|
Post by TheWayIt on Dec 15, 2006 13:16:29 GMT -5
the way it should be is like this.
One women one man become as one.
Man should not look nor touch the women until the act of copulation in the course of creation. There should be no foreplay and the man and women do it in a mechanical fashion not seeking pleasure. Just get it done to make more humans. No kissing, touching or anything on either part. After the women puts the Burkas back on such that the man can only see eyes. Anything more is lust and detracts from the function for which the male and female parts were made. They were made for making babies and not for fun.
Ali Bin Babba ;D
|
|
|
Post by Holy Smokes on Dec 15, 2006 14:41:12 GMT -5
the way it should be is like this. One women one man become as one. Man should not look nor touch the women until the act of copulation in the course of creation. There should be no foreplay and the man and women do it in a mechanical fashion not seeking pleasure. Just get it done to make more humans. No kissing, touching or anything on either part. After the women puts the Burkas back on such that the man can only see eyes. Anything more is lust and detracts from the function for which the male and female parts were made. They were made for making babies and not for fun. Ali Bin Babba ;D I was WAY off!
|
|
|
Post by lovedoes on Dec 15, 2006 15:14:33 GMT -5
I apologize for not quoting you accurately. However, I'm sure you will agree that the minor discrepancies do not in any way alter your statement. Further, I will apologize in advance for any future tardiness on my part, which I will endeavour to keep to a minimum. Observer's quote " No, the above statement shows how a part of the body that is designed for one thing can also be used for something else." Answer. Does that make that "something" else right ? My hands are designed for lifting. Does that make theft okay. Or what about murder, etc, etc, etc. Clearly there are many things that our hands (and other parts of the body) can be used for, but are wrong ! Observer's quote "Not a lot of breast play among deer (or any other mammal). Answer. From "your own" observation, it is clear that you DO NOT think the writer was in fact referring to the sexual act itself with this part of his statement. Have you considered that this may have been his analogy for love, preceding the sexual act ? Observer's quote. "But the mammary gland was developed for nourishment. Sexual use would be secondary." Answer. Are you serious ? I ask this understanding your position to be that "female breasts" were primarily designed for nourishing a child and that sexual use is secondary ? Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am right "aren't you putting the cart before the horse ?" What comes first, sexual arousal leading to copulation, or nourishing a child ? Please understand my position. I am not suggesting that nourishing a child is less important than sexual foreplay, but merely placing things in their proper order, in which case how can sexual use be "secondary" to nourishment. In the correct order of things, sexual use is the "primary" event which leads to the "secondary" event of nourishment ! Dr. Shoal....................? Dr RShoal? Are you the same RSHOAL that wrote the book about transva-gi-nal intercession?!? Please CLARIFY, DR. and for GOODness sakes, stop being such an RShoal.
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 15, 2006 18:25:42 GMT -5
Sorry luveduzz but you are confusing me with Dr. R. Sole !
No I haven't written any books. Also it takes a little while for the "deed poll" process to be finalized, so I guess I'll just have to be an RShoal for a bit longer.
Sorry about that, but hey, loveduzz make ya blind ! Maybe you won't see it ?
Take care Bud ! You're a good kid.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 19:13:56 GMT -5
the way it should be is like this. One women one man become as one. I think I read about this once! I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs. Shakespeare, Othello (I,i)
|
|
|
Post by ali on Dec 15, 2006 20:03:35 GMT -5
6 pages now for homosexuality??? I'm not going to read through it. So much attention all the time to this and abortion in the media...you'd think Christians didn't think about anything else.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 16, 2006 9:47:48 GMT -5
6 pages now for homosexuality??? I'm not going to read through it. So much attention all the time to this and abortion in the media...you'd think Christians didn't think about anything else. Don't even get me started on abortion. Homosexuality I can accept, abortion I can not and will not.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Dec 16, 2006 9:55:38 GMT -5
It isn't just Christians who focus on homosexuality. Educators have to deal with kids who live with homosexual "parents". The issues can be pretty big, especially at adolesence.
|
|
|
Post by justamom on Dec 16, 2006 9:59:54 GMT -5
The issue for some kids only becomes an issue if others around them make it one...
My daughter is a teen and she has no problems with me being in a same sex relationship... all her friends know and they have no problem with it.... her bf's parents know and they have no problem with it....
If I was to hide who I am... be ashamed of who I am.. then she and others around her might have a problem with it... but that isn't the case as I am open about who I am... and my daughter is open about who her mother is....
|
|
|
Post by ali on Dec 16, 2006 10:14:30 GMT -5
Clay...I'm not an advocate of abortion either-mainly because I almost ended up in the garbage. My mother was ill in her 1st trimester..the Dr. offered her an abortion but she said no. That kind of permanently biased me against it.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Dec 16, 2006 15:12:29 GMT -5
The issue for some kids only becomes an issue if others around them make it one...
