Do you think there was divine intervention in those instances?

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM

I believe the Bible if that’s what you’re asking.

Do you believe ever birth and death is the result of God giving and taking life? Do we have no free will of our own?

Feel free to say God gave and took life in both instances, but neither required diving intervention as both were natural consequences of their actions.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:57 PM

They are consequences that don’t necessarily follow the action. Not all sex results in pregnancy, obviously, and not all suicides succeed. Sometimes God gives or takes the life, and sometimes not.

In the OT, there were several instances where God “opened” or “shut the womb” of women who wanted children. Do you think there was divine intervention in those instances?

Time for an O-bortion

dmann on August 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Nice. Get that on a T-shirt…..NOW.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Get that on coffee mugs, yard signs, bumper stickers, buttons, pins everything!!! That is outstanding! I’ll buy!

If marriage first then family was not the proper way to do things, it would not be the cultural model it has been throughout all history around the world.

The feminazis wanted to promote sex as a primary life goal in our culture. Guess what? They succeeded.

But they are still wrong, both morally and practically.

/sarc

No, my wife and I did wait and no, we weren’t having sex. I’m recently married, and we were chaste before our wedding.

So on your wedding night, or whenever you consummated your marriage, you were then intending to get pregnant?

I wasn’t assuming you had sex before getting married. Not all married couples want kids right away. Most would rather get used to each other first.

“oh, I was responsible but this happened anyway–I’ll abort without a qualm” is just wrong.

I’ve agreed with that all along. I haven’t minced words on this topic, so I don’t see how you’d think I felt otherwise.

But then, there’s no threat of an abortion either, is there, when you can’t get pregnant.

So? There’s no threat of an abortion among many married couples who use birth control either. I am married and would gladly raise a child if I become pregnant, but I also know that I’m not yet ready and am doing everything short of denying my husband sex to keep that from happening.

As for your equivalent of the guy killing himself, it’s not the same since a child will not be born without a soul (or live very long). The soul comes from God, not you.

No, that wasn’t the point of my comment.

My point was that yes, God gives and takes life, but babies and suicide don’t “just happen.” It isn’t just this mystical thing where God gives us babies, unless you’re the Virgin Mary.

That’s not true of all miscarriages, of course, but my belief (not doctrine) is that many are likely that.

That’s not my belief. Miscarriages are very painful on women. Their own body kills their child. My sister had one before giving birth to her first child, and her only comfort afterwards was either through a dream or some kind of vision, where she heard God tell her that her baby was with Him and named him Adam.

God’s not sadistic. I do not believe He would give a woman a baby only to take it away.

Things happen because we live in a flawed world that has fallen since Adam and Eve betrayed God. Not every bad thing in the world can be attributed to God trying to teach us something.

dm60462 on August 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Horrible.

I’m just saying that to have sex means you should be prepared to deal with having a baby. Trying to use birth control and when it fails saying,
“oh, I was responsible but this happened anyway–I’ll abort without a qualm” is just wrong.

If you have sex, you’d better be prepared to have the kid. Sex is also for bonding, I agree. And yeah, when you are incapable of having a child, you can still have sex–no problems there. Sex while pregnant is the same. But then, there’s no threat of an abortion either, is there, when you can’t get pregnant.

As for your equivalent of the guy killing himself, it’s not the same since a child will not be born without a soul (or live very long). The soul comes from God, not you.

I am of the opinion that many a miscarriage is what you are thinking of, where the baby miscarries simply because it’s not your time to have a child. That’s not true of all miscarriages, of course, but my belief (not doctrine) is that many are likely that.

Since God is the sole giver of life, and life is a gift, I’d have to say that pregnancy is necessarily a gift from God.

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM

You’ve missed my point.

Sex without contraception of any kind, will produce a child among two healthy people.

That’s simply what happens with sex.

As I said, it’s no different than saying God took the life of the man who jumped off of the Brooklyn Bridge (even though surely the giver of life is also the taker).

Feel free to say God gave and took life in both instances, but neither required diving intervention as both were natural consequences of their actions.

Since God is the sole giver of life, and life is a gift, I’d have to say that pregnancy is necessarily a gift from God.

NellE on August 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I think you’ve missed my point.

Sex without contraception of any kind, will produce a child among too healthy people.

That’s simply what happens with sex.

As I said, it’s no different than saying God took the life of the man who jumped off of the Brooklyn Bridge (even though surely the giver of life is also the taker).

