virtually positive, and believe that you would have a 80% chance of success at getting out alive the two of you. Unfortunatly that means you also have a 20% chance of dying.

You can also simply turn around and walk out, an activity that will with 100% certainty, spare your life. It will, unfortunatly, with equal 100% certainty, kill Bob the Janitor.

So you can run, and assure your survival, and bob will Perish. Or you can attempt a rescue, and risk the 20% chance that both of you will die.

But lo, what is this? You notice a cooler next to bob, with a sign that reads "one fertilized human embryo inside". Let's say, if you decided, you could grab the cooler and run. You'd make it out with 90% certainty. But if you attempt to rescue the cooler, and bob, all 3 of you will perish.

Now you have a third choice, save yourself with 100% certainty, save bob with 80% certainty, or save the cooler with 90% certainty.

Anyone on this board will give one of two answers, some will opt to attempt to save bob, and the more risk averse will chose their own life.

Nobody, ABSOLUTLY NOBODY will say "I will attempt to save the cooler". Nobody would. Either they'd risk their lives to save another living, breathing human being in Bob the janitor, or they would run, and assure their own life.

However, if you believed, if you TRULY BELIEVED that the fertilized egg sitting in that cooler was a human life, the same as you, and me, and bob, then you would be morally bound to rescue the cooler, and not bob. Anyone who actually, TRULY believed that this embryo was a life, would eitehr save themselves, or, given better odds, would save the cooler over bob. If you actually believed that the cooler contained human life you would chose to save the cooler and not bob, based purely on the odds.

Which is where the flaw comes, nobody would do it. They'd either save themselves, OR attempt a rescue of bob. Some would risk death to save another human being. Nobody, NOBODY would risk death to save a cooler. But for those who believe an embryo is human life, saving Bob and saving the embryo are one and the same, and one should save the cooler, not Bob, because the egg in the cooler is more likely to survive.

Now some would admit "ok, so maybe the embryo isn't FULLY human, but it's 'human like', somewhat 'fractional' human." So fine, let's change the hypothetical a bit. Let's So instead of one embryo in that cooler, instead the sticker read 2. Or 10. Or 10,000. Or a million. Or 10 million (embryo's are small, after all). But now it holds 10 million, so it has to be rather bigger. Now the odds of you getting out alive with that cooler are 80/20. Exactly the same odds as trying to rescue Bob the Janitor.

If that cooler contained 10 million tiny frozen embryos, then, according to the belief, that cooler contains TEN MILLION HUMAN LIVES. How many people here if given the answer would risk a 80/20 split on their own life if it meant saving TEN MILLION PEOPLE. How many people would take the bet on their life if success meant saving as many people as the holocaust killed?

Would anyone refuse, really? Would anyone here not be willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of death if success meant saving 10 MILLION lives? I'd take that bet, and I suspect most would too.

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.

Would anyone do it? Anyone? Would anyone risk the 20% chance of excuciating death and leave a helpless man to die for a cooler of frozen embryos? If you TRULY believed that an embryo is a human life, then that cooler contains TEN MILLION human lives. The result of that belief is that Bob the Janitor dies in that fire, because who among us would chose the life of one stranger, over the life of 10 million strangers? The belief that those embryos constitute 10 million human lives would compell you to leave Bob for death and save the cooler. And nobody, NOBODY would do it. As I said, the moral implications of such a stance would make you a monster.

And since not even the most die hard anti abortion fanatics would sacrifice bob to save one, or 10, or 10,000 or 10 million little tiny frozen embryos, the implication is they are not willing to lose one person to save 10 million. So either your belief turns you into a monster, or you don't REALLY believe it.

So, do you accept the post of My prophet? Really, you're GOOD.

So, do you accept the post of My prophet? Really, you're GOOD.If Arthais were the prophet I might actually consider religion. But as yet, none of them are remotely sensible.

This happened in TAMPA?!

I didn't realize Tampa was part of Iran.

This happened in TAMPA?!

I didn't realize Tampa was part of Iran.

