A Little Bit Pregnant?

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Watched the parts that only have the recording. I'm not sure where to access the transcript though. There's questions I have right off the bat. The guy cuts out the first minute and the student dialogue. Based on the actual recording, it just sounds like the professor is bringing up an open ended topic for discussion, not as much as an absolute. She acknowledges several points of uncertainty via questions, recognizung gaps in knowledge, and tone of voice. I have a hunch that the first minute may have set up this dialogue in a way that would make that clear. I personally don't see anything wrong in bringing up different ideas around a topic with plenty of uncertainty in a cautious tone at a university. Kinda seems like part of the point to a higher education. 

I don't trust matsen, so I'm not interested in viewing his commentary. To me it would be a waste of time. Based on an earlier video I've seen of his, he has a massive agenda and is extremely allergic to anything that even remotely doesn't toe a conservative view and interpretation in the church at church schools. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

I have never heard of this Mattson guy so I don't know his history like others on this board here do. And so I am getting some push back about him. I will be more careful in the future.

[BlueDreams]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I have never heard of this Mattson guy so I don't know his history like others on this board here do. And so I am getting some push back about him. I will be more careful in the future.

I wouldn't have known of him either, except that my mom (who fits into the demo who'd like this guy) sent me and my bro (who've gone to BYU) a vid from him about byu a year or two ago. It was laughably bad and paranoid. Which is why I've never forgotten his channel. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

As far as I know there is no definitive teaching on when the spirit enters the body, so how can one know for sure it is a non ensouled body?

Well because logically, everyone will receive a physical body.  If an abortion is performed, then that spirit would have never been born and would not receive a body.  So either that spirit gets another body (which means the abortion did nothing to hinder the goal of receiving a body) or the spirit doesn't enter the body at the moment of conception.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well because logically, everyone will receive a physical body.  If an abortion is performed, then that spirit would have never been born and would not receive a body.  So either that spirit gets another body (which means the abortion did nothing to hinder the goal of receiving a body) or the spirit doesn't enter the body at the moment of conception.

One other possibility that seems highly unlikely is that the spirit gets the same body somehow (or a reconstruction of it since those particular elements are likely occupied elsewhere) and that is somehow placed in a mother in the millennium and the child is ‘raised’ from that point of the pregnancy as we think of those dying in youth are raised to adulthood.  Or now I think of it, since it is a reconstruction, God might reconstruct the child to what it would have been like at the time of birth…but if so, doesn’t that indicate that the experience of gestation may be unnecessary…which could have implications too. 

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well because logically, everyone will receive a physical body.  If an abortion is performed, then that spirit would have never been born and would not receive a body.  So either that spirit gets another body (which means the abortion did nothing to hinder the goal of receiving a body) or the spirit doesn't enter the body at the moment of conception.

Pretty sure that some of what you think is logical, is not Church doctrine. Once conception occurs the new body has been started. President Nelson once said:
"In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion." (Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,  Elder Russell M. Nelson. Oct 2008)

To me this mean that once conception occurs and the fetus starts to grow it already has received its body that it is supposed to have. And of course we don't know when the spirit enters this body. 
I know of no Church teaching that says the spirit will wait for another body to combine with.

[blackstrap]

Without a spirit, the body is just a meat suit. I think that until the fetus can be animated by its own spirit, it likely is animated by the mother's spirit. 

The scriptures are not consistent about killing humans are they ? 

[CV75]

16 hours ago, JAHS said:

BYU professor claims she doesn't 'know the morals' of abortion when a woman is 'a little bit pregnant'

In a recently released recording from a women’s health class at Brigham Young University (BYU), a professor can be heard saying that she doesn't "know the morals" of taking a Plan C pill that would induce a chemical abortion in a case where a woman does not know if she is pregnant.

This is at a school that distinctly supports the anti-abortion position to the exclusion of all others. The audio, released by Cwic Media, records the professor in a lecture that addresses pregnancy and abortion.

"So is there an interspace in pregnancy? Like this article that I was diving in to say... If she had unprotected intercourse before she takes a positive pregnancy test. There's a pill she can take to just ensure. Like in this interspace like I don’t want to take a pregnancy test and I kind of don't want to know if I actually conceived. This pill will just take care of it if I did, and if I didn't."