My daughter is a teen and she has no problems with me being in a same sex relationship... all her friends know and they have no problem with it.... her bf's parents know and they have no problem with it....
If I was to hide who I am... be ashamed of who I am.. then she and others around her might have a problem with it... but that isn't the case as I am open about who I am... and my daughter is open about who her mother is....
I'm glad your daughter is confident and that you are open with her. Not everyone is like that and not all kids react the same way...nor do communities! We are counseling a girl now who is suicidal due to issues that have come with her mom's lifestyle. Every situation is different. I also will acknowledge that kids from "straight" couples have some pretty serious problems too! This year, our school has had three kids from gay "parent sets" who have had serious issues directly related to their homelife, so the topic is close to home for me right now.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 16, 2006 15:26:55 GMT -5
We are counseling a girl now who is suicidal due to issues that have come with her mom's lifestyle. Every situation is different. I also will acknowledge that kids from "straight" couples have some pretty serious problems too! This year, our school has had three kids from gay "parent sets" who have had serious issues directly related to their home life, so the topic is close to home for me right now. I have to agree with JustAMom on this. We have 5 same-sex households and the children are from 3 to 18. I would question if the problems come from living in the same-sex household or if the problems come from living in a particular community in a same-sex household. Of course, I have no idea what you would consider a serious issue or how they are related to the home life. Are there cases of abuse? Child abandonment? Cruelty? The question is, is it a problem that only is seen in same-sex households or is it a problem seen in households with adolescents?
|
|
|
Post by justamom on Dec 16, 2006 15:27:44 GMT -5
I am very lucky that I live in a state that is very open about the gay lifestyle and the kids here don't have a problem knowing that someone is gay... most likely they have a family member who is gay...
For me, being open and honest with my daughter has been the key to her acceptence and the fact that it doesn't bother her what others say about her or her parents. And yes, she does introduce my partner and myself to others as her parents.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 16, 2006 15:39:47 GMT -5
6 pages now for homosexuality??? I'm not going to read through it. So much attention all the time to this and abortion in the media...you'd think Christians didn't think about anything else. Don't even get me started on abortion. Homosexuality I can accept, abortion I can not and will not. Not even a spontaneous abortion?
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Dec 16, 2006 19:43:57 GMT -5
This thread has been so much fun, and so many of us have changed our original points of view because of the compelling arguments presented by the other side.... let's start a thread on abortion now!
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 16, 2006 23:06:32 GMT -5
This thread has been so much fun, and so many of us have changed our original points of view because of the compelling arguments presented by the other side.... let's start a thread on abortion now! Oh, I second this motion! I think sarcasm should be required in every post.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Dec 17, 2006 1:03:35 GMT -5
But, I'm serious.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 17, 2006 18:48:20 GMT -5
This thread has been so much fun, and so many of us have changed our original points of view because of the compelling arguments presented by the other side.... let's start a thread on abortion now! Oh, I second this motion! I think sarcasm should be required in every post. I'd like to think that I have a relatively well-developed sense of humor, but as a former fetus myself, I find that there is little about abortion to joke about. Yet, I'm going to assume that the question about spontaneous abortion was made tongue in cheek and was not actually a serious query.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 17, 2006 22:35:10 GMT -5
Oh, I second this motion! I think sarcasm should be required in every post. I'd like to think that I have a relatively well-developed sense of humor, but as a former fetus myself, I find that there is little about abortion to joke about. Yet, I'm going to assume that the question about spontaneous abortion was made tongue in cheek and was not actually a serious query. Clay, it was not made completely tongue in cheek. Depending on your source, 25% to 50%% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Someone is responsible for the abortions. Advanced maternal age, increasing parity, preconception solvent exposure of fathers and maternal heavy lifting. Therapeutic agents - such as chemotherapy, radiation and anesthetic agent exposures. These are just a few of the possibilities. Would you blame a woman who gets pregnant at an advanced age for the abortion of her child? A father who worked with solvents? A woman who does heavy lifting and aborts? Speaking out against abortions without qualification would make God the biggest abortionist. Certainly in the first trimester the main cause of spontaneous abortions are primarily chromosomal abnormalities. But discovering chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, is the reason some decide to have an abortion. Uterine abnormalities is a major cause for second trimester spontaneous abortions. Again, maternal complications is a reason people elect to have abortions. But why is this being discussed in this thread? Sorry - I could delete it, I guess, but typing is so painful I will let it stay but promise not to post regarding abortion again in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 18, 2006 10:50:05 GMT -5
