Punishment

[karisma]

Actually, the rates of miscarriage is usually estimated at about 25% (not 50%), the highest estimated figure I could find was 31% of all pregnancies.

That's only clinically recognized abortions.

The true incidence of spontaneous abortion (including unrecognized pregnancy loss) has been estimated to be 50 to 78 percent of all conceptions. [1,4,5] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n1_v43/ai_10365381

I agree with Kerwin that from a Christian perspective the point is that God has the right to give and take life, whereas we as humans generally do not.
I can't be bothered going into the theological response to your implication here, but let me just say that as someone who has suffered a miscarriage and knows the Love of God, you are wrong.

So... no real argument here? "I'm right, you're just wrong?"

 

[Kerwin]

What are you talking about the cost of technology?

In any case, apparently, it's a case of do what God says but not what God does? God must be a pretty sadistic guy then if he happily aborts millions of fetuses every year just for fun.

Technological devices of many types have the effect of killing children whom are still in their mother's womb. A lot are chemical based but not all.

You assume God is like us and that in itself is an invalid assumption. Since not one person dies but by the will of God you can accuse Him of murdering them but that does not make it true. God in the unique position of know what is the best for each and every one of us and has ability to manipulate events so that best outcome occurs and no human being comes close. Scripture tells us that God actually struggles to keep man alive longer for as he said the cost of sin is death in some cases he does not struggle as much. His only answer when asked is "I have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion".

 

[texastig]

What do you think I mean by it?

It's estimated that at least 50% of all embryos and fetuses are spontaneously aborted by the body.

If you think God has such a problem with abortions, maybe you should ask him why he performs so many.

That's natural. It's not natural ripping out babies from the womb.
Thanks,
TT

 

[texastig]

Farenheit 9/11 - Michael Moore
Clip on Haliburton:

From: John Robertson The no-bid relationship between the Army and Halliburton was established under Clinton, at the Army's request.
There is reason to question whether battlefield logistics should be handled by a civilian company rather than uniformed soldiers, but the run-up to a war was not the moment to be rocking any boats.
The idea of going out to bid on the eve of war is laughable. First, who would be on the bid list? In the business of warzone logistics, Halliburton doesn't have any competitors. What would the contract look like? Are you going to reveal your battle plan to potential bidders? How many contract administrators are you going to need to process all the change orders when the logistics requirements change from hour to hour?
For warzone logistics you don't want low bidder. You want the guys that can get it done.
And don't forget, alot of Halliburton employees were killed by terrorists over in Iraq.

O'Reilly vs. Donohue:
If you get a headache listening to O'Reilly, skip to the 7:10 second mark.

I don't see anything wrong here. All American soldiers are volunteers and are told that they could goto war and die.

CBC, The Lies That Lead to War.
Watch Ann Coulter make a fool of herself.

I don't think she did.

If the US invasion of Iraq was all about humanitary aid, we'd have gone in in the 80s when Saddam was actually gassing the Kurds.
Instead, Rumsfeld was shaking his hand and forging economic relationships with a leader everyone knew wasn't the greatest.

It wasn't about humanitarian aid. As Senator Clinton said, "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.
Yes, Rumsfeld did that because Iran was our enemy thanks to Carter.

You mean fetus.

NO I DID NOT MEAN FETUS.
Thanks,
TT

 

[karisma]

That's natural. It's not natural ripping out babies from the womb.
Thanks,
TT

So what? Does natural = good? Artificial = bad?

Poison ivy is natural.
Cancer is natural.
Neurotoxins in snake bites are natural.

Prosthetic limbs are artificial.
Triple bypass surgery is artificial.
Glasses are artificial.

I think it's clear that natural doesn't always equal good, and artificial doesn't always mean bad.

 

[karisma]

Technological devices of many types have the effect of killing children whom are still in their mother's womb. A lot are chemical based but not all.

Such as...?

You assume God is like us and that in itself is an invalid assumption. Since not one person dies but by the will of God you can accuse Him of murdering them but that does not make it true. God in the unique position of know what is the best for each and every one of us and has ability to manipulate events so that best outcome occurs and no human being comes close.

How do you know God knows what's best?

Scripture tells us that God actually struggles to keep man alive longer for as he said the cost of sin is death in some cases he does not struggle as much. His only answer when asked is "I have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion".

So... sounds like it sucks to be the random person who God doesn't have compassion on then.

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

That's only clinically recognized abortions.