"So this NPR podcast live episode. It's called ‘a little bit pregnant,’" the professor continued. "I don't know. I'm learning, I haven’t done enough research to actually have an opinion. And I don’t know that I necessarily will or won't have an opinion. I just want to read and listen to what is being discussed in this." (there's more in the article)

___________________________

In my opinion, if a woman takes the pill it is her intention to cause an abortion to happen whether she is pregnant or not. 

Your opinion leaves plenty of room for repentance and forgiveness of intentions. This is a good example of subjective experience trumping facts. 

[rodheadlee]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Any being that can contemplate torturing its children to death through burning is completely evil and should be opposed at all costs. YMMV. 

What makes you think children are wicked? This actually does not apply to them. Nice try though.

Do you count torturing in the womb before they have a chance to breathe air?

Edited December 23, 2022 by rodheadlee

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

What makes you think children are wicked? This actually does not apply to them. Nice try though.

Are you a child of God?

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall.

And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Thank you for posting this, as it will be fulfilled as have other prophecies, literally and figuratively. But I think applying it to a particular political position gets in the way of discussion of the issue at hand. Likewise, applying it to an ecclesiastical position detracts from the spirit of the council approach in developing and working with Church policy. Message boards? Lukewarm!  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Without a spirit, the body is just a meat suit. I think that until the fetus can be animated by its own spirit, it likely is animated by the mother's spirit. 

The scriptures are not consistent about killing humans are they ? 

Nope, better kill all humans just to be on the safe side.

 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Pretty sure that some of what you think is logical, is not Church doctrine. Once conception occurs the new body has been started. President Nelson once said:
"In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion." (Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,  Elder Russell M. Nelson. Oct 2008)

To me this mean that once conception occurs and the fetus starts to grow it already has received its body that it is supposed to have. And of course we don't know when the spirit enters this body. 
I know of no Church teaching that says the spirit will wait for another body to combine with.

I think this talk has more to do with the idea that it is possible to legalize abortion with regard for God and His commandments and in recognizing that life, in principle, is meaningful at any stage of development, as the Church has done with its policy (He said, "Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments.") than with when life begins. I think we have far more understanding of when mortal life ends than when it begins, and that is the hypocrisy in justifying these laws by a guess of when life begins when we have a very clear knowledge of what actions end it.

Edited December 24, 2022 by CV75

[Buckeye]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think this talk has more to do with the idea that it is possible to legalize abortion with regard for God and His commandments and in recognizing that life, in principle, is meaningful at any stage of development, as the Church has done with its policy (He said, "Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments.") than with when life begins. I think we have far more understanding of when mortal life ends than when it begins, and that is the hypocrisy in justifying these laws by a guess of when life begins when we have a very clear knowledge of what actions end it.

The church does not define abortion at all, much less define it to mean ending a pregnancy “at any stage of development.”  While the church has no official position on when life begins, there are reasonable data points to support someone (like me) who believes a termination can be justified before the spirit enters the body. 

Data point one -stem cell research. All 5 LDS senators supported the stem cell research bill in 2001 despite opposition from most republicans and many religious groups. They did so on the belief that the spirit doesn’t enter the body at conception

Data point two - the church deems moral the use of contraception, including IUDs which terminate a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting. Lots of members use IUDs including my wife who may be sitting next to you in the celestial room of the temple. 

Data point three - LDS doctrine does not teach that terminating a pregnancy ends a mortal probation. So doctrinally, there is a huge difference between ending a pregnancy - even at 40 weeks - and killing a day-old child. 
 

Data point four - Brigham young and other early leaders taught the spirit enters the body when the mother feels it enter. So obviously no at conception. 
 

I personally support abortion choices up to the point when a spirit enters the body, which is best determined by the mother.  I don’t take the issue lightly at all, but find the best course is to strongly enable contraception choices (make all options free for all men and women), enable abortion decisions as early as possible in a pregnancy (plan b is much better for all parties than a d/c), and when in doubt - and there is a lot of grey area scientifically and doctrinally - give the decision to the woman who knows the situation best and is most entitled to revelation. 

 

 

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The church does not define abortion at all, much less define it to mean ending a pregnancy “at any stage of development.”  While the church has no official position on when life begins, there are reasonable data points to support someone (like me) who believes a termination can be justified before the spirit enters the body. 