Its not, its part of Jesusland. Where you can believe in born again christianty or you are not worth living since you are going to hell.
She wanted to kill the baby, she is going to hell, along with people who have premarital sex, catholics, gay people, people that dont go to sermons, or figet during sermons, people who think world is older then 6000 years and them Jonhson family who' granny said that thing about our Susan.

Its not, its part of Jesusland. Where you can believe in born again christianty or you are not worth living since you are going to hell.
She wanted to kill the baby, she is going to hell, along with people who have premarital sex, catholics, gay people, people that dont go to sermons, or figet during sermons, people who think world is older then 6000 years and them Jonhson family who' granny said that thing about our Susan.

Tampa must be a Christian exclave of Iran, then.

:mad: For Christ's sake, people, why does the rape victim need to be jailed?

She didn't pay something from 3-4 years ago...

Talk about insensitivity.

She didn't pay something from 3-4 years ago...

Talk about insensitivity.

Waah, waahh, the girl didn't pay something from 4 years ago, she's a rape victim, waaahhhh, let's jail her and not give her the morning after pill!

Welcome to the United States of Iran. :mad:

Waah, waahh, the girl didn't pay something from 4 years ago, she's a rape victim, waaahhhh, let's jail her and not give her the morning after pill!

Welcome to the United States of Iran. :mad:

that may end up happening if Iran keeps helping those nuts in Iraq

And I essentially agreed with you. The problem is that people don't want to face those results, and so they intentionally hold inconsistent viewpoints. They will tell you with absolute certainty that a zygote is just as important as Bob, while also telling you that they would save Bob before a freezer full of embryos.

It isn't impossible to hold inconsistent beliefs. People do it all the time. It would be more correct to say that nobody is willing to consistently uphold such beliefs. No one is willing to investigate every miscarriage as possible manslaughter/murder, even though the parents are at least scrutinized in any sudden death of a child. But they will still tell you (and you can only take someone's beliefs at the value of their words) that they believe the embryo to be equally a human person to that born child.
It bothers me how transparently full of shit they are, though. The people who claim to be most concerned about saving TEH BAY-BEEZ are also the people supporting policies that INCREASE the number of abortions, increase maternal and infant mortality rates, and increase the number of women facing unwanted pregnancies. They very, very obviously aren't remotely interested in actually reducing the number of abortions, because they deliberately pursue policies that will do the opposite. Their selfish, pathetic desire to own other people's bodies is far more important to them than actually improving anybody's health or saving a single life.

Its not, its part of Jesusland. Where you can believe in born again christianty or you are not worth living since you are going to hell.
She wanted to kill the baby, she is going to hell, along with people who have premarital sex, catholics, gay people, people that dont go to sermons, or figet during sermons, people who think world is older then 6000 years and them Jonhson family who' granny said that thing about our Susan.

You need to cool it. Christianity/Jesus/God/Christians had nothing to do with this one off incident. Not to mention that you're highly stereotyping against a whole bunch of people who also think this was wrong.

EDIT: This goes for anyone looking to religion bash.

I am not judging: I'm only repeating the judgement which God has told the civil government to carry out.

Leviticus 24:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17;&version=47;)

You're funny:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

*SNIP*

Would anyone risk their lives for that cooler? Would anyone forsake the unconcious bob for that cooler? According to the belief that cooler contains 10 MILLION human lives, ten million. To chose one, or two lives, over 10 million is barbaric, so the implication of that belief is that you MUST save the cooler.
*snip*

"When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic." -Stalin

It's Edwardis. Now before that... hmm... What was the name of that girl who used to quote bible verses at the drop of a hat, lived in Mississippi or there-abouts?

Neo Rogolia.

And now, a handy-dandy explanation of definitions. In order to be a child, one must be born. Therefore unborn child is an oxymoron, and nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Stop raping the English language.

And now, a handy-dandy explanation of definitions. In order to be a child, one must be born. Therefore unborn child is an oxymoron, and nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Stop raping the English language.
Anybody who uses the term "unborn child" should automatically be referred to as an "undead corpse."

