If Human Life Begins At Conception, Maybe Rape Is Not So Bad.

People who congratulate themselves on believing the cell or two formed at conception is an actual human being are naive about the consequences.   They are on a train with no brakes.

Two Republicans running for Congress have made statements advocating no abortions in cases of rape.  If you believe two cells are a human being, you will have a tough time arguing with them.

It goes like this.  The two cells are a human beings just like the mother.  The mother gets to live.  Why not the two cells?

When one believes the two cells are a full fledged human being, the door is open to the misogynist, one who hates women.

The latest Congressional candidate said it is “God’s will” a fetus resulting from a rape be born.  If this is true, it does not seem possible rape itself can be a serious crime.

When rape results in pregnancy, the rapist has caused a blessed event, planned for and approved by God.  If the woman, and women in general, dress in ways that attract rapists, doesn’t he deserve a little slack?

In fundamentalist Christianity, the man is to be the primary decision maker in a relationship.   My guess is the case will be made eventually the rapist father should not be in prison, but present to have a voice in raising his own child.

As I understand anti abortion reasoning, the two cells are important, men are important, women are not.


125 Responses

  1. Henry

    Jon, I am skeptical of what you claim. Let’s err on the side of life until you can prove the “fetus” isn’t human. The ball is in your court.

    1. Henry

      No proof? I really didn’t think there would be any. Skepticism is set aside by the “freethinker”. Assumption is embraced by the “freethinker”. They leave high potential for erring on the side of human death. They don’t know and don’t care.

      1. Henry 2:54 “No proof” (that the cell at conception is not a human being)
        Monty Python said, “Every sperm is sacred.” Prove that each sperm is not a human being.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          Monty Python as a reliable source; Profound ! ! ! !
          “Every sperm”; Let me think this over. Is not a sperm cell one of the two pre-fertilization components required for “two cells”? Are you saying that nocturnal emissions are spontanious abortions too? I did not know that.

        2. HenryS

          I’m gonna break something to you. Sit down. Hold on tight. To something. Here it comes: Monty Python DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING!!! Monty Python is a comedy group, not a person (human being).
          Hope that didn’t collapse your worldview.

          1. HenryS 9:31 Thanks for that observation.

            I’m gonna break something to you. Sit down. Hold on tight. To something. Here it comes: Monty Python DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING!!! Monty Python is a comedy group, not a person (human being).
            Hope that didn’t collapse your worldview.

            Monty Python is a comedy group but its observation that “every sperm is sacred” highlights an actual fact. That fact is the moment when a new human being is present in the world is arbitrary. We now determine is has happened when a doctor signs a birth certificate. That is a system we know from experience works in out society. Other societies have used the second birthday. That works for them. Using the “moment” a female egg is fertilized will never work in this society.

          2. HenryS

            “Every sperm is sacred” is a joke.
            Unfertilized eggs are neither male nor female. They have only XX chromosomes but that doesn’t make them female, for they do not develop.
            It’s sperms that are male or female in a sense, for they carry either XX or XY sex determinant chromosomes.
            No one forces a girl or woman to ovulate.
            No one forces a woman to open her cervix, to emit sperm-enabling cervical and uterine mucus.
            No one forces her to carry sperms up her fallopian tubes to meet her egg, which is still one of the cells of her body.
            No one forces her to transport a fertilized egg-blastocyst-embryo to her uterus.
            No one forces her endometrium to accept the embryo.
            Yet she is not responsible for what she has done?
            She can just kill the new human being that she has contributed the most to its existence?
            When does it stop?
            Why can’t your mother kill you with impunity? Why, she gets in trouble just for dumping you in a bus station restroom.

          3. HenryS 10:29 When does it stop?”

            The question is, when does it start? It remains arbitrary. That’s why it is OK to say, “Every sperm is sacred.”

          4. HenryS

            Perhaps it’s been a while since you took a biology class.
            The moment of fertilization not only is known scientifically, videos (not animations) of the completion of DNA wrapping and first mitosis are available.
            In the instance of an individual woman, it is not presently possible to detect this event inside her fallopian tube.
            Well? What of it? If I accidentally run over a child in a marked crosswalk due to my being distracted by a bee getting in the cab, I didn’t mean to but I’m held responsible nevertheless.
            If I’m doing something that I know or should know is grossly negligent, and someone is injured or killed, or their property is damaged, I’m not only held civilly responsible for damages but criminally.
            If a woman obtains an abortion, she may not particularly want her child to die, only to be relieved of pregnancy or the care of the child, but she knows or should know that a certain outcome of the pregnancy termination is the death of the child she generated within her body. Why is she granted impunity?

