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.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/richard_mourdock_misogynist/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to If Human Life Begins at Conception, Maybe Rape is Not So Bad.

  1. Henry says:

    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.

    • Henry says:

      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.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        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.

        • Henry says:

          You first on the proof, please.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          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. Matt says:

    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.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      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.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        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.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Earlier= line 2 ;12:26

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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.

          • Stan says:

            Less then 2% of abortions are done to remove fetuses that are the result of rape or incest.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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).

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I see on Web MD that (((((1%))))) –ONE PERCENT of all abortions performed are due to rape.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; I see you are still evading the DNA question.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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”.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Knock knock

          • Wanna B Sure says:

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

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Or slower.

            Gnock Gnock—-Anybody home there?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Back down the rabbit hole to the “Sacred musings” of Monty Python. (A famous person).

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; Watch out for dust mites ! ! They’re killers.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; And— there are ten million of them in your bed killing your “Minni Yous”.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

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

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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).

          • Stan says:

            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.

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            @ 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?

          • Stan says:

            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?

  3. Wanna B Sure says:

    “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” !

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      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.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        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 says:

    “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.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      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.

  5. Wanna B Sure says:

    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.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      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.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

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

  6. Stan says:

    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 says:

    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.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      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.

      • entech says:

        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.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        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.

        • entech says:

          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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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 says:

    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.

    • entech says:

      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”.

      • Henry says:

        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.

        • Henry says:

          Unscientific and unethical.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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).

          • Stan says:

            Jon, Entredh says even if the Bible is popular, that doesn’t make it right……Monty Python is Popular.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

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

        • entech says:

          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.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            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 says:

    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.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .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.

      • Henry says:

        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.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 10:38 “I don’t agree with that.”

          Sorry to learn you do not think babies are human.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            twist

          • Henry says:

            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.

          • entech says:

            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.

          • Henry says:

            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.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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.

          • entech says:

            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.

          • Henry says:

            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.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:19 Please stop making up things. Please quote only the things I actally write. I did not write what you just claimed I wrote.

          • Henry says:

            The reality is I don’t think Jon can provide the proof to his claim.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “Please stop making up things.”

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

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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.

          • entech says:

            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.

          • Henry says:

            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.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            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.

          • Henry says:

            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?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 7:53 re: do you have proof?

            Yes, I have proof they are not human beings. They have no birth certificates.

          • Henry says:

            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?

      • Stan says:

        “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?

      • Stan says:

        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.”

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          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 says:

    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.

  11. .E says:

    Ok, you proved me wrong. Thanks for not being smart ass!

    Are you ok with partial birth abortion?

    • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

      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 ……

      • entech says:

        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”.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .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.

      • Stan says:

        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?

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          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.

          • Stan says:

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

          • Avatar of Demosthenes Demosthenes says:

            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?

          • Stan says:

            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.

  12. John Solberg says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>