Look, I do believe that procreation is a miracle from God, but if you get pregnant (without trying to prevent a pregnancy), then it’s not necessarily God giving you a gift any more than it’s God killing the person who decides to jump off of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Esthier on August 15, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Since God is the sole giver of life, and life is a gift, I’d have to say that pregnancy is necessarily a gift from God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv8H8skMmVA

Let’s not couch it in nice terms.

dm60462 on August 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM

.
Exactly. This is not about finance, nor convenience, nor responsibility for actions. It is a human rights issue.

I support abortions for liberals and Democrats.

Let them go extinct by their own doing. The world would be better off.

madmonkphotog on August 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM

They already do, since they don’t care about responsibility, they support GLBT, which only the B can reproduce, and requires a marriage of 3 people, so the only way they can increase their base is by recruitment of normal kids (see NAMBLA), and illegal aliens.

“It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital (Oak Lawn, IL) one of these babies lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Allison Baker described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. I testified about a staff worker who accidentally threw a live aborted baby in the garbage. The baby had been left on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. When my coworker realized what she had done, she started going through the trash to find the baby, and the baby fell out of the towel and onto the floor.”

and they shouldn’t be left in wallets

If for no other reason than to avoid the telltale circular impression!

The “pro-life” responsibility rhetoric is nonsense common sense. Abortion is a responsible selfish decision. A woman has a problem baby and she deals with it has it killed. Adoption on the other hand is to have a child and offload provide the responsibility on someone else who desperately wanted it.

thuja on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Fixed that set of defective thought you had there…

somebody may be over-reporting their level of responsibility.

Or even misunderstanding what “proper use” means.

Just cause you take the pill regularly, it doesn’t mean you’re taking it at the same time each day or that your other medications aren’t affecting it.

And with condoms, they have an expiration date for a reason, and they shouldn’t be left in wallets or hot climates.

Perhaps it is because my wife and I are trying to have kids at the moment,

You’re just now trying? So before, when you had sex you didn’t want children?

So what, it’s OK for you to wait until you’re ready but not for others?

But it’s primary purpose is to procreate.

If that’s the case, then old people are morally wrong for having sex. Don’t they know that they should only do it for the kids? In fact, God must have really messed up then, cause we can have sex far longer than we’re able to procreate, well women anyway. So maybe it’s just women who aren’t meant to have sex for long.

Sometimes God sends kids because He knows best.

Look, I do believe that procreation is a miracle from God, but if you get pregnant (without trying to prevent a pregnancy), then it’s not necessarily God giving you a gift any more than it’s God killing the person who decides to jump off of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.

Forty-six percent of women having abortions did not use a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% perceived themselves to be at low risk, 32% had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex and 1% were forced to have sex.

Not meant to be combative, but that first paragraph says to me that ¾ of the women who used the pill during the month they became pregnant (meaning: not necessarily the day they did) having abortions used their method incorrectly (inconsistently – meaning perhaps skipping days, taking at the wrong time, etc.) and that half of the condom users used them inconsistently (A fellow could reasonably assume this means not using them every time). It also says to me that when asked, 13 and 14% reported having used their methods correctly. However since when used every single time condoms have only a 2-3% failure rate and the pill similar – somebody may be over-reporting their level of responsibility.
Of those who admit to not using contraceptives, I’m not sure how to take “had concerns about” contraceptive methods. Concerns about the various methods led them to conclude the best course of action was to dismiss contraception altogether? Or was it that they had religious concerns about the morality of using contraceptives at all? Those who perceived themselves as “low risk” means what? They figured pregnancy happens to “somebody else”? They only had sex when they felt like the risk of becoming pregnant was low?
Either way – 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users not using them correctly or consistently and those who claim to have done so not meshing even closely with the percentages – as well as nearly half using no contraception doesn’t really say “responsible” to me.

I don’t think you advocate it, but I suspect you don’t oppose it on anything other than financial grounds. I oppose it because it degrades people to help them avoid responsibility.

jeff_from_mpls on August 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Take your assumptions elsewhere. It only makes you look like a donkey.

I oppose government welfare period.

But taking the pill isn’t a moral failing. Sex isn’t just some puritanical duty to populate the Earth. It’s also meant to bond a man and woman, specifically in marriage.

People who can’t afford children shouldn’t be having them (to do so would be irresponsible), but that doesn’t mean married couples who can’t afford children shouldn’t be having sex. As Paul said, we aren’t supposed to deny each other.