          5. HenryS 1:20 is the death of the child she generated within her

            I see you follow the same practice as other anti abortion political operatives. You consider yourself very precise about the process that takes place when the egg becomes fertilized. Then, as soon as the discussion turns to abortion you get very sloppy–sloppiness fits the political agenda. That which is aborted is not a child, it is a fetus.

            “Perhaps it’s been a while since you took a biology class.”

  2. Matt

    Two wrongs do not make a right. Why should the child deserve to die because of the crime of another person. Rape is most definately NOT planned or approved by God, this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! You aparently have a very distorted image of who God is. God allows us to exercise our free wills. Because that person used their free will for evil does not justify the murder of an inocent child.

    1. Matt 12:13 Thanks for the comment. The Senate candidate who said rape and a resulting pregnancy is God’s plan must certainly believe it to be true just as you believe it not to be true. It is a way to make women feel guilty and the beginning of an effort to reduce the punishment for rape.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Jon; “It is a way to make women feel guilty and the beginning of an efforrt to reduce the punishment for rape”. I don’t believe that is the case. The congressman made a dumb-ass inexcusable statement. I rather doubt he was trying to reduce the punishment for rape though. What his personal opinion of women though may be questionable rape or not. Another line of thought on this could be that he mis-spoke, didn’t mean it to come out that way, and his opponents picked up on it and ran with it for political purposes. Would politicians do that? Answer; In a heartbeat.

        1. Wanna 2:03 “I don’t believe that is the case.”

          I actually do believe it is the case. And, I’m not the only one–blogsphere is fully of views like mine. As one wrote the other day, many of these new candidates are not polished people. They stepped out of a right-to-life meeting and annouced their candidacy. What he talked about is what his circle talked about.

          Just now on HuffPost is a headline about Pennsylvania. The effort there is to force women to “prove” rape before giving them a pass on abortion. The thing is, rape presents a problem for right to life political operatives. A rape pregnancy occurs and the majority of the public sides with the woman on an abortion. If they eliminate the rape by blaming the woman, or, setting an unreachable bar for proof, they have eliminated their dilemma.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; So we disagree on “the case”. Unlike you, I am considering both sides of the argument, while you appear to be looking at just one.

            What is going on in Pennsylvanis as a different subject, and blaming the woman is inexcusable. I think I said that in so many words earlier.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; So then, I guess you would be in favor of taking every rapist out and kill them when caught? Fair is only fair, right? Is that your solution?

          3. Wanna re solution?

            The solution is obvious. Convict rapists under present law. Allow women made pregnant by rapists to have abortions. But, anti abortion activitists do not want there two things to happen. That’s because they have decided one cell is a human being. The one cell theory is where the problem begins.

          4. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; I thought you were talking about two cells. Oh, that’s right, I’m 8 minutes late.

            About the DNA? available immediately after fertilization, (give or take 8 minutes).

          5. Wanna 2:04 Where does it say in the Bible, “When there is new DNA, it is now a human being.” You, or someone, has made from thin air a definition of a “human being”. In western law, the rule since way back when has been life as a human being begins at birth. When do you celebrate your birthday, at the day you had your first DNA? If not, you have to admit its an arbitrary difinition.

            “Every sperm is sacred” is just as valid a way to define a “human being” as “new DNA”.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            And people have been convicted of taking the life of an unborn child in accidents. Guess they should have been driving 45 MPH.

          7. Wanna B Sure

            Glad you recognize “New DNA”. Every time a skin cell falls of your body, it too contains your DNA. Would they be called “Mini Yous”? Cast your seed on the ground, or in coal pail, more “mini Yous”? Certainly not “New DNA”, alive, being nourished, and allowed to grow.

          8. Wanna 2:47 New DNA is just another arbitrary definition about when “human life begins”. It is hard for people with religious convictions to consider it objectively. In other places in the world, a baby gets a name and is considered human at two years or so. In Roe v Wade, the court selected another arbitrary definition.

            Technology marches on. Suppose it becomes possible for a sperm to be fertized in a test tube by introducting DNA from a woman, one DNA at the time. Is it the first of thousands, or, when all thousands have been introduced that “human life” starts?

