Morning After Pill Now Available For 15 Year Olds

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Speculation. Scientifically speaking, you are correct. But there are many, many things that you don't know when it comes to God, because your knowledge is limited, as is mine. His thoughts aren't your thoughts, neither are yours His. You do make a good point though.

I don't think you're going to find basically any reputable theologian or Christian philosopher that's going to back such a novel interpretation of that verse. Just in context, God is clearly speaking to someone that already exists and has a body and is telling them that before they were even conceived, He knew them already. There is absolutely nothing in that verse to support a reading that God somehow knows a future being that never even came to existence - never was even conceived. Not even the major Christian groups that don't practice contraception believe such a thing.

[finxster 4]

Speculation. Scientifically speaking, you are correct. But there are many, many things that you don't know when it comes to God, because your knowledge is limited, as is mine. His thoughts aren't your thoughts, neither are yours His. You do make a good point though.

I don't think you're going to find basically any reputable theologian or Christian philosopher that's going to back such a novel interpretation of that verse. Just in context, God is clearly speaking to someone that already exists and has a body and is telling them that before they were even conceived, He knew them already. There is absolutely nothing in that verse to support a reading that God somehow knows a future being that never even came to existence - never was even conceived. Not even the major Christian groups that don't practice contraception believe such a thing.

Thus the issue of religious interpretation and religious beliefs...and the ridiculousness of why the legal system holds them in such high regard...

[Aufan59 99]

The reason in say that is because when someone posts their beliefs, they are laughed at and ridiculed. The bible says that God knows us before we are ever formed in the womb. This is a solid fact to me. It may not be to you, but it is to me. So the morning after pill is an abortion pill according to my beliefs. Got it now? I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, I am just asking you and the others to respect my beliefs.

You are claiming that your beliefs are facts, and that we are ignorant for not sharing your beliefs.

You want us to respect your beliefs, but you call us ignorant for not sharing your beliefs. Respect is a two way street.

[Weegle777 78]

Speculation. Scientifically speaking, you are correct. But there are many, many things that you don't know when it comes to God, because your knowledge is limited, as is mine. His thoughts aren't your thoughts, neither are yours His. You do make a good point though.

I don't think you're going to find basically any reputable theologian or Christian philosopher that's going to back such a novel interpretation of that verse. Just in context, God is clearly speaking to someone that already exists and has a body and is telling them that before they were even conceived, He knew them already. There is absolutely nothing in that verse to support a reading that God somehow knows a future being that never even came to existence - never was even conceived. Not even the major Christian groups that don't practice contraception believe such a thing.

Fair enough. But I still stand by what I said. His thoughts aren't yours, and yours aren't His. You cannot ultimately determine this. Humanly speaking, you can base your conclusion on your limited knowledge, but you have to allow the possibility of your conclusion being in error.

[Weegle777 78]

The reason in say that is because when someone posts their beliefs, they are laughed at and ridiculed. The bible says that God knows us before we are ever formed in the womb. This is a solid fact to me. It may not be to you, but it is to me. So the morning after pill is an abortion pill according to my beliefs. Got it now? I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, I am just asking you and the others to respect my beliefs.

You are claiming that your beliefs are facts, and that we are ignorant for not sharing your beliefs.

You want us to respect your beliefs, but you call us ignorant for not sharing your beliefs. Respect is a two way street.

I didn't say you were ignorant for not sharing my beliefs, I said that ignorance of the bible was displayed by your attempt to use the bible to argue your point. Stop twisting my words to suit your tastes. Ignorance doesn't mean that a person is stupid, it means that you just aren't that well versed in a subject. I am ignorant of nuclear engineering, but that doesn't mean that I am stupid.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Speculation. Scientifically speaking, you are correct. But there are many, many things that you don't know when it comes to God, because your knowledge is limited, as is mine. His thoughts aren't your thoughts, neither are yours His. You do make a good point though.