Data point one -stem cell research. All 5 LDS senators supported the stem cell research bill in 2001 despite opposition from most republicans and many religious groups. They did so on the belief that the spirit doesn’t enter the body at conception

Data point two - the church deems moral the use of contraception, including IUDs which terminate a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting. Lots of members use IUDs including my wife who may be sitting next to you in the celestial room of the temple. 

Data point three - LDS doctrine does not teach that terminating a pregnancy ends a mortal probation. So doctrinally, there is a huge difference between ending a pregnancy - even at 40 weeks - and killing a day-old child. 
 

Data point four - Brigham young and other early leaders taught the spirit enters the body when the mother feels it enter. So obviously no at conception. 
 

I personally support abortion choices up to the point when a spirit enters the body, which is best determined by the mother.  I don’t take the issue lightly at all, but find the best course is to strongly enable contraception choices (make all options free for all men and women), enable abortion decisions as early as possible in a pregnancy (plan b is much better for all parties than a d/c), and when in doubt - and there is a lot of grey area scientifically and doctrinally - give the decision to the woman who knows the situation best and is most entitled to revelation. 

 

 

I consider your data points and conclusions from them to be a best, good-faith guess to help regulate abortion. These conclusions may also become part of a woman or couple’s process as they pray and seek confirmation for personal decisions concerning abortion. Or voters deciding on law, protest, etc. The first recognizes society’s role expressed through the mechanism of law, the second recognizes the individual and couple’s role and spiritual resources, and the third the individual’s role in society through free expression.

My point is, in all the calculus, we recognize when and how life ends a lot better than when and how it begins, and so perhaps it is less hypocritical to accept that concerning abortion – however one defines it -- we are acting on our knowledge of ending life for justifiable purposes far more than we are on our argument as to when it begins.

[BlueDreams]

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

Pretty sure that some of what you think is logical, is not Church doctrine. Once conception occurs the new body has been started. President Nelson once said:
"In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion." (Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,  Elder Russell M. Nelson. Oct 2008)

To me this mean that once conception occurs and the fetus starts to grow it already has received its body that it is supposed to have. And of course we don't know when the spirit enters this body. 
I know of no Church teaching that says the spirit will wait for another body to combine with.

I definitely don't read this quote the same. For one this is super simplistic to the point of being a little oversimplistic just in terms of biology/genetic expression... particularly the second part you bolded. Because it's simplistic it's also extremely idealistic to highlight a point of life beginning moreso than focusing on complete medical accuracy with several exceptions to what Nelson is describing. So I take it more trying to carry a sacred sentiment to the beginning throes of early life more so than an exact statement saying something about whether a spirit is fully tethered to that specific body at conception...and this is lost due to an abortion. From my own personal experiences I personally just can't believe that. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

 

 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I consider your data points and conclusions from them to be a best, good-faith guess to help regulate abortion. These conclusions may also become part of a woman or couple’s process as they pray and seek confirmation for personal decisions concerning abortion. Or voters deciding on law, protest, etc. The first recognizes society’s role expressed through the mechanism of law, the second recognizes the individual and couple’s role and spiritual resources, and the third the individual’s role in society through free expression.

My point is, in all the calculus, we recognize when and how life ends a lot better than when and how it begins, and so perhaps it is less hypocritical to accept that concerning abortion – however one defines it -- we are acting on our knowledge of ending life for justifiable purposes far more than we are on our argument as to when it begins.

I think that's an interesting idea, though still a little flawed.

 

For one we know more about when a life ends, but there is still a lot of gray areas, where it's uncertain if a spirit has fully left a body (or how that even fully works). 

There's also the problem that the gravity of ending life is weighed differently based on their degree of complexity. I think we are too callous/self-centered in defining the life that is most important is the life most like ourselves. It's biting us in the butt in several regards IMHO. Ideally I think we are still to recognize the sacred value of life while recognizing that ending life is part of that needed balance here. Of course this wouldn't fully answer the abortion debate, some would still lean to few to no exceptions and some would lean towards full to heavy autonomy for women to decide that.