            Monty Python, “every sperm is sacred” has validity because every sperm contains human DNA. If human DNA is there, representing millions of years of human beings, then why not consider it sacred? Oh, because you made up a different rule, its like the father’s. It’s still human.

            Maybe we need a different rule. Human life begins when babies say there first word. Human life begins when babies grow hair. We’re back to the only definition that works, your birthday. Whenever it is, Happy Birthday.

          9. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; If I remember right, there is a group/society that recognizes life officially beginning at age 12 or 14? You can go there if you want to be sure. They may have “famous people” there too.

          10. Wanna 3:18 re: group “recognizes life officially beginning at age 12 or 14.”

            Are you saying a group of people who have arrived at this custom are morally deficient? Are you saying part of the Eskimo culture that killed babies and socially pressured old people past their working age to committ suicide because there would not be enough food for the clan to survive are morally deficient?

            “When life begins” takes many turns across cultual lines and survival conditions. The Monty Python, “every sperm is sacred” might fit at some point in time, other rules at some other time. Perhaps you missed my post that pointed to the sperm that is packed with human DNA.

          11. Wanna B Sure

            That’s not counting the the ones killing the “Mini Yous” you “cast on the ground” behind your tent.

          12. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; Did not say anything of the sort. You can’t read. Better take a refresher course in reading comprehension.

            Re the DNA; Your term; “New DNA” verses DNA from one half of the “doners”. Now you’re back to the strawberry patch, and lost. You need a relly famous person to help you. Let me think of a couple for you. Oprah Winfrey? Joel Osteen? (I see they are pairing up. you would get a two-fer) A politician? No, in a few short years, no one will remember most of them, except for the crooks. Donald Trump? He’s famous. Jay Lenno, David Letterman? They’re both famous. or you could go for infamous. I can think of a couple there too.

          13. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; Re. your 8:20 “sperm packed with DNA; Yes, and so are your skin cells in your bed being gobbled up as we speak. Don’t forget the other source, the unfertilized egg sloughed off and out if not fertilized.

          14. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; Just like a sexist. Always thinking about the spermies, and not about the egg. But then again, neither one of them alone constitute “New DNA”, (your term), Looks like you could pair up with the Senator. You both think alike. (The rope trick; Two opposite ends meet to make a circle).

          15. Stan

            Jon (Where does it say in the Bible, “When there is new DNA, it is now a human being.”)

            Where is the word abortion used in the Constitution as a right? No Where, it is
            “found” right taking a lot of gymnastics to get to.

          16. Demosthenes

            @ Stan October 25, 2012 at 10:26 pm

            Gee…. Stan are we to believe that if it don’t exist in the U.S. Constitution or Amendments that we don’t have those rights?

          17. Stan

            Gee Demosthenes! Jon must think since the Bible doesn’t address DNA we done have any of that either. So how is Philosophy 101 doing, have your midterm yet?

          18. HenryS

            Strict pro-life/anti-abortion advocates are not interested in proving rape as they do not believe in the “rapenincest” exception.
            “Matt,” Oct. 25, 2012 is an example.

          19. HenryS

            The US Constitution is in part purposed to protect the minority from the majority, the weak from the strong, the innocent from the guilty.
            The majority can fend for themselves. The strong can hold their own.
            To this end the Constitution forbids putting anyone out of the protection of the law.

          20. HenryS 11:06 “To this end the Constitution forbids putting anyone out of the protection of the law.

            “Anyone”. Just assume away the problem of defining who this “anyone” is and you have the answer.

            “Anyone” includes the mother. She will not have equal rights while pregnant if human-at-conception is the law. She will be under the supervision of the government, what does she eat, how long does she work before birth, can she go in a tavern, must all women show documentation they are not pregnant before they are allowed to smoke or drink etc etc.

        2. Henry

          Rape is rarely punished now. Most rapes are committed by family, near relatives, “friends,” and acquaintances, people known to the rape victim.
          Absent provable physical harm, most rapes come down to either statutory or “she said, he said.”
          Accused rapists usually admit having intimate contact with the claimed victim. They claim that the alleged victim consented, often that the alleged victim initiated the contact, even to the point of coercing an unwilling accused.
          Rape allegations are easy to make and difficult to prove without evidence of violence and brutality.
          Some Feminists insist that an accusation by a woman is proof enough. That no woman would ever falsely claim to be raped, or falsely accuse a man of raping her. That women who recant are coerced or decide not to to through the ordeal of a rape prosecution.
          Yet some recant years later when the whole thing is long since past and the falsely accused “rapist” has been in prison for years.

