For the anti-choice religionists, a scenario from life

[Tiassa]

Counterbalance & TruthSeeker

Counterbalance

I admit it's a sticky point. Hmmm .... Something to consider for the future. Unfortunately, I've landed myself neck-deep in it

Truthseeker

From the topic post:

•Specifically, since life begins at conception according to the anti-choice religionists, I submit the following question: having watched three accidental (unplanned) pregnancies go south due to Rh factor, resulting in the death of the embryo and, in one case, the fetus, I'm curious about why God would bless a conception with the full will of not allowing the pregnancy to gestate. In this case, God is the abortionist.

Now, I'm all for the idea that when people can't reproduce without a specific degree of medical assistance, they should not. But this is ridiculous. I cannot hold that God is telling this couple to not reproduce or, given the accidental nature of the pregnancies, to not have sex. After all, isn't the murder of an unborn human being an extreme way to make a point?

• But come on ... this is ridiculous. It looks to me like God, who blesses conception, does so for the purpose of exploiting this "human life" in a mortal example. By the anti-choice religionists' explanation of it,then, I have to ask why God is diminishing the value of human life through this manner of exploitation?

And, from a clarification I offered Xev, separating this form of God's "taking a life" from the standard life-and-death questions:

• E and T have sex.
• For whatever reasons beyond their contraceptive efforts, sperm reaches the egg.
• Conception occurs. God blesses life.
• Miscarriage occurs. God terminates blessed life.
_____

• Can you imagine that? Being arrested and jailed for the murder of an "unborn human" because you had sex? I mean, your irresponsible sexual actions--sleeping with someone of the wrong Rh factor--led directly to the conception and death of this "unborn human". Your actions led to the death of an unborn human, and therefore .... (fill in the rest of the anti-choice argument).
_____

• The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. In this case, life is worth nothing more than a philosophical point. And that's what I find odd, watching this microdrama play out in my corner of the Universe

And, after you reiterated your point which I found so irrelevant, I explained,

• However, what is at issue is that the human body, by design, allows conception of a pregnancy that does not, without artificial intervention, carry to term. That is, God blesses (as accords a particular religionist viewpoint which led me to post this topic) a conception of life that, by nature of design, cannot be.
_____

• Is one, then, killing a baby by not artificially intervening--that is, helping nature in its apparently imperfect design?

(I added that boldface on the word, "not" ... perhaps you missed it the first time?)

And when Jan Ardena kept focusing on birth, I reminded him,

I'm talking about a condition whereby stillbirth happens to be the closest thing you'll get.

And then before Jan switched theologies on us, I had another opportunity to attempt to explain it to him:

It's surprising to me that most of the anti-abortion response--daresay all of it--is choosing to undertake points separate from the topic post.

You know, if a woman conceives, has a child, and that child grows to be 80 and dies of cancer, I'm not arguing that; Xev and I cleared that one off the table immediately.

I'm not even talking about the woman who conceives, gets in a car wreck or falls down the stairs, and miscarries due to external trauma. This is closer to the point, but not quite there.

What I am talking about is a condition whereby conception occurs with the specific result of a miscarriage due to the incompatibility of organisms. The organisms treat each other like infections, and usually the mother's body ends up killing off the gestating organism.

This condition can be worked around with artificial intervention. That is, you can pump chemicals into a woman designed to prevent her body from sensitizing to Rh factor. Nonetheless, the bloods of the two organisms are poisonous to each other.

And I even asked Jan the basic questions surrounding the topic itself:

The question is what God is doing blessing and then murdering. The organism does nothing but exist in a womb.

Is it an attempt to change the behavior of the host (mother)?

Is it a message of some sort?

Isn't murder a ridiculous measure to undertake in such a circumstance?

Xev even put the central consideration there for you:

If God is responsible for the creation of life, why does God 'kill' this life so soon after he creates it?

I mean, there's the essence of it. It's not like everything else that God wills; this blessed conception is set up to die; God kills the defenseless, an act of cowardice according to some of our anti-choice posters.

Is it still unclear? I can try to compress it for you again, but I'm not sure what good that would do. Right now it's uncannily familiar to something I went through in another post recently. In the meantime, Counterbalance has made an excellent point. Are you aware that if the male human being has a different blood Rh factor than the female, and conception occurs, and the genetic code determines that the baby will have the male's blood factor, Rh-sensitization occurs and causes a spontaneous miscarriage? The mother's body attempts to reject the fetus as a disease, and the fetus, if well-enough developed when sensitization occurs, will fight back. It is a bit frightening to watch, actually.

Now, as if this natural conundrum isn't odd enough, it turns out that we can work around it by pumping a woman full of chemicals. Usually, the first miscarriage is the sign, and a drug called Rhogam is administered after miscarriages. This drug will supposedly greatly reduce the chances of Rh-sensitization. This drug is typically administered before pregnancy in order to be most effective. Does any of this make sense?