The true incidence of spontaneous abortion (including unrecognized pregnancy loss) has been estimated to be 50 to 78 percent of all conceptions. [1,4,5] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n1_v43/ai_10365381

According to that one article, who's references for that point date back to 1986, 1980 and 1975...
Unfortunately, most recent information costs money to access, but Wiki puts the figures between 10% - 50%. The general consensus puts the figure at about 1 in 4.

So... no real argument here? "I'm right, you're just wrong?"

I did, I gave you the Christian perspective, God has the right to give and take life. There is also the theological perspective that death is a result of our fallen state and sin in the world.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So what? Does natural = good? Artificial = bad?

Poison ivy is natural.
Cancer is natural.
Neurotoxins in snake bites are natural.

Prosthetic limbs are artificial.
Triple bypass surgery is artificial.
Glasses are artificial.

I think it's clear that natural doesn't always equal good, and artificial doesn't always mean bad.

Homosexuality is natural [/cat amongst pigeons]

 

[Kerwin]

Such as...?

The worst one are IUD’s which probably should be illegal because of the high number of miscarriages the cause if not for their other side effects mostly pelvic infections. Doctors are supposed to work to avoid either complication and the government may consider that good enough. Hormonal treatments as well as some types of fertility treatments. I think that probably covers I know but there are most likely more as I have heard of many medicines that cause birth defects and I have also heard miscarriages and stillborn cases can be linked to birth defects.

How do you know God knows what's best?

Because his commands are a whole lot better than the commands of my fellow man.

So... sounds like it sucks to be the random person who God doesn't have compassion on then.

Some might say tha,t but they might say the same in a situation when a doctor has to choose between striving to save one patient while another dies untreated. The first death is less important to God than the second death. so if he looses your body to save your soul as far as He is concerned He came out ahead.

 

[Trashionista]

Why do you think how much money one has is relevant to how one treats their child?

Umm... how else was I supposed to answer when this was one of the final comments in your first response?

I am sure Obama and Michell are highly capable of providing the support structure their daughter and grandchild would need.

The Obama's make good money. Very good money.

Isn't it a bit odd that Sen. Obama is 46, their oldest is 10, and therefore, didn't have kids right out of high school? Isn't it kind of odd that they both had established carreers long before Michelle gave birth to either daughter? Sen. Obama I believe also became a Senator before their first daugter was born.

So, obviously, it can be inferred that they see the benefits of both parents having stable careers and some financial cushing before they bring kids into the world.

This isn't that uncommon. The age of the mother for first live birth continues to increase.

I myself have barely made it of the low income bracket and am 1 child from a poor home of 10 children. Our largest problem was not lack of wealth but a father who was addicted to alcohol. It almost sounds though that you are advocating killing people for economical advantage. I certainly hope that is not the case.

That's nice?

Everyone is raised under a certain lifestyle, and personally, I will not choose to have children if I do not have a similar lifestyle or it means not having a similar lifestyle to what I have now.

I will need a decent job and a degree before I choose to have babies. I know, hard to believe. But if I've had a certain lifestyle, why would I not want my kids having a similar one?

Obviously, money is fluid and goes up and down. But having a degree will offer some security.

It's a personal decision as to when the time is right to have a baby. Obviously, Barack and Michelle Obama believed it was after having some education and years in their careers under their belt. Some don't.

But if the Obamas see a degree and education and an established career before babies as being ideal, why would they want something else entirely for Malia and Sasha?

Well that is a nice anti-children statement but other than your bigotry against children I see not reason to believe children are punishment to their parents unless the later is lazy or egocentric.

I like kids. I'd like to have kids. I just am not dumb enough to believe without a degree and an established career should be the ideal for my future kids or for all future kids, rather. Just as the wealthy, yuppie family isn't everyone's choice, either. But it can be mine if I want it so.

And I suppose you believe that single women without children have never “succeeded“.

Clearly not. Michelle Obama seemed to be doing okay before she married and had children.

And considering my love in previous threads for Carrie Bradshaw [albeit, a fictional character], I clearly love to see sucsessful, single women leading fabulous lives. Without children if they choose so.

By the way your definition of success may be other peoples definition of success. I believe you are speaking of obtaining an economical advantage, if not then please let me know.

Umm... duh?

 

[Trashionista]

From: John Robertson The no-bid relationship between the Army and Halliburton was established under Clinton, at the Army's request.
There is reason to question whether battlefield logistics should be handled by a civilian company rather than uniformed soldiers, but the run-up to a war was not the moment to be rocking any boats.
The idea of going out to bid on the eve of war is laughable. First, who would be on the bid list? In the business of warzone logistics, Halliburton doesn't have any competitors. What would the contract look like? Are you going to reveal your battle plan to potential bidders? How many contract administrators are you going to need to process all the change orders when the logistics requirements change from hour to hour?
For warzone logistics you don't want low bidder. You want the guys that can get it done.
And don't forget, alot of Halliburton employees were killed by terrorists over in Iraq.


