lula posts:

In my view, a zygote from mixing human/gorilla semen and eggs would be a repugnant monstrosity and a direct contradiction of Divine Creation and Wisdom.

ALDERICjOURDAIN POSTS:

There is no "right to choose" (a liberty) found anywhere in the US or State Constitutions. The "right to choose" is pure sophistry, a euphemsism that has been used by the pro-abortion industry following Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973. Don't you know that Congress makes laws and not unelected Supreme Court justices?  

If you want to play with the word "choose", we should say, "Right to choose what?" Death? Death to the baby in the womb by abortion. And what about the father's choice? Wouldn't the baby growing in the comfort of the womb if given the choice, choose life? Would you have? Yet, ever since 1973, a mother's choice of medical terrorism has made the womb a dangerous place to be. You and I were once trapped in the womb and are fortunate that our mothers allowed us to come to term to enjoy all of life's choices.

Killing unborn children can never be a liberty and calling it such can never make it so. Human rights are inalienable becasue they are God given. They don't fall into the category of another person's choice. All human beings in the womb have an inalienable right to life. No government can take that from them.

lula posts, IN MY WORLD, A BABY IS NEITHER A MISTAKE NOR A PUNISHMENT...THEY ARE GIFTS AND MIRACLES FROM GOD.

KINGBEE POSTS:

VarekRaith,

I can assure you that neither KFC nor I are uncomfortable about biblical questions. Did you not read KFC's response? It is not about picking and choosing what is literal or what is a metaphor...it's about reading the entire passage in context. Here it is again:

kfc posts #53

There is no doubt that God punishes sins against chastity but not by inflicting pregnancies and abortions as Kingbee asserted.

The way in which He chooses to do it is not for us to question...after all, He's God.

altho i've as yet been unable to find them, unless my brain was damaged by all those years of daily mass i spent reading scripture vs paying attention, i'm fairly sure i remember several biblical references to infants being stilled in the womb as a consequence of one parent or another having somehow upset god (either on their own or as a member of a group).  i'm still looking.

in the meantime, however, infanticide will do.

i need know nothing of context to understand david's innocent son was killed by god a very short time after birth for the purpose of punishing his parents' sexual immorality. 

it happened as described...or it didn't.

I am still waiting for lula to tell me what kind of soul does a human-gorrila hybrid has. (for the few week the zygote lives before dying of DNA incompatibility)

And why are 1/50 pregnancies ectopic, with 50% of those naturally aborting, and the other 50% killing mother and child (unless surgury is performed to remove the ectopic fetus). Remember you said it is IMPOSSIBLE for a fertilized zygote to occur/grow without a soul.

Taltimer,

As to the human/gorilla experiments, read my #67 and 76 comments. I'll not comment on this topic any further.  

I don't know.  You will have to ask a medical doctor. My comment to El-Duderino was meant to emphasis the fact that life begins at fertilization and that not only RU 486 and the morning after pill, but also regular birth control pills kill the developing baby in the womb.

Actually I said:

You did not answer my question Lula. I asked:

I'm specifically addressing the concept of a man and woman creating life. If i'm correct about your logic, a man and woman conceiving life would be considered moral, or "Divine Creation and Wisdom" However, when a scientist creates life in whatever way, then it isn't life? I'm sorry, but I don't see how you - a mortal, fallible human being could claim what is life based off of a book written by humans.

For that matter, what about in nature when species cross-procreate? (1) An example would be wild moose and domesticated horses. They have been known to breed; or ligers or tigons for example.

~A

 Source:

1.      ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7379554.stm "The seal then alternated between resting on the penguin, and thrusting its pelvis, trying to insert itself, unsuccessfully."

P.S. I will address your other comment later.

No, just because you don't do something, it doesn't mean you oppose it.

I thought we were talking about Obama here. Furthermore not supporting abstinence programs in public education does not mean you think people should not abstain. Has Obama supported sex education programs that teach children NOT to abstain?

Find me a quote (or something even close) where Obama has specifically said he doesn't think people should commit chastity/abstain. Where he actually says 'do not abstain'. Supporting peoples choice over whether to abstain or not is not the same thing as opposing people from abstaining.

I support peoples right to eat so much that they damage their health. That doesn't mean I think people should eat so much it damages their health. Similarly I support peoples right to choose whether to abstain or not - that doesn't mean I think people shouldn't abstain.

Thought I'd already poosted a comment regarding this, but I can't find it, so here it is again.

You(+KFC) can give all the context you want to it, but it doesn't change the facts that have been presented - an innocent baby/child was killed to punish their parents for their sin. I don't care what crime the parent has committed, or even if they inadvertently supported the killing of their child to punish them, it still shouldn't mean an innocent child is killed for it. Punish the guilty one, not the innocent one.

Exactly, that would be considered an either/or fallacy.

I shall not belabor this any further other than to point out that God punished David becasue He committed a series of grevious mortal sins, not only sexual immorality. And although God forgave him, he still had to suffer temperal punishment in expiation of his sins.  Part of this suffering was the loss of his young baby whom God took back to Himself.