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

plan b is much better for all parties than a d/c

A FYI to everyone…

Plan B is technically not an abortion, btw. Abortion is defined as terminating a pregnancy and a pregnancy is defined as starting at implantation, though a lot of people think of it as beginning at fertilization.  Plan B may prevent conception (if used properly for lower weight women, it may be 72% effective, effectiveness drops dramatically with higher weights, I read something that said it doesn’t work at all for women over 175 lbs iirc, but haven’t confirmed that) and it appears not to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg according to research….so by either definition Plan B does not cause an abortion.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/021998Orig1s005SumR.pdf

Quote

When LNG-EC is administered after ovulation occurs, the rate of pregnancy is what one would expect if LNG-EC had not been administered. This is arguably the most important aspect of the evidence.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/12/23/fda-plan-b-morning-after/

Quote

The new language clarifies that the pills work by stopping or delaying an egg’s release from the ovary

Just thought I would mention it as I had some confusion over what Plan B does and apparently a lot of other people do too. Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy, it prevents one…maybe.  Plan C, which is also known as a medical abortion, does though (97% effective).  So the Abortion pill is Plan C, the Morning After Pill is Plan B, which prevents ovulation…one is hoping the egg hasn’t popped out of the nest yet to begin its sight seeing tour of Mom’s reproductive organs, I guess. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

The church does not define abortion at all, much less define it to mean ending a pregnancy “at any stage of development.”  While the church has no official position on when life begins, there are reasonable data points to support someone (like me) who believes a termination can be justified before the spirit enters the body. 

Data point one -stem cell research. All 5 LDS senators supported the stem cell research bill in 2001 despite opposition from most republicans and many religious groups. They did so on the belief that the spirit doesn’t enter the body at conception

Data point two - the church deems moral the use of contraception, including IUDs which terminate a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting. Lots of members use IUDs including my wife who may be sitting next to you in the celestial room of the temple. 

Data point three - LDS doctrine does not teach that terminating a pregnancy ends a mortal probation. So doctrinally, there is a huge difference between ending a pregnancy - even at 40 weeks - and killing a day-old child. 
 

Data point four - Brigham young and other early leaders taught the spirit enters the body when the mother feels it enter. So obviously no at conception. 
 

I personally support abortion choices up to the point when a spirit enters the body, which is best determined by the mother.  I don’t take the issue lightly at all, but find the best course is to strongly enable contraception choices (make all options free for all men and women), enable abortion decisions as early as possible in a pregnancy (plan b is much better for all parties than a d/c), and when in doubt - and there is a lot of grey area scientifically and doctrinally - give the decision to the woman who knows the situation best and is most entitled to revelation. 

 

 

One can argue that the spirit probably does not enter a fertilized developing embryo until it has at least implanted itself in the mothers womb. It is not uncommon for an embryo to fail to implant itself, so it would therefore be illogical for the spirit to have already united with it before that happens. Also, during the time between conception and implantation, embryos can not yet be considered as individualized human life, since they still possess the potential to combine, or split into twins. It is also possible to store embryos in a frozen state, thaw them out later, and successfully implant them in a mother's womb. Has the spirit already entered an embryo that is being stored in a freezer at -70 C? I doubt it.
My guess is that the spirit might enter the body once God, or whoever is in charge of that, is certain that the body will be able to fully develop and result in a birth. At any rate, since we don't really know that, having an abortion at any time is a risky thing. 

Pro-choice people often don't accept other types of choices. Choosing to not have unprotected sex in the first place; keeping the baby; or putting it up for adoption.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think that's an interesting idea, though still a little flawed.

 

For one we know more about when a life ends, but there is still a lot of gray areas, where it's uncertain if a spirit has fully left a body (or how that even fully works). 

There's also the problem that the gravity of ending life is weighed differently based on their degree of complexity. I think we are too callous/self-centered in defining the life that is most important is the life most like ourselves. It's biting us in the butt in several regards IMHO. Ideally I think we are still to recognize the sacred value of life while recognizing that ending life is part of that needed balance here. Of course this wouldn't fully answer the abortion debate, some would still lean to few to no exceptions and some would lean towards full to heavy autonomy for women to decide that.

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

 

 

I was trying to stay away from the metaphysical (we have one continuous life from intelligence through resurrection and beyond). From that standpoint, life never begins and never ends, which reduces the question of abortion for even disciples/saints to the here-and-now, a practical matter of safety, cost, quality and convenience. We still do not know metaphysical life and death better than we know that scrambling and toxicity effectively end an organism any stage of physical development from gamete right into old age, no matter how we might otherwise believe life begins or ends.

We know what to do to prevent a live birth more than we know to ensure its fruition, and despite all we know, there are no guarantees. But I have a hunch that we are more successful carrying out our wills with the former than the latter.