I don't see anything wrong here. All American soldiers are volunteers and are told that they could goto war and die.

Did you miss the part about Halliburtion stock doubling in price between the start of the war and the time of the interview between Donohue and O'Reilly?

Again, doesn't that at least make you wonder?

I don't think she did.

She claimed that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. To a Canadian who is actually up on their Canadian history, and was thus, proven to be completely unaware of what the hell she was talking about.

If she isn't even aware that Canada itself sent troops, why should she be consulted on matters of geopolitics? All the woman is is legs in a mini-skirt. [And I think I'm being quite generous here.]

To wit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LubMd_C9II

It wasn't about humanitarian aid. As Senator Clinton said, "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.

Yes. Al-qaeda was militarized to fight the Soviets. Maybe that's a suggestion not to intervene in hasty ways?

Yes, Rumsfeld did that because Iran was our enemy thanks to Carter.

Well, wouldn't the smart thing have been not to further polarize relations in the Mid-East by buddying up to Saddam, after selling weapons to both Iran & Iraq?

NO I DID NOT MEAN FETUS.
Thanks,
TT

Right. I forgot you're unaware on the progression from zygote-embryo-fetus. My mistake.

 

[Kerwin]

Everyone is raised under a certain lifestyle, and personally, I will not choose to have children if I do not have a similar lifestyle or it means not having a similar lifestyle to what I have now.

That is fine as long as you do not choose to do evil in order to accomplish your goals. I do not know if it is the best choice for your country as most developed nation have birth rates below sustenance level.

It's a personal decision as to when the time is right to have a baby.

Not! It is a personal decision to choose when to have sex unless you are a victim of rape but whether or not you conceive a child is up to God. You can of course work to thwart His plans for you and He may let you succeed. I assure you whatever He chooses to do He is right. As to whether you are or not it will depend on your own actions.

But if the Obamas’ see a degree and education and an established career before babies as being ideal, why would they want something else entirely for Malia and Sasha?

That is not really relevant to whether having a child is punishment or not. Palin stated her last child was a gift from God even though he has Down’s syndrome and her point of view on this issue is definitely more godly than Obama’s, Her daughter sinned and is now with child and Palin’s action is to offer support for her daughter instead of killing her grandchild because he/she is inconvenient. I commend her and he daughter for that action.

 

[karisma]

According to that one article, who's references for that point date back to 1986, 1980 and 1975...
Unfortunately, most recent information costs money to access, but Wiki puts the figures between 10% - 50%. The general consensus puts the figure at about 1 in 4.

Yeah... 25% is clinically recognized spontaneous abortions. The article I cited was written in 1991 and the information was clearly considered valid in 1991 as it was printed in a physicians magazine, so excuse me for taking that information over "wiki" anyday. In either case, it's still FAR more abortions than all human performed abortions combined.

did, I gave you the Christian perspective, God has the right to give and take life. There is also the theological perspective that death is a result of our fallen state and sin in the world.

Maybe you believe that God has that right... but doesn't that clash with the supposed goodness of God? Either God is good and does not toy around with people's lives causing mass genocide of spontaneous abortions, or God really isn't good and likes to mess with people's lives and causes mass genocide of spontaneous abortions. God really can't be "good" and mess with people's lives and kill random embryos for no good reason, whether you think he has that "right" or not, it's just a conflicting position. Of course, the more likely option is that God doesn't exist, but that would be a topic for another thread.

 

[karisma]

The worst one are IUD’s which probably should be illegal because of the high number of miscarriages the cause if not for their other side effects mostly pelvic infections. Doctors are supposed to work to avoid either complication and the government may consider that good enough. Hormonal treatments as well as some types of fertility treatments. I think that probably covers I know but there are most likely more as I have heard of many medicines that cause birth defects and I have also heard miscarriages and stillborn cases can be linked to birth defects.



Because his commands are a whole lot better than the commands of my fellow man.

I disagree. I believe in equality for all people, not slavery or men>women.

Some might say tha,t but they might say the same in a situation when a doctor has to choose between striving to save one patient while another dies untreated.

In what situation would that be? At least the doctor is not physically capable of treating two people at once, God doesn't have that excuse.

The first death is less important to God than the second death. so if he looses your body to save your soul as far as He is concerned He came out ahead.