Men and women DO NOT create life.  They have sex.  That is not creating life.  Only God can create human beings.  That's why you'll NEVER see one created in a lab.  In fact there's some sort of genetic protection built in that creates an explosion anytime they try to multiply these cells outside of a human body.  As far as I'm aware of they can't get past the four cell stage before it sort of blows up.  

And the book written by humans?  If you're speaking of the bible, although human authors were involved, it was God who was behind the dictation.  This book, is entirely God breathed and not one thing in this book has been proven inaccurate yet.  Pretty good considering it's been around a few thousand years now and every person, place and thing has been historically verified in one way or another.  They're still digging up proof to substantiate the validity of the written scriptures even now. 

so you're claiming to be God now?  Tell you what.....when you start creating humans yourself.....do what you want with them.  Like the joke says.....make sure you create your own dirt first. 

God's ways are not our ways.  We all die, we all have a clock in our systems that are running backwards.  One day, the clock for you and me will stop.  For some the clock doesn't tick very long and for others it does.  God, in his providence declared this particular baby would only live for a short amount of time. It's his perogative, not ours.   David did not have a hard time with it so I'm not so sure why you do.  Nix that.  Actually I do.  David understood where God was coming from.  You don't because you don't spend time with him like David did. 

The child was whisked away to heaven.  It was David who got punished not the child. 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Artificial-Life-Created-in-the-Lab-104577.shtml

Setting aside the lack of evidence for a God as well as the probability it may or may not exist - there's that link there to the news about some scientists being close to/done with creating an artificial life from simple components. Oh, and btw - what about in vitro fertilization? Apparently that's not creating life even though

So you're saying that imperfect humans got your god's word right? If I remember my Sunday school lessons, in Genesis itself  there are fallacies and inconsistancies. One being that at one point it states that man was created before beast, then it says that man man was created after beast. Even educated biblical scholars agree that there are inconsistancies.

1. Archer, Gleason L. Jr. An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan (April 1982)
2. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, pp. 199-200

My biggest concern is when such followers of your god attempt to rectify such mistakes. They then have tended to move scripture around. That begs the question of whether or not by moving it around, they're keeping it as your god's word. To me, it seems like it wouldn't be.

lula posts:

It would not play into procreation becasue only humans procreate, animals breed.

This is where science and theology overlap.

Man and woman alone can not create life, that is, they can't without God...Humans alone procreate with God.

Let's get back to the beginning. Though what we know of God is very incomplete, we Christians believe that God created space, time, and matter. Not only did He create matter, but also organization of matter. Laws of nature were placed into operation by which matter, and energy, space and time both exist and interact.

Genesis tells us that God not only formed Adam and Eve's body, He also created their soul giving them life. So the transcendant character of humans, being both natural and spiritual (made in the image of God), is beyond all other living things. No human body can exist except by way of descent (procreation) from Adam and Eve.

 Since all the particles within the cell are separate units, each not alive as such, but yet working harmoniously together...what animates the total entity? What constitutes living matter? As I've already said, it's the soul that constitutes living matter. The soul is the principle of life.

Yes, human intercourse is not merely a biological action; it's a moral one and that's why fidelty is the essential component of the marriage bond, and why every aspect of marriage is affected by the presence or absence of this virtue.

for the record I PRACTICE abstinance, I am not a virgin, I am simply abstaining right now. because abstinance IS the only way to be sure and I do not want to have my children aborted...

But abstinance TRAINING is retarded, it does not WORK. Telling people that they must either abstain or have sex, they simply choose sex. Abstinance requires a strong will and a strong purpose. I am at a time in my life where I have the purpose and I have the will to do so. Many do not have a special reason to avoid pregnancy other than "my parents will be pissed" or "like, I don't think I am ready or something" or another equally weak reason.

What is important is accurate information so people could make choices... knowing that 1% of perfect use of condoms still results in pregnancy after one year, and 12% of incorrect use, and learning correct use and then making a choice, is 1% a low enough number for me to choose condoms over abstinance. Is useful... it is EDUCATION because you TEACH and then, when the person has learned, they can make choices.

Also they have more reason to trust you, most think condoms are 100% effective because that would make sense, thats jus the "common sense", but you can't teach them otherwise when you are making up rediculous lies and losing their trust in order to push your puritan agenda...

The perfect example is palin's teen pregnant daughter... Chastity and abstinance only training gets girls teen pregnant.. my parents made sure there are condoms in the house since I turend 12 (saying that I am too young to do it, but if I DO then I better do it safely)... I have however elected to wait until first year of college (age 19) before starting anything. Trust begets trust. Opression begets rebellion.

So you consider a man/gorrila hybrid an unholy abomination? where does its soul come from then? since life cannot exist without a soul, and a zygote cannot grow without one (aka, there is no "god would not put a soul into a baby that would be aborted"), is satan putting the soul in the abomination?

Yet you DO know that those ectopic babies all have souls despite dying and/or killing the mother  long before they even develop a brain, where they are just an indistinguishable bundle of cells...

I KNOW how ectopic pregnancies occur, you don't need to have an MD to do a little bit of reading... I was more interested in the WHY. How is easy, it has to do with the structure of the womb. WHY is asking "why is god putting the soul in the ectop pregnancy which will either be aborted, or die and kill the mother as well).