  3. Wanna B Sure

    “If Human Life Begins at Conception, Rape is a bad way to start it” !
    “If Human Life Begins at Conception, Rape is not the fault of the mother” !
    “If Human Life Begins at Conception, Rape is not the fault of the unborn” !
    “If Human Life Begins at Conception, incest is a bad way to start it” !
    “If Human Life Begins at Conception, incest is not the fault of the mother” !
    “If Human Life Begins at Conception, incest is not the fault of the unborn” !

    1. Wanna B Sure

      Re. the “Incest is not the fault of the mother”; Not necessarily in every case, unless very low IQ is considered. I do know of a situation of a brother and sister in a consenting incestual relationship, which resulted in a pregnency. Both were over 21 yr. old. The girl didn’t know she was pregenant until late term. Baby was delivered, Social Services were involved, Girl (sister) and baby moved away, Boy (brother) moved away in a different direction. Don’t know situation of any one. For the baby, bad genetics under ideal conditions, worse due to incest.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Just to clarify; At the time, it was called “The welfare Office”, not Social Services. This was a long time ago. There also was a “poor farm” in the county. Actually not a “farm” in the sense of farm, but an area set aside for free shack type housing with garden space, and a brush pile convenient to dispose of empty beer or whiskey bottles, in virtually every case.

  4. Author

    “As I understand anti abortion reasoning, the two cells are important, men are important, women are not.”

    This is how a “Freethinker” understands it? All I can say is wow. Explains much.

    1. Author 2:04 Thanks for coming on to comment. You are welcome here anytime.

      I think the record speaks for itself. The woman is expendable. The two cells are not. And, men are more important than women.

      1. HenryS

        How does a woman, pregnant by rape or not, “expend” or “be expended” by carrying her baby, who she generated by her own bodily functions?
        Women are not like salmon who spawn once and then die.
        And the homunculus theory has long since been thoroughly abandoned.

  5. Wanna B Sure

    Question: How long doe it take for “two cells” to divide , then divide again, then divide again, and again, and again, and so on.? I looked it up, and the closest time I found was division is about every 8 minutes. The number “two” cells, is such a short time frame to make it irrelevent. Then another consideration: (again), all the chromosones/DNA (information of the unborn) is fully present at the first division, if my understanding is right.

    1. Wanna 2:52 “The number ‘two cells’ is such a short time is is irrelevant.”

      I don’t understand that statement at all. The anti abortion company line is that it is a full fledged human being when it is virtually nothing, two cells. That is a correct restatement of the company line whether it is two cells for 8 seconds, 8 minutes or 8 weeks. The concept is absurd and puts in motion circumstances that I discussed on rape.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Nothing to do with rape at all, and your “I don’t understand that statement at all.” is understandable. DNA information?

      2. HenryS

        By the time of implantation in the endometrium, which is the earliest that a mother’s body “knows” that she is pregnant and a pregnancy (urine) test can show positive, the embryo is composed of several hundred cells.
        The “two cells” argument has no practical validity. A fertilized egg is a single cell for a short time and is already an unique individual distinct from its mother or its father.

        1. HenryS 10:26 By the time of implantation in the endometrium, which is the earliest that a mother’s body “knows” that she is pregnant and a pregnancy (urine) test can show positive, the embryo is composed of several hundred cells

          That is why I put the term “moment” in quotes. Two cells, a thousand cells, it is still an arbitrary definition to be made by complex cultural forces. That is how it always has been.

  6. Stan

    Kind of like Obama’s statement today that he wanted more wind turbines, made here in China while spoke in Colorado. Or Biden saying we have spent a lot of money on the campaign here in Iowa as he spoke in Ohio.

  7. entech

    Fascinating, not a single condemnation of rape as such.
    “Every sperm is sacred”, of course it is, that is why the “Device of Onan” is such a terrible sin.

    1. Wanna B Sure

      Entech; “not a single condemnation of rape as such”. Rape is such an evil act,I don’t think it even needs to be said. It is a given. Just mention the name Hitler in Israel for a paralell. No one here is defending rape as a good thing
      Re. Onan; I was wondering when this would come up. “What was wasted” wasn’t the issue, (pun intended). The problem was disobedience, “..in order not to give offspring to his brother”. He wanted it for himself, which was not the tradition of the day. “…was displeasing in the sight of the Lord…” There, that wasn’t so hard.