If so, go ahead and read the topic post again, or at least consider the above-cited play-by-play.

And then let me know what doesn't make sense.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: Jan Ardena

Originally posted by tiassa
Switching scriptures and switching theologies is, essentially, irrelevant.

How so? You accuse God, so I quote from Gods scripture.

Why don't you do me a favor and summarize for us the vedic influence in the American anti-abortion debate?

In your zeal to debase God, you have lost the point of your own thread. Your basic enquiry is, if God blesses life, then why does He then abort it. My point in using the BG, is to show that God is impartial to ‘life or death’, and that the responsibility lies with the living entity. So whether the he/she lives to a 100 or whether he lives 30 seconds, that is the responsibility of the said living entity. That is the law of karma.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Xelios]

So when a baby is miscarried it's that babies own fault? For what? What horrible sin could the baby have possibly commited while still unconcious and unborn? You say it is the responsibility of the fetus to grow normally, what if it inherits a genetic deformity and is miscarried as a result? Is it supposed to magically cure the deformity while still in the fetal stages?

In some twisted way I can see and understand what you're saying, I just flat out don't agree with it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Xelios
So when a baby is miscarried it's that babies own fault?

What we see is a babys body, the soul within the body although conditioned, is eternal and primeval, and consequently it is the conditioned soul who has transgressed the law.


what if it inherits a genetic deformity and is miscarried as a result?

Genetic deformity can come at an early stage or late stage of life, it is the condition of the body or linage of the body that creates the deformity, not God.


Is it supposed to magically cure the deformity while still in the fetal stages?

Once the deformity has set in, it acts accordingly. You are in the hands of prividence

In some twisted way I can see and understand what you're saying, I just flat out don't agree with it.

I can understand that, i didn't agree with it at first, but in the clear light of day, it makes complete sense.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Xev]

Jan: The BG is hardly a Christian scripture. I've not read it, but I am fairly sure of that. I think that may have been Tiassa's point.

In your zeal to debase God, you have lost the point of your own thread. Your basic enquiry is, if God blesses life, then why does He then abort it. My point in using the BG, is to show that God is impartial to ‘life or death’, and that the responsibility lies with the living entity. So whether the he/ she lives to a 100 or whether he lives 30 seconds, that is the responsibility of the said living entity. That is the law of karma.

How can a fetus be responsible for its life? I mean, it's not even really alive...separate issue.

So basically, it is because the fetus did somthing wrong in a previous life and is being punished?

You know, other than the utter and complete lack of evidence, that does work....in a twisted sense.

I wonder how a conventional Christian would explain this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Xev
Jan: The BG is hardly a Christian scripture. I've not read it, but I am fairly sure of that. I think that may have been Tiassa's point.

Christian means followers of Christ, by following the example set by Jesus Christ, they can come to the platform of Christ-consciousness. Christ is God, the term Christ is a translation of the term Kristos, which derived from the term Krishta, which comes from Krishna. Krishna means ‘all attractive’. Krishna is the speaker of the Bhagavad Gita.

How can a fetus be responsible for its life? I mean, it's not even really alive...separate issue.

A fetus is basically a body, albeit an undeveloped body, it is due to the presence of the soul that the fetus/body grows, without the soul the fetus would die, therefore the soul/living entity is responsible.

So basically, it is because the fetus did somthing wrong in a previous life and is being punished?

The fetus is brand new, it has just come into being, it is the living entity that has to accept karmic reaction.

I wonder how a conventional Christian would explain this.

A ‘conventional’ Christian believes in the word of Lord Jesus Christ. The subject of Karma does not straightforwardly appear in the new testament. However, I have heard Christians talk about the soul and body being different, in that one is eternal and the other temporal. This is the knowledge, it is only that in the Bhagavad Gita, it is perfectly explained, by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
There are texts that chart the missing 18 years of Jesus Christ, part of those years Jesus travelled in India, where he taught this philosophy.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tiassa]

Jan Ardena

How so? You accuse God, so I quote from Gods scripture.

But you're still switching scriptures. Did you miss the two bullet-questions at the beginning of the topic post?

• Among other things, do anti-choice religionists still hold that abortion diminishes the value of human life?

• Against what standard would we compare that?

So, again, I invite you to enumerate the Vedic influences in the American anti-choice movement.

Until you provide that tie-in, and legends about Jesus' life don't count, since (A) they're legends and not even officially part of the scriptural canon, and (B) not verifiable in history.

In other words, how many of those anti-choice religionists have considered your assertions about Jesus in India in such a manner as to affect their stance in the debate?

I consider your insertion of Vedic justifications to be quite irrelevant.

Were this debate, by circumstances described, a broader debate about theology and human life, I would have no problem giving consideration to the Vedic points offered. But it's rather like you're trying to throw a penalty flag in an American football game and calling a balk against the quarterback.

--Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Christ is God, the term Christ is a translation of the term Kristos, which derived from the term Krishta, which comes from Krishna. Krishna means ‘all attractive’.

Umm... No.

Christ n. The Messiah, as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. Often used with the. Christianity. Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English Crist, from Old English Crst, from Latin Chrstus, from Greek Khrstos, from khrstos, anointed, verbal adj. of khrein, to anoint. See ghri- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

christ
\Christ\, n. [L. Christus, Gr. ?, fr. ? anointed, fr. chri`ein to anoint. See Chrism.] The Anointed; an appellation given to Jesus, the Savior. It is synonymous with the Hebrew Messiah.

and finally

It was Crist in Old English, having derived from Latin Christus, which itself was adopted from Greek Christos “Christ”, the noun use of the verb meaning “anointed”. Incidentally, that was a direct translation of Hebrew mashiah “anointed” (English messiah), which was short for m’shiah yahweh “the Lord’s anointed”. The ch- spelling of Christ in English did not become prevalent until the 15th century (and that applies to related words like chrism, as well). The earliest recorded use of the word in English is found in the Lindisfarne Gospels (from about 950):

This last from:
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
without the soul the fetus would die, therefore the soul/living entity is responsible.

Proof?

P.S.

One of the most popular of the thousands of Hindu gods is Krishna (literally "the dark one" in Sanskrit). He is considered to be the eighth of the ten avatars ("incarnations") of the great god Vishnu. There has been one avatar since Krishna and the tenth will be a white horse called Kalki who will usher in the end of the world.

You have an amazing facility for redefining words for your own uses Jan.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
Umm... No.

Christ n. The Messiah, as foretold by the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. Often used with the. Christianity. Jesus.
ddle English Crist, from Old English Crst, from Latin Chrstus, from Greek Khrstos, from khrstos, anointed, verbal adj. of khrein, to anoint. See ghri- in Indo-European Roots.]

The Dravidians of South India reffered to Krishna as 'Krishta.' At the time of the incursion of Alexander the Great, some 350 years before the birth of Jesus, Krishta becaume pronounced as 'Kristos'.

Proof?

As the embodied soul continuosly passes in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at the time of death.
BG.2.13

One of the most popular of the thousands of Hindu gods is Krishna (literally "the dark one" in Sanskrit).

'Krish'= attractive 'na'=all--'Krishna' all attractive.
Krishna does not mean 'the dark one' it also means 'black.'

He is considered to be the eighth of the ten avatars ("incarnations") of the great god Vishnu.

...er no!

He advented Himself as the 19th and 20th incarnation as Lord Balarama and Lord Krishna in the family of Vrishni (the Yadu dynasty).

He is not an incarnation of Vishnu, He is the source, not only of Vishnu but all incarnations. Although the Hindus worship Him, He Himself is not Hindu. That is like saying, because the sun rises in the east it therefore belongs to the east.


There has been one avatar since Krishna and the tenth will be a white horse called Kalki who will usher in the end of the world.

Where do you get your information?
It depends on what type of avatara you are refering to.
Lord Kalki is going to be the 22nd avatar.

You have an amazing facility for redefining words for your own uses Jan.

You need to redifine your information, then maybe you will have more understanding.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The Dravidians of South India reffered to Krishna as 'Krishta.' At the time of the incursion of Alexander the Great, some 350 years before the birth of Jesus, Krishta becaume pronounced as 'Kristos'.

Your references?

See below from www.takeourword.com (an etymology site). Sorry, but I'm trusting the etymologists and linguists from this site and the three dictionaries I referenced as better sources than you in correctly determining the roots and meaning of words.

"Christ means "anointed" and is a Greek translation of the Hebrew mesiach (messiah). Krishna means "dark". We realize that Krishna looks a little like Christ but there is actually no letter I in Krishna. It's just put there to make it easier for Westerners to pronounce. When written in the standard Sanskrit transliteration, Krishna looks like Krsna but with little dots below the R, the S and the N. There is no connection either in their meaning or their etymology."

'Krish'= attractive 'na'=all--'Krishna' all attractive.
Krishna does not mean 'the dark one' it also means 'black.'

Therapist: 'The' = 'Denotes particular, specified persons or things.' 'Rapist' = ' One who commits rape.'
Adamant: 'Adam' = 'The first man of the Bible.' 'Ant' = 'An insect'.

That a word can be arbitrarily broken down into other words does not necessarily mean that the word developed from the combination of those words, although that is sometimes the case.

Where do you get your information?

Sorry, I should have referenced the information about who/what Krishna is better. I didn't mean to get into a debate about that. What I was trying to point out was the meaning… I found several references for black as well. Nolo contendre.


As the embodied soul continuosly passes in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at the time of death.
BG.2.13

This is not proof, simply a religious quotation.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Raithere
I didn't mean to get into a debate about that. What I was trying to point out was the meaning…

Thats alright.

Love.

Jan Ardena.