I don't think you're going to find basically any reputable theologian or Christian philosopher that's going to back such a novel interpretation of that verse. Just in context, God is clearly speaking to someone that already exists and has a body and is telling them that before they were even conceived, He knew them already. There is absolutely nothing in that verse to support a reading that God somehow knows a future being that never even came to existence - never was even conceived. Not even the major Christian groups that don't practice contraception believe such a thing.

Fair enough. But I still stand by what I said. His thoughts aren't yours, and yours aren't His. You cannot ultimately determine this. Humanly speaking, you can base your conclusion on your limited knowledge, but you have to allow the possibility of your conclusion being in error.

Ok, I'll allow for a .000000001% chance that I'm wrong and God "knows" hypothetical people that would have come into existence if exactly *that* sperm fertilized exaclty *that* egg.

I have to say, this is one of the more bizarre takes on that verse I've heard.

[Aufan59 99]

Religion is what you imagine it to be, there are no constraints.

[Aufan59 99]

I didn't say you were ignorant for not sharing my beliefs, I said that ignorance of the bible was displayed by your attempt to use the bible to argue your point. Stop twisting my words to suit your tastes. Ignorance doesn't mean that a person is stupid, it means that you just aren't that well versed in a subject. I am ignorant of nuclear engineering, but that doesn't mean that I am stupid.

Try again. After your post of ignorance about contraception vs. abortion, nobody was using the Bible to argue a point, not even me. You simply responded with "Ah the ignorance".

We didn't share your views, thus we were ignorant. Respect is a two way street.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

By chance do you guys know the natural abortion rates?

Miscarriages spontaneously occur in up to 70-75% of all fertilization events, and in about 30% of all implantation events.

Spontaneous natural abortions are extremely common for a wide variety of reasons.

There are no moral concerns about "natural abortions" vs induced abortions anymore than there are about natural causes of death vs homicides. So I'm not really sure why that'd be something a Christian would keep track of.

The whole point is that natural abortions occur in up to 75% of fertilizations. You can't argue from a moral point that God really wanted that baby to be born as a moral justification when 75% of those occurrences naturally don't go to fruition even if the parents wanted it to. When the argument becomes "You can't do this because it goes against God" then there has to be some sanity to that claim.

Once the argument for that claim turns to "I can't know what God wants because he is God" then somewhere the script has been lost.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

By chance do you guys know the natural abortion rates?

Miscarriages spontaneously occur in up to 70-75% of all fertilization events, and in about 30% of all implantation events.

Spontaneous natural abortions are extremely common for a wide variety of reasons.

There are no moral concerns about "natural abortions" vs induced abortions anymore than there are about natural causes of death vs homicides. So I'm not really sure why that'd be something a Christian would keep track of.

The whole point is that natural abortions occur in up to 75% of fertilizations. You can't argue from a moral point that God really wanted that baby to be born as a moral justification when 75% of those occurrences naturally don't go to fruition even if the parents wanted it to. When the argument becomes "You can't do this because it goes against God" then there has to be some sanity to that claim.

It still doesn't follow that you've made any point whatsoever about Christian doctrine regarding abortion. Christians believe that we don't have the right to end the life of an innocent human being. The fact that 75% of fertilized eggs don't result in a full term pregnancy and birth doesn't change that anymore than the fact that some people die of old age, heart attack or cancer would change our views on murder.

[Weegle777 78]

I didn't say you were ignorant for not sharing my beliefs, I said that ignorance of the bible was displayed by your attempt to use the bible to argue your point. Stop twisting my words to suit your tastes. Ignorance doesn't mean that a person is stupid, it means that you just aren't that well versed in a subject. I am ignorant of nuclear engineering, but that doesn't mean that I am stupid.

Try again. After your post of ignorance about contraception vs. abortion, nobody was using the Bible to argue a point, not even me. You simply responded with "Ah the ignorance".

We didn't share your views, thus we were ignorant. Respect is a two way street.

Just can't accept the truth can you.

[Weegle777 78]

Speculation. Scientifically speaking, you are correct. But there are many, many things that you don't know when it comes to God, because your knowledge is limited, as is mine. His thoughts aren't your thoughts, neither are yours His. You do make a good point though.