Anybody who uses the term "unborn child" should automatically be referred to as an "undead corpse."

But undead has a distinct meaning that makes undead corpse not an oxymoron. Living corpse, maybe.

But undead has a distinct meaning that makes undead corpse not an oxymoron. Living corpse, maybe.
Good point.

You know, technically the term "unborn" can also be used to mean, "not yet in existence; belonging to or in the future." So a teenager could be an "unborn adult." A middle-aged adult could be an "unborn senior citizen." Or an "unborn corpse."

Whenever I hear of a disgusting story such as this I always fear it will be swept under the rug somehow. Beauracracies are good at that, a quick settlement with the woman and then bury the story. Hopefully she won't allow that to happen and will scream about this injustice as loud as she can.

It isn't impossible to hold inconsistent beliefs. People do it all the time. It would be more correct to say that nobody is willing to consistently uphold such beliefs. No one is willing to investigate every miscarriage as possible manslaughter/murder, even though the parents are at least scrutinized in any sudden death of a child. But they will still tell you (and you can only take someone's beliefs at the value of their words) that they believe the embryo to be equally a human person to that born child.

Doublethink is doubleplusgood. Pro-choice is thoughtcrime. Thoughtcriminals become unpersons!
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Doublethink is doubleplusgood. Pro-choice is thoughtcrime. Thoughtcriminals become unpersons!
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

*To the tune of "When I'm sixty-four"*

If people knew that I wrote this song
I'm singing right now

I would surely be erased for thoughcrime!
I'd just disappear in the night!

I can hear now the thougt police
knocking on my door!

We are all being watched by the Big Brother,
Nineteen eighty four!

Of course, because women's bodies are chattel. Rape them, handcuff them and cart them around, lock them up for no reason, deny them the right to prevent pregnancy...it all stems from the idea that women are just a little less than human.

The only way there'd be a bigger outcry is if the jail worker turned out to be Muslim.

The only way there'd be a bigger outcry is if the jail worker turned out to be Muslim.

Haha!

If the girl dosn't have a problem with aborting any child she might get from this rape, (clearly not since she wanted to take the pill) then she can still legally get an abortion should she become pregnant. Its not like she now has to live with this child since she was denied the pill.

If the girl dosn't have a problem with aborting any child she might get from this rape, (clearly not since she wanted to take the pill) then she can still legally get an abortion should she become pregnant. Its not like she now has to live with this child since she was denied the pill.

What a silly assumption. The fact that the woman was willing to take Plan B does not, in any way, suggest that she approves of or would be willing to have an abortion. The two are vastly different. Personally, I would have no problem with taking Plan B if I thought that I might become pregnant from a rape. I am, however, in most circumstances, opposed to abortion, and would be highly unlikely to choose that course of action for myself.

If the woman in question is morally opposed to abortion, denying her Plan B could result in a pregnancy. If that occurred, she would either have to do something she sees as morally wrong and get an abortion, or carry to term the child of her rapist.

If the girl dosn't have a problem with aborting any child she might get from this rape, (clearly not since she wanted to take the pill) then she can still legally get an abortion should she become pregnant. Its not like she now has to live with this child since she was denied the pill.

I'm sure this has been pointed out many times before, but the morning after pill doesn't cause an abortion. It prevents the pregnancy from happening in the first place by preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg. It's pretty different than regular abortion, medically and emotionally.

Also, I should imagine that if she does become pregnant, it will be very traumatizing because it will bring back the memories of the rape over and over again. I wouldn't be surprised if this girl contracted Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

What a silly assumption. The fact that the woman was willing to take Plan B does not, in any way, suggest that she approves of or would be willing to have an abortion. The two are vastly different. Personally, I would have no problem with taking Plan B if I thought that I might become pregnant from a rape. I am, however, in most circumstances, opposed to abortion, and would be highly unlikely to choose that course of action for myself.