      1. entech

        I don’t know why you bother to respond to my posts. After your gratuitous attack and insults you have forfeit any expectation of being taken seriously you having any response.

      2. Wanna B Sure

        Oh my don’t you have a high regard of yourself. Is this your best response to the subject at “Hand”? Your Onan topic required rebuttal, and ou can’t rebutt, other than to do a payground tactic. I understand. Your poor widdle feewings are hurt now, and you don’t wanna play. Poor boy.

        1. entech

          You really do not understand, do you? You suggested that I was incapable of friendship and then the biggest insult of all that a follower of the author of the “Jews and their Lies” would say that I was racist, beggars belief.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            Now desperation rears it’s ugly head. If you think your newly introduced diversion will hurt my feelings, you are sadly mistaken. I have thicker skin and understanding than that. Unlike you. Go cry yourself to sleep.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Entech; You have my permission to visit King George III, and lick your wounds with him. But wait, that’s right, he was English. Never mind.

  8. Michael Ross

    Exodus 21:16
    “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.”

    Deuteronomy 22:25–27
    25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death.”

    Perhaps if we would have hung a few slave traders in the 17th century we could have avoided the civil war which cost the lives of 600,000 young Americans.

    And just maybe if we would execute a few convicted rapists we would spare thousands of women the horrible trauma of rape. But libs say kill the kid and “rehabilatate” the rapist.

    The moral status of the sexual act that produced a pregnancy has no bearing on the humanity of the unborn child. Kill the rapist and welcome the kid into the world.

    1. entech

      I guess this is one answer to the question asked a while ago. The question was does a pro-life stand include opposition to capital punishment? Apparently not.
      At least not always.

      If, as Mr. Mourdock says it is “something God intended”, I will accept that he did not mean to say the rape itself was intended, but he at least means that the pregnancy should continue and it is god’s intention that a child be born. Is it possible to extend this to say that every time a child or mother, or both, die in the process that this is also God’s intention? That all those in impoverished countries with very high mortality rates are also – but you have heard this before: how is it possible to know what is an intention, an accident, bad luck etc.?

      Should a woman be forced to suffer a horrible memory for nine months, surely there are chemical means “morning after pills” that could be used as a preventive measure. Or, are women simply supposed to be baby factories, a life support system for the womb.

      For Henry the skeptic, a search tells me a fetus is from 8 weeks after conception. One would hope any termination/prevention would be long before this. A valid question but a diversion from the topic and an another excuse to attack the “evil doer who fails to accept my belief system”.

      1. Henry

        entech: “One would hope any termination/prevention would be long before this.”

        Proof that “termination” would not be enacted on a human? Are we to assume there is no human in the embryonic stage? This seems very unscientific.

          1. Henry 12:10 “Unscientific and unethical.”

            What is unscientific and unethical is your refusal to deal with the problem of sacred sperm. Monty Python is famous thorughout the world. Perhaps as many people have heard of Monty Python as have heard of the Bible. So, when they say, “Every sperm is sacred,” you have an obligation to disprove it if you disagree. Instead, you just disregard it. What you are doing is putting you own opinion up as the ultimate truth and disregarding that of a group much more famous than either you or I.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Jon That is just silly. Monty Python indeed. Go to Borneo. Shout “MONTY PYTHON” ! ! I bet the natives wwould run like hell.

            “A group much more famous than you or I”. Now “Fame” is the gold standard for integrity and honesty? Really! ! (That’s not in the form of a question) We have just entered the twilight zone. Knock knock–Jon–is that you in there? (That is a question).

          3. Wanna B Sure

            Jon is popular. Ten million dust mites would seem to think so, and they are slurping up his DNA as we speak.

        1. entech

          Are we to assume that no human is killed when capital punishment is administered, do you argue against the death penalty in any and all circumstances.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            Is that in the form of a question??? If it is, the answer is; Yes. In fact in Minnesota, it is the law, and I am fully in favor of it, (that is to say; no capital punishment) so as not to be misunderstood. Making a human dead is killing. Purpously ending human life is killing. There is a difference between murder and killing, (consider accidents), and the civil punishments vary according to the situation,but dead is dead.