Depending on your source, 25% to 50%% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Right. I call them "miscarriages". To mention spontaneous AB in the context of abortion to which everyone knows I was referring is obtuse. Someone is responsible for the abortions. Advanced maternal age, How is one responsible for advancing in their age? Last I checked, that happens to all of us. increasing parity, preconception solvent exposure of fathers and maternal heavy lifting. Therapeutic agents - such as chemotherapy, radiation and anesthetic agent exposures. These are all incidental events or exposures with absolutely no reference to intentional termination of pregnancy. Would you blame a woman who gets pregnant at an advanced age for the abortion of her child? Women have healthy babies up to their mid-late 40's. The child in question has no objection to how old his or her mommy is. A father who worked with solvents? Why? Would I blame a father who lives in smog-laden Los Angeles? A woman who does heavy lifting and aborts? If it was accidental, no. Speaking out against abortions without qualification would make God the biggest abortionist. I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Spontaneous abortions are just that - SPONTANEOUS. Certainly in the first trimester the main cause of spontaneous abortions are primarily chromosomal abnormalities. Yes, I recall learning that as a pre-med in college and again in medical school. But discovering chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, is the reason some decide to have an abortion. I'm aware of that. Discovering that a baby is a girl instead of a boy is the reason some decide to have an abortion, but that doesn't make it right. Uterine abnormalities is a major cause for second trimester spontaneous abortions. Again, maternal complications is a reason people elect to have abortions. Yet the vast majority of these so-called "maternal complications" is that the female simply doesn't want to be pregant. But why is this being discussed in this thread? Somebody brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 18, 2006 12:33:20 GMT -5
Depending on your source, 25% to 50%% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Right. I call them "miscarriages". To mention spontaneous AB in the context of abortion to which everyone knows I was referring is obtuse. Why? An abortion is the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. Abortions are spontaneous or induced. Calling it a miscarriage is clouding the issue. You are right. It is not the getting old that is the problem, it is getting pregnant at an advanced age that increases the chance of problems, including the abortion of the fetus. I think the point is that you did not mention induced abortion, only abortion. Unless, because of age induced chromosome damage, the child ends up with some genetic disease. Although it might be difficult to explain the age connection to a child with Down Syndrome. It could be looked at as an error when a fetus with Trisomy 21 does not naturally abort in the first 20 weeks. Just as doctors assist in the case of a birth when the mother could not naturally give birth is it wrong to assist in causing the abortion of an fetus with Trisomy 21? Because he fathered a child when it is known that his exposure to chemicals dramatically increased the possibility of abortion. Doctors interfere and will go so far as to stitch the cervix closed to delay delivery. Is it a good thing when a 24 week old fetus is 'saved' only to suffer life long complications from whatever conditions that caused the abortion? Accidental? Mother's do not intentionally harm the fetus when they drink. But they are still held responsible. So you are saying that there was no cause? That God had nothing to do with it? As you know, Clay, there is some reason that the fetus aborts. Toxoplasmosis, for example, has the potential for causing all sorts of problems including spontaneous abortion of still birth yet nothing is done to the women who continued to eat undercooked meat and deal with cats and their litter. Don't they bare some of the responsibility? I didn't mention it for your benefit. I assume these facts are not new to you. I agree with you on this issue but I feel less compelled to impose my beliefs on others. That may well be true. But if I am not mistaken you are opposed to induced abortion for any reason, including maternal complications, even if they are life threatening or genetic problems like Trisomy 21. Now if we could just learn who posted replies #145 and #146 we could have them drawn and quartered!! [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 18, 2006 13:25:38 GMT -5