I don't believe in souls.

 

[karisma]

Homosexuality is natural [/cat amongst pigeons]

Good one.

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

Maybe you believe that God has that right... but doesn't that clash with the supposed goodness of God? Either God is good and does not toy around with people's lives causing mass genocide of spontaneous abortions, or God really isn't good and likes to mess with people's lives and causes mass genocide of spontaneous abortions. God really can't be "good" and mess with people's lives and kill random embryos for no good reason, whether you think he has that "right" or not, it's just a conflicting position. Of course, the more likely option is that God doesn't exist, but that would be a topic for another thread.

well, like you said, another topic for another thread - and there have already been plenty of them in GT.

 

[Trashionista]

That is fine as long as you do not choose to do evil in order to accomplish your goals.

As far as I know, the Obamas are not in the mafia, so, again, good on them.

I do not know if it is the best choice for your country as most developed nation have birth rates below sustenance level.

Because the baby boomer era of having 6 kids supported by one breadwinner is really, really practical in 2008.

Not! It is a personal decision to choose when to have sex unless you are a victim of rape but whether or not you conceive a child is up to God.

The contraceptive Pill can be a wonderful thing.
Rape victims if it's reported in a timely fashion, may also receive emergency contraceptive. Even though stress can actually prevent ovulation in many cases, which makes the rape argument null in such cases.

You can of course work to thwart His plans for you and He may let you succeed.

No. It is biology and a team of reproductive specialists, urologists and OB/GYNs who will most likely be responsible or receive the credit from making sure I'm not giving birth every 9 months.

I assure you whatever He chooses to do He is right. As to whether you are or not it will depend on your own actions.

No, having a kid in my current situation would be a pretty stupid idea. Not "right" at this time. Very common.

That is not really relevant to whether having a child is punishment or not.

It can be. I'm in no place to be having a baby.

Palin stated her last child was a gift from God even though he has Down’s syndrome and her point of view on this issue is definitely more godly than Obama’s,

That's an opinion. Down's is entirely different to many other chromosomal abnormalities, and Obama's daughters are being raised by a couple who's ideas of what life should be are very different to Mrs. Palin and her spouse.

No viewpoint is any more Godly or right, as it depends upon who is looking at it. My parents attitudes are very similar to those of Sen. & Mrs. Obama, you evidently share viewpoints that are similar to Sarah Palin.

But to say one is any more right than the other, is completely against personal choice, and a woman's personal choice to do what she wants with her body.

Her daughter sinned and is now with child and Palin’s action is to offer support for her daughter instead of killing her grandchild because he/she is inconvenient. I commend her and he daughter for that action.

That's nice. I can't say my parents would nessecarily choose to act as Palin has, but that's the beauty of it being a choice for every woman in similar situations to make.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I do not know if it is the best choice for your country as most developed nation have birth rates below sustenance level.

Why not? Mechanisation and automation mean that devloped nations don't need huge workforces anymore... and medical advances mean we don't need families with 7-8 children to guarantee 1-2 survive to adulthood... so why, exactly, would a growth negative population be a bad thing?

 

[Kerwin]

I disagree. I believe in equality for all people, not slavery or men>women.

If I understand you correctly then you do not believe a slave and his master or an employee and his employer are equal. That I find to be an absurd idea as you level authority has nothing to do with equality in the eyes of God. I assume you also object the men woman relationship as men are given authority over women in certain circumstances not all as an examination of scriptures will show you. The foundation of God’s Law is that each person whether male or female, slave or master would love their fellow man as they should love themselves and thus sever God with all their heart, mind, and soul. On that foundation the whole law is built and that Law is good.

]In what situation would that be? At least the doctor is not physically capable of treating two people at once, God doesn't have that excuse.

Still God has rules he adheres to because to break them is evil and he cannot be tempted by must less do evil. Staying within those rules there are situations where one even many must be sacrificed in order to save even one.

I don't believe in souls.

That’s your choice and your loss but don’t forget God does and you should examine His action with that in mind.

 

[Kerwin]

Why not? Mechanisation and automation mean that devloped nations don't need huge workforces anymore... and medical advances mean we don't need families with 7-8 children to guarantee 1-2 survive to adulthood... so why, exactly, would a growth negative population be a bad thing?

Because your country will fall as the outside population pressure increases and people invade it in seeking lower population gradients. Your best hope then is to covert the invaders to your philosophy but if you fail you lose and so fell Rome. Fact is I say good riddance for most of the developing nations eat their own young. Of course they could choose to change. That is probably why God delays judgment.