Mourdock: 2+2=5

[JollyRoger]

Jesus was the result of a conception without prior consent, so I think God is probably ok with non-consensual conception.

 

[Leoreth]

Also, adultery.

 

[peter grimes]

Couldn't tell you what's worse between rape and unjustified murder.

This is the old problem of free will. The short answer is that God tolerates evil but is capable of deriving good from the evil. Thus rape is the result of evil-doers, but a secondary implication, i.e. pregnancy, is a good thing, since all children (regardless of the means of their conception, whether rape, cloning, or Fullmetal alchemy) are sons of God and their life should be respected.

Ask someone who's been raped - they will certainly have an opinion on which is worse.

So how do you view the rapes where there is no conception? What on earth is god up to in those cases? Here we have an abhorrent violation of someone's physical self without any god-sanctioned benefit. So clearly he lets evil happen. Or, alternatively, he is powerless to interfere with biological processes that might preclude conception. Which is odd, since it's claimed (without any evidence, of course!!) that he (your god has a penis, right?) caused a conception in a young jewess who had never had sex before. Something isn't adding up, but I'm not sure what....

"Pregnancy" is a process of nature. I don't see fit to assign moral value to it...

But that's all separate from the fact that a conceived child in the womb has a right to life; all lives are inherently sacred since we're all creations of God.

Except when you want to assign moral value to it - by saying things like "a conceived child in the womb has a right to life; all lives are inherently sacred since we're all creations of God". So either you can't claim that you don't assign a moral value to it, or you don't use the term in the way most of us here use it.

But either pregnancy is a natural process without godly intervention, or your god messes around with it. How can we tell the difference? And when does that interference happen? At the event of spermy penetration of the egg?

When does your god decide that a fertilized egg is a new person? Is it before or after implantation? How can we tell the difference? Nearly half of the eggs that are fertilized fail to implant - is this a failure of nature, or a failure of your god to steer the outcome? How can you tell the difference between the two?

If pregnancy is a process of nature, then what does your god have to do with it? Does he (your god has a Y chromosome, right?) intervene in the natural world? What evidence is there that this happens? In which rapes does he (your god has greater musculature than the female gods, right?) intervene to produce a child? Is he culture-blind, intervening in rapes of Mongolians by Russians, rapes of North Koreans by Han Chinese? Rapes of Okinawans by US Marines? Rapes of Guarani by Paraguaina?

If rape pregnancy is a process of nature, then do you believe (contrary to evidence) that your god denies children to perfectly capable, wealthy, well-intentioned, totally bible-abiding christian couples? Or, is this simply nature not working out for some folks? Ill-fated, their/your god leaves them childless for some inscrutable reason...

Abortion debates that focus on the liveliness or humanity of the fetus are always a farce; the answer is quite plain and obvious, yet it is rejected for ideological reasons.

Then why do you make this debate a farce??

As I've said four times now already, that God is able to derive good (human life) from grave evil (rape) does not mean He condones the rape. That is a strawman and I'm getting tired of it. If you please, argue with me about how exactly God can tolerate evil, but do not misrepresent the position I am arguing.

...except when he (your god is always a man, right?) doesn't. Convenient.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ask someone who's been raped - they will certainly have an opinion on which is worse.

So how do you view the rapes where there is no conception? What on earth is god up to in those cases? Here we have an abhorrent violation of someone's physical self without any god-sanctioned benefit. So clearly he lets evil happen. Or, alternatively, he is powerless to interfere with biological processes that might preclude conception. Which is odd, since it's claimed (without any evidence, of course!!) that he (your god has a penis, right?) caused a conception in a young jewess who had never had sex before. Something isn't adding up, but I'm not sure what....

Except when you want to assign moral value to it - by saying things like "a conceived child in the womb has a right to life; all lives are inherently sacred since we're all creations of God". So either you can't claim that you don't assign a moral value to it, or you don't use the term in the way most of us here use it.

But either pregnancy is a natural process without godly intervention, or your god messes around with it. How can we tell the difference? And when does that interference happen? At the event of spermy penetration of the egg?

When does your god decide that a fertilized egg is a new person? Is it before or after implantation? How can we tell the difference? Nearly half of the eggs that are fertilized fail to implant - is this a failure of nature, or a failure of your god to steer the outcome? How can you tell the difference between the two?

If pregnancy is a process of nature, then what does your god have to do with it? Does he (your god has a Y chromosome, right?) intervene in the natural world? What evidence is there that this happens? In which rapes does he (your god has greater musculature than the female gods, right?) intervene to produce a child? Is he culture-blind, intervening in rapes of Mongolians by Russians, rapes of North Koreans by Han Chinese? Rapes of Okinawans by US Marines? Rapes of Guarani by Paraguaina?

If rape pregnancy is a process of nature, then do you believe (contrary to evidence) that your god denies children to perfectly capable, wealthy, well-intentioned, totally bible-abiding christian couples? Or, is this simply nature not working out for some folks? Ill-fated, their/your god leaves them childless for some inscrutable reason...


Then why do you make this debate a farce??


...except when he (your god is always a man, right?) doesn't. Convenient.