I don't think you're going to find basically any reputable theologian or Christian philosopher that's going to back such a novel interpretation of that verse. Just in context, God is clearly speaking to someone that already exists and has a body and is telling them that before they were even conceived, He knew them already. There is absolutely nothing in that verse to support a reading that God somehow knows a future being that never even came to existence - never was even conceived. Not even the major Christian groups that don't practice contraception believe such a thing.

Fair enough. But I still stand by what I said. His thoughts aren't yours, and yours aren't His. You cannot ultimately determine this. Humanly speaking, you can base your conclusion on your limited knowledge, but you have to allow the possibility of your conclusion being in error.

Ok, I'll allow for a .000000001% chance that I'm wrong and God "knows" hypothetical people that would have come into existence if exactly *that* sperm fertilized exaclty *that* egg.

I have to say, this is one of the more bizarre takes on that verse I've heard.

That's cool.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

By chance do you guys know the natural abortion rates?

Miscarriages spontaneously occur in up to 70-75% of all fertilization events, and in about 30% of all implantation events.

Spontaneous natural abortions are extremely common for a wide variety of reasons.

There are no moral concerns about "natural abortions" vs induced abortions anymore than there are about natural causes of death vs homicides. So I'm not really sure why that'd be something a Christian would keep track of.

The whole point is that natural abortions occur in up to 75% of fertilizations. You can't argue from a moral point that God really wanted that baby to be born as a moral justification when 75% of those occurrences naturally don't go to fruition even if the parents wanted it to. When the argument becomes "You can't do this because it goes against God" then there has to be some sanity to that claim.

It still doesn't follow that you've made any point whatsoever about Christian doctrine regarding abortion. Christians believe that we don't have the right to end the life of an innocent human being. The fact that 75% of fertilized eggs don't result in a full term pregnancy and birth doesn't change that anymore than the fact that some people die of old age, heart attack or cancer would change our views on murder.

Right, Christians and you. Others are not Christian, or they are and they don't have a problem with it. That's what people have been trying to point out the entire time; you can't legislate from the Christian doctrine. You can, but you end up falling to pieces based on whatever interpretation YOU end up choosing for the doctrine vs whatever even other Christians choose.

But we've already discussed the "morality" of abortion earlier in this thread (I think, I remember morality being discussed a good bit). I wasn't primarily arguing the abortion point anyway. My point was that it's a good bit different to claim that contraceptives or morning after pills are awful when it happens FAR more naturally than the number of pregnancies avoided by those methods.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Ok, I guess. Congratulations on making your point. I think.

[Aufan59 99]

I didn't say you were ignorant for not sharing my beliefs, I said that ignorance of the bible was displayed by your attempt to use the bible to argue your point. Stop twisting my words to suit your tastes. Ignorance doesn't mean that a person is stupid, it means that you just aren't that well versed in a subject. I am ignorant of nuclear engineering, but that doesn't mean that I am stupid.

Try again. After your post of ignorance about contraception vs. abortion, nobody was using the Bible to argue a point, not even me. You simply responded with "Ah the ignorance".

We didn't share your views, thus we were ignorant. Respect is a two way street.

Just can't accept the truth can you.

Still can't form a coherent argument to save your life?

[homersapien 11,812]

I didn't say you were ignorant for not sharing my beliefs, I said that ignorance of the bible was displayed by your attempt to use the bible to argue your point. Stop twisting my words to suit your tastes. Ignorance doesn't mean that a person is stupid, it means that you just aren't that well versed in a subject. I am ignorant of nuclear engineering, but that doesn't mean that I am stupid.

Try again. After your post of ignorance about contraception vs. abortion, nobody was using the Bible to argue a point, not even me. You simply responded with "Ah the ignorance".

We didn't share your views, thus we were ignorant. Respect is a two way street.

Just can't accept the truth can you.

Still can't form a coherent argument to save your life?

Hard to argue with someone who simply denies their own previous statements.

I think it is a form of Tourette syndrome combined with religious schizophrenia. Regardless, a written medium makes it pathetically apparent.