  9. .E

    Jon, I read thru this, but I don’t think I saw any indication of when you think life does exist and has rights? Whatcha think?

    These comments are so scientifically enlightening, I can hardly stand it.

    1. .E 6:49 Glad to have you stop in again. “…when do you think life does exist and has rights?” In our culture, there is one moment when we all agree life begins and has rights, when we are born.

      I also know one cell is not a human being. We now operate under Roe v Wade and that seems to work OK. The religious concept that life begins at one cell provides an opening for those who do not believe rape is an important event, as I explained in my blog.

      1. Henry

        Jon: “In our culture, there is one moment when we all agree life begins and has rights, when we are born.”

        Speak for yourself. I don’t agree with that.

          1. Henry

            Jon, you got that there proof yet? I would like to believe you are operating off of something other than assumption. You doggedly are avoiding providing proof.

          2. entech

            Because Jon cannot give proof that fetus is not human, there being so many definitions of ‘human’, perhaps you could give a definition to work on. That way proof or lack of it relating to your definition could be attempted – although not every one would agree with your definition, or the proof (+/-). Not a great deal of detail about embryology in your scriptures.

            However this should not prevent you from proof about the sacredness or otherwise of every individual sperm, you big quoque tu.

          3. Henry

            endtech: “perhaps you could give a definition to work on.”

            Jon made a claim in his original post. He claims the fertilized human egg is not human. A little scientific proof would be in order for his claim (It was politely requested many times). Is that too difficult?

            The reality is I don’t think he can do it.

          4. Henry 12;25 “He claims the fertilized human egg is not human.”

            When did I write that, either in discussion or in the blog? I’m quite careful not to say that, so if I did, please point it out and I will correct it.

          5. entech

            Actually that is not quite true, obviously we are learning the skills of sophistry from you. All the way through the post expression such as: “People who congratulate themselves on believing the cell … ” and so on, no where is it stated that the fetus is NOT human.
            If someone (me usually) says something about what you have to say and is wrong because of a misreading or unwarranted assumption you are very quick (and rightly so) to correct. In this case you are attacking something that was not stated.

          6. Henry

            Jon: “When did I write that, either in discussion or in the blog?”

            Quite clearly in your “two cell” hypothesis mocking Christians for calling these human reproductive cells human.

          7. Henry

            Jon: “Please stop making up things.”

            Jon, I just couldn’t make your bizarre rants up, whether paraphrase or direct quote.

          8. Henry 3:33 “Jon, I just couldn’t make you bizarre rants up, whether paraphrase or direct quote.”

            You are not quoting what I wrote. You are practicing your favorite game, here, misdirection. Please quote an entire sentence I wrote and stop paraphrasing me to reflect something I did not write. Thank you.

          9. entech

            Henry you would, quite rightly, deal severely with anyone making the same dishonest extensions and diversions that you are trying on here.

            Your reply to Jon @ 3:33 regarding bizarre rants: I think your creationism (you haven’t said, but I suspect young earth) is the most bizarre thing on this planet at this time. Even if the need for a creator is established by the likes of Bill Craig or Alvin Plantinga (I can follow their arguments and agree some points, but remain to be convinced) there is nothing apart from some ancient texts (scripture if you want) to say it is your God, your Trinity that is that creator, the arguments are neutral and could apply to Hebrew or Islamic thought, Hindu or even some of the aboriginal creation stories from around the world.

          10. Henry

            Jon, your denial of your position is laughable. Even more humorous is entech piling on your denial. You will have to read your own post very carefully, and a little slower next time. Your mocking the “two cells” being thought of as humans by others is prevalent throughout your work. The implication is clear, but feel free and keep denying with your very own sophistry.

          11. Henry 1:41 “Jon, your denial of your position is laughable.”

            You, on the other hand, clererly slip between the terms “human” and “humans”, neither of which I used to describe attributes to two cells by right to lifers. A clipped toe nail is “human”.

            I stated clearly two cells are not a human being, and, should not be treated as such in our laws. Any other portrayal of what I wrote is inaccurate.

          12. Henry

            Jon: “I stated clearly two cells are not a human being”

            Obviously, you weren’t previously talking about a “clipped toe nail”. You were talking about “two cells” as it related to human reproduction and the products thereof.

            Jon, do you have any proof the “fetus” and “two cells” are not human?

          13. Henry

            Jon: “They have no birth certificates.”

