(August 6, 2015 at 7:23 am)Nope Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 7:00 am)robvalue Wrote: The bible is pro life? God kills or commands the death of around 2.5 million people in the bible. It could be less pro life if it tried.

Abortion in the bible shown below. Read many more here.

How do antichoicers read the verses in Numbers and not realize that it describes an abortion? I have had some Christians tell me that all the murder in the Old Testament or that is supposed to occur in the future is not evil because god committed it. So, maybe they look at the verses in Numbers the same way. An abortion is not evil if god's priests give a adulterous whore the drink that causes her to miscarry.

You know abortions are the results of disobedience to God, fornication and adultery is responsible for probably 100% of the cases.

---

(August 5, 2015 at 8:26 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: I can't speak for how I'll feel in the future, I'm only 21, but as things stand I don't plan on having any. If I do have any, I'll adopt rather than have my own.

I don't dislike children at all, I'm just a bit of a pessimist about the world. I've had issues with depression in my life, and I can't bring a kid into the world with the possibility that they might have to deal with some of the shit I've had. I don't like the world either, between fanatic violent lunatics, the preventable financial crisis, a classist elitist society and the elephant in the room - glabal warming - that nobody wants to deal with, I don't want to bring a kid into this to deal with all the shit that comes with being here. It's not worth it. All those things are preventable, but I don't trust people to prevent them.

The Bible is pro life, nonbelievers are pro choice or pro death rather.

@massey
The bible is not pro life, where do you get that impression? Have you actually read any of it?

(August 5, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: A certain level of medical intervention for fertility so you can reproduce is perfectly moral. It's when you take it to the level of taking complete control of it by physically doing it yourself on a petri dish that we don't think is moral. Likewise, getting a baby out of the womb is not the same as actually creating human life.

I still don't understand what the difference is between placing a fertilized egg in the womb of parents who are incapable (through plumbing or motility, etc) of doing it with sex and taking that baby out of the womb at the end of the cycle. Is it more moral if the parents have sex before or after implantation?

I guess it's the word immoral that I am hanging up on. This implies that you think that two people who want a child of their own have done something wrong by creating a child using medical intervention, the same medical intervention that helps cure cancer, saves a baby's life that is born with some defect, or comes up with a polio vaccine. Why is this specific medical intervention immoral, but other fertility methods aren't? IVF doesn't do anything other than put the egg and the sperm together and implant some embryos where they grow inside the mother. I am just confused as to where the line is drawn, and how a person as intelligent as you obviously are wrestles with this internally. When do you decide that certain medical interventions are God's plan that we discover and utilize (modern medicine), and others are against God's plan (IVF)?

(August 6, 2015 at 2:55 am)robvalue Wrote: I'd like to clear up my views on things. I think having children is morally questionable, that's probably the best way to put it. There are a lot of issues involved which are not cut and dry. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's totally wrong/immoral. And of course, I'd never ever try and stop anyone doing it. The points that I think are questionable are:

My apologies Rob. You were never actually one of the people who straight up said it was immoral, and I shouldn't have put you in that category.

Plleeeeeease forgive meeeeee!   Lol.

(August 6, 2015 at 6:02 am)Nope Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 11:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: They were Nutella stuffed brownies I got the recipe for on Pinterest. Freaking amazing. I'll be sure to send you some via PM next time.

Nutella and all thingd chocolate were invented to thrawt my efforts to lose weight.


Nutella stuffed brownies drool

You have no idea how much I love me some chocolate.....

Here's the recipe I made, but I overcooked mine a little bit so it's not as gooey as in the pictures:

http://thefoodcharlatan.com/2014/04/04/n...-blondies/

(August 6, 2015 at 9:33 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: A certain level of medical intervention for fertility so you can reproduce is perfectly moral. It's when you take it to the level of taking complete control of it by physically doing it yourself on a petri dish that we don't think is moral. Likewise, getting a baby out of the womb is not the same as actually creating human life.

I still don't understand what the difference is between placing a fertilized egg in the womb of parents who are incapable (through plumbing or motility, etc) of doing it with sex and taking that baby out of the womb at the end of the cycle. Is it more moral if the parents have sex before or after implantation?

I guess it's the word immoral that I am hanging up on. This implies that you think that two people who want a child of their own have done something wrong by creating a child using medical intervention, the same medical intervention that helps cure cancer, saves a baby's life that is born with some defect, or comes up with a polio vaccine. Why is this specific medical intervention immoral, but other fertility methods aren't? IVF doesn't do anything other than put the egg and the sperm together and implant some embryos where they grow inside the mother. I am just confused as to where the line is drawn, and how a person as intelligent as you obviously are wrestles with this internally. When do you decide that certain medical interventions are God's plan that we discover and utilize (modern medicine), and others are against God's plan (IVF)?

It's not necessarily placing the fertilized egg inside that's the problem for us. It's the actual joining of the sperm and the egg. Like I said, because we believe the creation of human life (the actual joining of sperm and egg) is a very sacred thing, we believe it should be kept in the purity of its natural form. Meaning egg/sperm should be put together through the act of self giving love.

Not because medical intervention is immoral across the board, but because this particular thing is a very sacred thing that we believe should be handled with a certain level of purity and respect to its natural form. For example, my cousin had some sort of issue where she was having a very hard time conceiving. So she had a surgery to fix this problem and make her more able to conceive. This is not immoral. The line is drawn when sperm and egg are put together through any other means besides sex.

Massey: Why don't you tell us what version of the bible you have, and then type out what it says from Numbers 5:20 to 5:27. Then explain how this is anything other than the child inside a pregnant woman being killed.

(August 6, 2015 at 8:13 am)massey904 Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 7:23 am)Nope Wrote: How do antichoicers read the verses in Numbers and not realize that it describes an abortion? I have had some Christians tell me that all the murder in the Old Testament or that is supposed to occur in the future is not evil because god committed it.  So, maybe they look at the verses in Numbers the same way. An abortion is not evil if god's priests give a adulterous whore the drink that causes her to miscarry.

You know abortions are the results of disobedience to God, fornication and adultery is responsible for probably 100% of the cases.

So, you aren't denying that the verses in Numbers describe an abortion? How is fornication and adultery responsible for abortions? Are you saying that you are fine with god killing off fetuses of adulterous women?

(August 6, 2015 at 9:43 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 6:02 am)Nope Wrote: Nutella and all thingd chocolate were invented to thrawt my efforts to lose weight.


Nutella stuffed brownies drool

You have no idea how much I love me some chocolate.....

Here's the recipe I made, but I overcooked mine a little bit so it's not as gooey as in the pictures:

http://thefoodcharlatan.com/2014/04/04/n...-blondies/

TY!

It might interest you that I'll be fixing sweet pudding from scratch later, with starch, sugar and cocoa powder, and as an added bonus, I'll sink 50g of mint chocolate into it. The good swiss stuff.