Why? An abortion is the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. Oh, please. Was Roe v. Wade about a woman's right to have a spontaneous abortion? Do right-wing nuts bomb clinics where miscarriages occur? Do "pro-choice" proponents march holding signs proclaiming their right to have a spontaneous abortion? Of course not. I don't know what intellectual circles you inhabit, but when the word "Abortion" is brought up, everyone in the room knows exactly what we're talking about. Bringing up spontaneous abortions is simply irrelevant. Abortions are spontaneous or induced. Calling it a miscarriage is clouding the issue. The "pro-choice" movement has their own euphemisms, so please allow me to have my own. After all, I'm not sure if you've ever had the privilege of telling a woman that she lost her baby. I promise you that "miscarriage" is the preferred method. By your argument, Dr. Observing would tell the patient, "Guess what, you just had an abortion. Making a distinction regarding intent is 'irrelevant'." You are right. It is not the getting old that is the problem, it is getting pregnant at an advanced age that increases the chance of problems, including the abortion of the fetus. Yep, people take chances every day. So what? I think the point is that you did not mention induced abortion, only abortion. See above. Unless, because of age induced chromosome damage, the child ends up with some genetic disease. Although it might be difficult to explain the age connection to a child with Down Syndrome. You're probably right. In fact, we should probably hunt down all Down Syndrome people and finish them off right away. They're too stupid to understand anything, right? I can engage in hyperbole also, you see :-) It could be looked at as an error when a fetus with Trisomy 21 does not naturally abort in the first 20 weeks. Just as doctors assist in the case of a birth when the mother could not naturally give birth is it wrong to assist in causing the abortion of an fetus with Trisomy 21? Why are you now calling them Trisomy 21? It seems that the only requirement for abortion is simply that they're not "wanted". That is unacceptable to me. Because he fathered a child when it is known that his exposure to chemicals dramatically increased the possibility of abortion. That may be true. We should move everyone off the East and West coasts. Then again, they would move to the Midwest where the exposure to tornados dramatically increases the possibility of abortion. Doctors interfere and will go so far as to stitch the cervix closed to delay delivery. Cervical cerclage is a procedure performed to preserve the pregancy, not terminate it. I fail to see the relevance. Is it a good thing when a 24 week old fetus is 'saved' only to suffer life long complications from whatever conditions that caused the abortion? Who are you to decide what is "good"? Accidental? Mother's do not intentionally harm the fetus when they drink. But they are still held responsible.[/qiuote] And if a mother intentionally drinks enough alcohol in order to abort her fetus, that is an abortion. I'm sorry, I meant "induced-abortion". So you are saying that there was no cause? That God had nothing to do with it? No more than when my patients develop renal cell carcinoma, or Cushing's disease, or pheochromocytoma, or..... As you know, Clay, there is some reason that the fetus aborts. Toxoplasmosis, for example, has the potential for causing all sorts of problems including spontaneous abortion of still birth yet nothing is done to the women who continued to eat undercooked meat and deal with cats and their litter. Don't they bare some of the responsibility?[/qiuote] Yes, if a woman decides she doesn't want the child so she starts cleaning out Fluffy's litter box every day and scarfs up a bowel of uncooked ham on purpose. I agree with you on this issue but I feel less compelled to impose my beliefs on others. I'm not imposing my beliefs, I'm sharing them - and only because you brought it up! That may well be true. But if I am not mistaken you are opposed to induced abortion for any reason, including maternal complications, even if they are life threatening or genetic problems like Trisomy 21. That's correct. A much bigger problem than Trisomy 21 is Genetic Stupidity (you are excluded, of course), but I don't recommend wiping them out, either. Now if we could just learn who posted replies #145 and #146 we could have them drawn and quartered!! Yeah!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 18, 2006 14:59:11 GMT -5
Of course not. I don't know what intellectual circles you inhabit, but when the word "Abortion" is brought up, everyone in the room knows exactly what we're talking about. Bringing up spontaneous abortions is simply irrelevant. It is if you want to draw the distinction between someone taking an action to deliberatlycause an abortion of someone doing something that has a high probability of causing an abortion. Do you not think that women who drink to excess while pregnant should bare some of the responsibility when the fetus is harmed? It was someone I was quite close to but, you are right, I do not do it on a daily basis. Because the chances they are taking is with the life of another being, not their own. And therein lies the problem. Heroic efforts are taken to save a fetus that was not an early delivery but a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). The outcome is not always positive. I see! I have always thought Down syndrome was right up there with Mongoloid. I knew you would know what I was referring to. While that may be the only requirement, that is certainly not the only reason people seek abortions. I believe there are valid reasons. The question was whether, in the long term, this is doing more harm than good. It was perhaps a bad example. This relates to above. Who is to say that the early delivery is not what should be allowed to happen? Accidental? Mother's do not intentionally harm the fetus when they drink. But they are still held responsible. And if a mother intentionally drinks enough alcohol in order to abort her fetus, that is an abortion. I'm sorry, I meant "induced-abortion".[/quote]I believe it would be charted as a miscarriage. I can see it being an abortion if the mother stated that is why she was drinking. These are diseases your patients have, caused by something they have done. That is very different that a disease inflicted on the fetus by the mother engaging in risky behavior, As you know, Clay, there is some reason that the fetus aborts. Toxoplasmosis, for example, has the potential for causing all sorts of problems including spontaneous abortion of still birth yet nothing is done to the women who continued to eat undercooked meat and deal with cats and their litter. Don't they bare some of the responsibility? Yes, if a woman decides she doesn't want the child so she starts cleaning out Fluffy's litter box every day and scarfs up a bowel of uncooked ham on purpose. So if she engages in risky behavior without the intent of causing an abortion she is held blameless? And who posted #146!! Any reason why?!? Now if we could just learn who posted replies #145 and #146 we could have them drawn and quartered!! Yeah!! :-)[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by ali on Dec 18, 2006 15:01:19 GMT -5