            Jon, by your “reasoning”, the people born prior to the 18oo’s were not human beings.

            Jon, do you have any proof the “fetus” and “two cells” are not human?

      2. Stan

        “In our culture, there is one moment when we all agree life begins and has rights, when we are born.” Arguing from the absolute again Jon, bad form. All it takes is one person to disagree and your premise is wrong. Ever taken a critical thinking class?

      3. Stan

        Jon, some medical”ethesists” from Europe several months ago called for termination of infants at up 1 year old under certain circumstances and you accuse us of setting arbitrary ages? I have mentioned this several times and you have never condemned or agreed with them.

        “The man who takes the cake (so far) is John Holdren, a Harvard University Professor (aren’t they all), who has advocated in the past that it would be okay to abort an infant up to two years old. That’s right, kill babies. His reasoning is that until the baby can realize that there’s a tomorrow, the baby is not really human.”

        1. Stan 2:08 re: medical estesists, Europe

          Often I don’t respond to posts that seem so off the wall I don’t understand what their point is. This seems to be one. What does a medical ethesist in Europe have to do with me?

          If it’s important to you to know what I think about something supposedly said by a European esthesist, I’ll tell you. I don’t agree with it.

          It’s hard to explain my views when people don’t pay close attention and assign what they want to think these views are. When you say I accuse right to lifers their definition of the “moment” life begins is arbitrary, that is correct. But, I not saying some other views have some kind of absolutes under pinning them either. All views about when life begins are “arbitrary” because they grow our of some cultural or religious bias. The god that is worshipped and such things as the beginning of human life spring from the values and circumstances of the culture. The culture is influenced by its economic circumstances history and so on.

          The Catholic church, according to our former Governor who is a devout Catholic, George Sinner, has not always held to life begins at conception. Cultural circumstances apparently forced changes the theology of the Catholic Church like it does other denominations.

  10. .E

    You know, upon thinking about this, I know you won’t answer, so don’t bother. Anything you write here will be just be a smart ass comment.

    I came back to see what was up here as I was bored, but it isn’t worth the aggravation.

    1. Demosthenes

      If a human child is two cells what of In Vitro ? I don’t ever see protestors in front of those clinics. Hundreds maybe thousands of eggs don’t take…..Murders!!!(sarc)

      When Science conflicts with Religion they call it Creationism, ID, Etc….

      When Science teaches use Embryology Religion calls it Life.

      Religion trying to pick and choose what to believe in just like they do with their silly little rule books. God said this but really meant that ……

      1. entech

        D. ‘In Vitro’ and other forms of assisted pregnancy never seem to get any criticism, no matter how many failures, how many as you say “fail to take”. Perhaps the case where several are created and the most viable used is not murder just selection. You never hear any say, you just weren’t intended to have children, get over it, stem cell research is evil but disposing of unwanted eggs and sperms and combinations is not?

        In my newspaper yesterday a technique for preventing mitochondrial genetic disorders from being passed on was described – from what I can make out a healthy donor egg is neutralised and genetic material from the mother to be is implanted the combined egg is then fertilised so that the probability of a healthy child without congenital defects is probable. (over simplified and perhaps wrong in detail, not my subject). Are the development of such techniques, intended to enable couples to have children where they otherwise could not, or preventing the propagation of genetic faults, be morally acceptable to pro-life people – even though as part of the development and subsequent treatments some embryos will be prevented from maturing? If “potential future Persons” are deprived of their potential?

        To be perfectly consistent shouldn’t all such research be ended, you are countering ‘intended’ events. In cases where the mother does not want to keep the child, perhaps we could educate the infertile people into the belief that their adopting the unwanted children is what is “intended”.

        1. Henry

          entech: “‘In Vitro’ and other forms of assisted pregnancy never seem to get any criticism”

          You obviously haven’t been paying attention. We get the usual shallow “freethinker” scholarship.

          1. entech

            I stand corrected, all I can say in my defense is that it is not proclaimed as loudly, that it is not as dramatic so does not get the popular coverage.

            The approach from your leads indicates that even two cells in a petri dish is to be considered human, more consistency than I had given credit for, my mistake.

    2. .E “partial birth abortion.”

      Good political shot–that might even qualify as “smart ass”, but I’ll let your reference to abortions late pregnancy, fetus’ which are not “partially born”, but not born at all, pass.