The hate is strong in you my son.

 

[Borachio]

Or his respect for life is greater than his respect for the Catholic Church?

 

[Farm Boy]

Respect for one thing does not necessitate disrespect for another Mr. Pacifist.

 

[Grendeldef]

The hate is strong in you my son.

To me it seemed that Mr Grimes disliked rapes & rapists which I find quite a reasonable view.

G

 

[strijder20]

Respect for one thing does not necessitate disrespect for another Mr. Pacifist.

I think he made a reasonable point about why some of the Roman Catholic Church's views are rather odd.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So person X was conceived when person Y raped person Z. God intended for X to be conceived, but didn't intend for person Y to rape person Z. Was person Y person Z's long lost soul mate and intended husband?

Solve it for me.

First of all, I'm aware that eliminating the rape exception isn't actually realistic in most of the United States, and while I don't personally agree with it being legal, I can't imagine being in that situation and would not judge a woman who did abort in the case of rape too harshly.

Free Will is a complex subject that Christians disagree on. Plotinus could probably solve it for you in a number of different ways, even if he didn't accept any of them. I would personally just say that while it is not God's will for a man to rape a woman, it was God's will for that child to exist, and that he used what that man was going to do anyway in order to create that child. That's a pretty unhelpful explantion I know, but I'm not a theologian.

That said, there's nothing inconsistent about saying that rape is horrible but that the baby conceived from rape is still precious. It isn't the baby that did it. And whatever you think of abortion in case of rape, or any other case, I'm sure you would not marginalize a child who was born because of rape or consider him any less worthy of existance if the mother did decide to keep that child. In fact, that child could indeed be a blessing even while the rapist is a scouge on humanity that does not deserve to exist.

 

[Farm Boy]

To me it seemed that Mr Grimes disliked rapes & rapists which I find quite a reasonable view.

G

There are any number of ways to express dislike for sexual violence without tying a significant amount of bile to something else.

I think he made a reasonable point about why some of the Roman Catholic Church's views are rather odd.

They can be, yep. The Mr. Pacifist bit wasn't supposed to be hostile, though I guess it could come off that way.

 

[warpus]

If a woman gets an abortion.. who's to say that that wasn't God's plan also?

If something as vile as rape can be a part of God's plan.. not to mention all the death mentioned in the Bible.. what would preclude an abortion from being a part of his plan?

 

[Farm Boy]

I really didn't think free will was as hard an issue for people to see from multiple points of view as it seems to be. Either I have no idea where to start or there is some disingenuous or laze going on.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure it's all that hard an issue. But I do think it's unresolvable.

 

[Grendeldef]

... it was God's will for that child to exist, and that he used what that man was going to do anyway in order to create that child.

In fact, that child could indeed be a blessing even while the rapist is a scouge on humanity that does not deserve to exist.

So if it is God's will that the every conceived one should exist how come in the latter case that one does not deserve to exist ? God's will is therefore both absolute & conditional?

G

 

[Farm Boy]

So if it is God's will that the every conceived one should exist how come in the latter case that one does not deserve to exist ? God's will is therefore both absolute & conditional?

G

Perhaps it's even capricious. Does that alleviate our capacity for or duty to love?

 

[LightSpectra]

The six or seven paragraphs of irrelevant strawmen of my position was highly amusing.

If a woman gets an abortion.. who's to say that that wasn't God's plan also?

If something as vile as rape can be a part of God's plan.. not to mention all the death mentioned in the Bible.. what would preclude an abortion from being a part of his plan?

Rape and abortion are both immoral things that God obviously tolerates, since they happen. That doesn't justify either one of them at all.

So if it is God's will that the every conceived one should exist how come in the latter case that one does not deserve to exist ? God's will is therefore both absolute & conditional?

There's two ways to describe God's will: antecedent and moral. In the antecedent sense, anything that God wills will happen, since He is omnipotent; this is unavoidable. This includes evil. It is inconceivable that God did not know every single thing that would happen in the course of the universe the moment He created it. In the moral sense, God tolerates evil born from corrupted free will, but yet still desires that His subjects act rightly, both out of love for Him and love for each other.

 

[warpus]

Rape and abortion are both immoral things that God obviously tolerates, since they happen. That doesn't justify either one of them at all.

This thread is about a guy who basically said: "God allowed it to happen, therefore it's a part of his plan" or something along those lines..

 

[Leoreth]

Exactly. His position is essentially that God micromanages who conceives children, but doesn't micromanage who gets raped. For all your talk about strawmen you've dodged that point rather nicely.

 

[LightSpectra]

This thread is about a guy who basically said: "God allowed it to happen, therefore it's a part of his plan" or something along those lines..

Most of the antagonistic posts in this thread have been operating under the misunderstanding (to be generous; it's probably intentional by page 4) that "God allows evil to happen" and "God can derive good from evil" thus mean "God does/condones evil".

Exactly. His position is essentially that God micromanages who conceives children, but doesn't micromanage who gets raped. For all your talk about strawmen you've dodged that point rather nicely.

Who said God "micromanages" who conceives children?

 

[Leoreth]

Mourdock?

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."