Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire My Mind Was Blown; How About Yours?

And many of us would kill a rapist in a blink, but two blinks later.....we could have killed our grandsons father.

Rape sucks. If you don't believe me, offer up your loved one.....then tell me about it.

And I watched the beautiful 14 year old daughter of a good friend struggle with being raped until she took her life.

Nobody here said rape was good or than any woman should have to deal with the aftermath. I firmly believe rape should be a death penalty crime. You screw with a woman's life that much you deserve to die.

We simple folks cannot explain it, but God has a PLAN.

There are no accidents, there are no coincidences. And so very many times, what we think of as bad results in something that is very, very good.

Abortion is murder, no matter how anyone tries to explain it away.

Oh, by the way, There is a section in the Didache, which was the first Catechism of the Catholic Church, on abortion. The Didache pre-dates every one of the Gospels and it was basic instruction for Catechumens in the one-year training before entering the Church

Didache 2.1 clearly states, "You will not murder a child, born or unborn."

Vatican II reinstated this ancient practice of one-year Catechumen training and called it RCIA. I am a product of that wonderful training, PLUS I taught it for two years.

Seems like the folks of The Way got it right 2,000 years ago.

God Bless,

Steve

Allow those to deal with their lives as they see fit.

The child who's aborted is the least culpable person who's involved in the whole affair.

But also by far the least capable of self-defense � which makes its involvement (by what logic?) a capital offense with no right of due process, advocacy, counsel, or appeal?

I'm fully aware of the unimaginable anguish of unjustifiable pregnancies, and I'm not in the least insensitive to them � I'm just baffled by the notion that the least culpable individual who's involved is supposed to pay the penalty for it. (And remember that that anguish, no matter how much the execution of the most convenient participant may ameliorate it, isn't going away.)

All should be christian, but who would HE force to be so?

I was trying to speak philosophically and leave religion out of it, and preservation of (innocent) human life is A paramount virtue. Sweeping generality of course. Suppose I can't help but be influenced by my religious belief that as an absolute truth the taking of an innocent human life is never justified even if the consequences are disturbing. ("Innocent" in that context is yet another interesting question.)

"incumbent upon society" is indeed an awkward phrase. I think I mean to say that virtues (truths) should apply universally, not only concerning one's self. (This can devolve into a discussion of absolutism versus relativism.) One's influence in the development of society (government) is an extension of one's ability to promulgate that virtue. And if it is held as a truth one would be negligent not to do so, and not faithful to his beliefs.

Note this is confined to truths in the philosophical sense, not judgement calls which make up the great bulk of governmental action.

Agreed. We don't do near enough to discourage rape or to punish those who perpetrate it. They should die.

That is EXACTLY what we did. She was raped, she conceived, SHE made the decision. He, the product of this rape will be a Doctor at the end of this school year. Again, what is your point.

Goon rapes and impregnates girl. Who's guilty? Who pays?

Father impregnates daughter. Who's guilty? Who pays?

Persuasive boy friend impregnates adventurous young girl friend, then disappears. Who's guilty? Who pays?

Why the innocent?

Why not the guilty?

So you believe it just that a child should pay for his father's crimes?

Doesn't bode well for my kids...

You have faulty logic. No one has said that it should be a pleasure for a raped woman to carry their baby. That isn't the point and you know it.

Your question proves nothing.

If you had taken Bio 101, you'd know that life begins at conception. If the egg and sperm were from human beings, then the life is a human being too.

Well said, Ken.

Gee she has a life because someone didn't murder her!

Yep, if rape were a simple matter for all to understand the meaning of, that should be the case as it used to be when everyone knew what a rape is. Today, however, they call it rape if the next morning a girl decides she made a mistake the previous evening.

Until I can get pregnant from rape or incest, I'll keep my [bleep] mouth shut and leave it to those who can be affected.

Not quite right! Bio 101 teaches the fact that life began generations ago (when is another debate topic altogether, for another discussion).

The sperm, part of the father, is alive.

The ovum (egg), part of the mother, is alive.

The zygote, the ovum fertilized by the sperm, is alive. And it's a brand-new individual, not a part of either the father or the mother. It's in the mother, but it's not part of her � just as a shirt button swallowed by the father would be in him but not part of him.

This is true whether the individual is a mouse, an elk, or a human � a simple fact of biology.

IIRC from too many decades ago, looking at zygotes through microscopes, the zygote contains nothing that can be identified as either sperm or ovum. It's completely and obviously a brand-new and distinctly different organism. But it doesn't generate life � it has gotten its life from the two other organisms that formed it.

Why?

To be more accurate, I should have said the new life begins at conception.