      I’ve known of a couple of these, and read of many others. Those I know of were problem pregnancies. I have no problems with any late-term abortion I have heard of. When people in Congress learn just why these are necessary, they lose their zest for banning them. I can’t say I know a lot about it. Maybe there is some aspect of late term abortions I would disapprove of if I knew more.

      1. Stan

        Obama voted in favor when he was in the state legislature of allowing the babies of botched abortions where the baby survived to die through refusal of medical care. I would say that is something many freethinkers seem to agree with. Is that murder?

        1. Stan 1:29 “Is that murder?”

          Was anyone convicted of murder for doing that? I had people parading outside my house years ago with signs saying “Lindgren is a murderer.” I don’t really take to broad sweeping use of that term.

          1. Demosthenes

            Stan October 26, 2012 at 1:50 am

            “Ok, refusal of medical care, is it within the Hippocratic oath?”

            Gee Stan, Are we to believe that the oath is taken by all medical care providers and State Senators as well? That seems to be your implication. Along with President Obama how many other Senators voted in favor?

          2. Stan

            Demosthenes, show me one who hasn’t followed the Path and doesn’t at least pay lip service to it and that would be the first I ever heard of. It has been a tradition of medical doctors for 2000 years. Had you even heard of it before? I think sometimes your education is lacking.

  11. John Solberg

    I noticed a placard on the window where the pro-lifers are standing and it read ” Pray to stop sidewalk bullying.” I asked the fellows there if maybe they were being bullies to the people that enter the clinic. Oh, no at least I hope not. I am just here to pray for them and change their minds. I said that if I was going into a clinic and had people trying to change my mind I would feel that I was being bullied.
    I guess in the pro-lifer’s mind bullying is what happens to them when someone disagrees with them.

    1. entech

      Assassination and bombing could be interpreted as bullying!
      I am sure all those Christian Relativists would agree that two wrongs do not make a right.

      1. Stan

        There are people who are not of right mind within any large group. Was there high fives amongst the prolife advocates? If so I must have missed it. You like to cover all for the sins of a few.

        1. entech

          Stan, I have seen interviews on a BBC Television programme where people in the south were interviewed and said that the murder of an abortion doctor was justifies, admittedly a biased programme.

          I must confess to being inclined tocover all for the sins of a few, but the opposite is also true, you often pick something good to counter the sins of any (generally, not in this particular case). I sometimes wonder which is worse, exaggerating or covering up, exaggeration is hyperbole but the attempt to divert attention from the few that do is dishonest and fallacious thinking (note I said dishonest thinking – fooling yourself not deliberately setting out to fool other people).

  12. Gerry

    IF a rape subject was assured that she would not be beaten, cut, bitten, her privates battered, murdered, given a STD, herpes, AIDS, that her family and “friends” would not blame her, coerce her to get an abortion, all the negatives besides unwanted sexual intercourse, being raped would not be nearly as traumatic. If her body is not damaged, it’s her mind, her psyche, that is raped. Normal vaginal intercourse is physically the same whether performed by her consent or by a rapist.

  13. Mac2

    “Entech,” the assassination problem is of the assassination of tens of millions of human beings, not of defensive actions taken against their murderers.
    When government not only fails to do their job of punishing the serial murderers of innocent humans but attacks those who object, there is something severely wrong.
    Laws that put any human being out of the protection of the law are unconstitutional in the USA. Jews, Slavs and Gypsies were put out of the protection of the law by the Nazis. “Negroes” (of all skin colors, nose shapes, hair colors and types) were put out of the protection of the liberty and property protection laws in the USA.

  14. Mac2

    Jon Lindgren, millions of people in the USA have no birth certificates. Haven’t you seen the news features about people who all of a sudden couldn’t vote, renew driver licenses, etc. due to no birth certificate?
    Is it OK, then, to enslave or kill them, or is that privilege reserved to their mothers and their hired killers?
    How about the Puerto Ricans, whose birth certificates were all canceled? Can anyone go to PR and kill them before new BCs can be issued? I first heard this idea, that anyone who doesn’t have a BC is fair game, from Bill Baird, a notorious abortionist in New York.

    1. Mac2 Thanks for posting. I would appreciate it if you would use the signature, Mac2, since we have another Mac who posts here. Thanks and welcome to the discussion.

  15. Mac2

    To Stan:
    What does a clump of cells become when it realizes that tomorrow never comes? The instant tomorrow gets here, it’s today.

Comments are closed.