6 pages now for homosexuality??? I'm not going to read through it. So much attention all the time to this and abortion in the media...you'd think Christians didn't think about anything else. WOW, I'm sorry I even mentioned it! Ididn't mean to get everyone going. I was almost aborted . I don't like it. Knowing where I almost ended up, I'm glad (understatement) Mom took a chance on me even though the Dr. thought I might be deformed and mentally challenged. If that Dr. could see me now, he'd be VERY surprised. That being said, I think that it (and homosexuality) is given an inordinate AMOUNT of attention by Christians in general....to the exclusion of other very important things IMO.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Dec 18, 2006 15:04:27 GMT -5
Abortion and homosexuality are about the same wrongness in Gods eyes
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 18, 2006 16:34:35 GMT -5
It is if you want to draw the distinction between someone taking an action to deliberatlycause an abortion of someone doing something that has a high probability of causing an abortion. I would not make a distinction for an action that has "High probability". Do you not think that women who drink to excess while pregnant should bare some of the responsibility when the fetus is harmed? Sure. And therein lies the problem. Heroic efforts are taken to save a fetus that was not an early delivery but a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). The outcome is not always positive. So what? In my opinion, an action is not determined to be good or bad solely by what its outcome is. For example, a victim of a car accident is brought into the ER severely injured. He is subjected to "heroic efforts" to save his life but dies anyway. The outcome wasn't "positive', but it was still moral and ethical. (unless he was a Down Syndrome patient, maybe....) I have always thought Down syndrome was right up there with Mongoloid. I knew you would know what I was referring to. Just wanted to stay consistent with the language, that's all. I know some parents would prefer Trisomy 21. While that may be the only requirement, that is certainly not the only reason people seek abortions. I believe there are valid reasons. Like what? This relates to above. Who is to say that the early delivery is not what should be allowed to happen? When an early delivery is performed for the sole purpose of terminating the pregnancy, it is immoral (in my opinion, of course). I believe it would be charted as a miscarriage. I can see it being an abortion if the mother stated that is why she was drinking. Yep, some women use D&X, some use Budweiser... These are diseases your patients have, caused by something they have done. That is very different that a disease inflicted on the fetus by the mother engaging in risky behavior, Ah, but they are not. I specifically mentioned diseases that are not self-inflicted. So if she engages in risky behavior without the intent of causing an abortion she is held blameless? I wouldn't say "blameless", just negligent. Of course! All humans deserve to live life - even Trisomy 21 people, Democrats, Yankees fans, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Dec 18, 2006 22:00:37 GMT -5
Of course! All humans deserve to live life - even Trisomy 21 people, Democrats, Yankees fans, etc. But not Catholics. And who is anyone to say what is good? Las - "Abortion and homosexuality are about the same wrongness in Gods eyes." While we are on the subject of who can say what is good, who are you to say what God sees as wrong? Furthermore, who is anyone to say what should or should not be? I say get rid of gov't for two months. Day one of month three will see only rural residents living because all the opinionated city slickers will kill each other off. And if there are a few city slickers left, the country folk will find them and give the final blow. In month three we can create a new gov't of true freedom of speech, true freedom to bear arms (and legs), true freedom to own property and keep others off, true freedom to choose life or no life, true freedom to cohabitate with whomever, and all the meaning of true freedom; and any who oppose will be dealt with accordingly by the vigilantes who create the new gov't. We need a good cleansing anyway. Too many people think that freedom of speech is freedom to force their opinions on others and make and enforce laws that should never be created. How about letting God decide who has done wrong when the time comes? If you don't believe in homosexuality, then don't have anything to do with those who are homosexual. If you don't believe in abortion, then cut off those who don't care one way or the other. If you are pure in all things . . . well, you're not. It's really not difficult to avoid those things in life that you don't like. Didn't your mommy teach you to socialize only with those that would be positive in your life? Well for goodness sake . . . what am I doing here?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 19, 2006 9:06:08 GMT -5
Yes, even those on the TMB with a history of making ignorant anti-Catholic pronouncements...
|
|