If the woman in question is morally opposed to abortion, denying her Plan B could result in a pregnancy. If that occurred, she would either have to do something she sees as morally wrong and get an abortion, or carry to term the child of her rapist.

Your correct.... that was an asumption on my part..

There is no reason to justify the actions of the jail worker and surely the Tampa Police will hold her accountable. They are investigating the situation and and after the investigation is finished I'm sure they will hold her/him accountable for the actions.

I don't think they forced her to have an abortion (as the OP declared) considering that it's way to early to jump to the conclusions of her being pregnant. If she does end up to be pregnant then she'll have reason to sue.

This is all a very unfortunate situation and yes both the Tampa Police, City of Tampa, and the jailor need to be held accountable and have some sort of compenstation. With that being said, it's still won't make it right. The Police should have held the #1 priority of finding the rapist.

You need to cool it. Christianity/Jesus/God/Christians had nothing to do with this one off incident. Not to mention that you're highly stereotyping against a whole bunch of people who also think this was wrong.

EDIT: This goes for anyone looking to religion bash.

I am christian. But unlike this idiot I belive my religion is MY buisness. and I don't feel need to push it in anyones face.
I don't have any problem with religion. I have problem with people who are freaking fanatics and push their beliefs on other people.

Here's an updated story to the OP. In it, you will find that the whole religion thing is being overplayed. It seems as one person's word over another person's word which also tells me that nobody here is a human lie detector. So, who is telling the truth? Was there some kind of miscommunications?

"It had nothing to do with any religious preference or beliefs," D'Angelo said. "I think it might have been a miscommunication. Clearly the poor girl was distraught."

The nurse said only that she would do what she could to help, regardless of her personal beliefs, D'Angelo said.

The nurse is employed by Miami-based Armor Correctional Health Services, which supplies medical care for the jail. A spokeswoman said the claim that medication was withheld on religious grounds is false.

"All medications are administered to patients as prescribed," said spokeswoman Dana Clay. "A person's individual beliefs would not interfere."

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/31/Hillsborough/Police_extend_apology.shtml

If the girl dosn't have a problem with aborting any child she might get from this rape, (clearly not since she wanted to take the pill) then she can still legally get an abortion should she become pregnant. Its not like she now has to live with this child since she was denied the pill.

Even assuming that to be true, all she would have to go through would be the "minor" inconvenience of a VERY intrusive procedure due to the psychosis of one idiot.

Here's an updated story to the OP. In it, you will find that the whole religion thing is being overplayed. It seems as one person's word over another person's word which also tells me that nobody here is a human lie detector. So, who is telling the truth? Was there some kind of miscommunications?

"It had nothing to do with any religious preference or beliefs," D'Angelo said. "I think it might have been a miscommunication. Clearly the poor girl was distraught."

The nurse said only that she would do what she could to help, regardless of her personal beliefs, D'Angelo said.

The nurse is employed by Miami-based Armor Correctional Health Services, which supplies medical care for the jail. A spokeswoman said the claim that medication was withheld on religious grounds is false.

"All medications are administered to patients as prescribed," said spokeswoman Dana Clay. "A person's individual beliefs would not interfere."

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/31/Hillsborough/Police_extend_apology.shtml


Considering the fact that I know someone who sat in a Florida jail on a trumped-up charge for an entire weekend with no food or water because his paperwork had "gotten lost," I would tend to believe the victim in this case.

Considering the fact that I know someone who sat in a Florida jail on a trumped-up charge for an entire weekend with no food or water because his paperwork had "gotten lost," I would tend to believe the victim in this case.
Yeah, that sounds an awful lot like lawsuit-avoidance talk to me, the sort of thing you'd expect an employer to say at least until the two sets of lawyers can get together.

I say we shoot the cop and all of his family. And then burn down his house.

I say we shoot the cop and all of his family. And then burn down his house.

I say we take off, nuke the place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

I say we take off, nuke the place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Yes, and then we kill some kitties.

Yes, and then we kill some kitties.

I already do it. I'm God, remember? Remember those net ads? Well, it's not that there's causation, though, just correlation.