I think the Handbook recognizes the point you are making, and has a metaphysical bent to it, which can be rightly brought up in the public square as abortion law and regulation are debated. That is, not pin-pointing when life begins, but how and why we prevent or interrupt a human organism’s physical development.

[california boy]

On 12/23/2022 at 12:28 PM, JAHS said:

Pretty sure that some of what you think is logical, is not Church doctrine. Once conception occurs the new body has been started. President Nelson once said:
"In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion." (Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,  Elder Russell M. Nelson. Oct 2008)

To me this mean that once conception occurs and the fetus starts to grow it already has received its body that it is supposed to have. And of course we don't know when the spirit enters this body. 
I know of no Church teaching that says the spirit will wait for another body to combine with.

I would agree that a new life begins at conception.  That wasn't the question.  The question is, when does the spirit enter that body.  Logically it doesn't  enter when two cells come together imo for the reasons I stated.

And as you pointed out, there is no Church doctrine on that point.  So people who insist that the spirit enters the body as soon as two cells come together are also just stating their opinion.  Maybe that is why people have different opinions on abortion.  And maybe one group should not impose their beliefs based on strictly their opinion on others who have a different opinion.

 

[california boy]

On 12/23/2022 at 12:19 PM, Calm said:

One other possibility that seems highly unlikely is that the spirit gets the same body somehow (or a reconstruction of it since those particular elements are likely occupied elsewhere) and that is somehow placed in a mother in the millennium and the child is ‘raised’ from that point of the pregnancy as we think of those dying in youth are raised to adulthood.  Or now I think of it, since it is a reconstruction, God might reconstruct the child to what it would have been like at the time of birth…but if so, doesn’t that indicate that the experience of gestation may be unnecessary…which could have implications too. 

Yeah maybe.  What is clear is that no one knows.  Whatever the theory one might have, like mine, it is just an opinion.

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

I was trying to stay away from the metaphysical (we have one continuous life from intelligence through resurrection and beyond). From that standpoint, life never begins and never ends, which reduces the question of abortion for even disciples/saints to the here-and-now, a practical matter of safety, cost, quality and convenience. We still do not know metaphysical life and death better than we know that scrambling and toxicity effectively end an organism any stage of physical development from gamete right into old age, no matter how we might otherwise believe life begins or ends.

You could technically get a little less metaphysical and go with ideas like capacity for consciousness and still have a problem with hitting gray zones around dying if it helps . We do know more about what it looks like to have a life fully end and to be fully alive but it's that fuzzy gray space that we struggle with and range in opinions as to what to do with it as well. 

But know and having a means to certain die v certainly live doesn't fix this. It would assume that death/ending life is inherently bad. It's not. It's an inherent part of nature and ecosystem balance. If avoiding the metaphysical, the question to me isn't "should we avoid death," but is certain forms of death helping to maintain a healthy balance in the overall system? And what systems are included in this? 

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

We know what to do to prevent a live birth more than we know to ensure its fruition, and despite all we know, there are no guarantees. But I have a hunch that we are more successful carrying out our wills with the former than the latter.

I think the Handbook recognizes the point you are making, and has a metaphysical bent to it, which can be rightly brought up in the public square as abortion law and regulation are debated. That is, not pin-pointing when life begins, but how and why we prevent or interrupt a human organism’s physical development.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

Pro-choice people often don't accept other types of choices. Choosing to not have unprotected sex in the first place; keeping the baby; or putting it up for adoption.

I don't think this is an accurate depiction of pro-choice assumptions. The first is usually not a thing they're into, since the pro choice end also often promotes free/Cheap means of protection. Unprotected sex carries risks. It's then mixed with less acceptance that carrying a pregnancy to term as a fated consequence even if/when there's unprotected sex. The other two are recognized choices that can be made, but not as full replacers for abortion since both carry far heavier weight, potential complications, access, etc than abortion generally does.

I haven't seen a pro-choice argument that insists that unintended or unwanted pregnancies MUST end in abortion. Moreso that it should be an available option among other options, including the few your mentioned.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Teancum]

On 12/23/2022 at 12:34 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall.

And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Sounds like the words of a megalomaniac psychopath.

[rodheadlee]

On 12/23/2022 at 2:14 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you a child of God?

That depends on the context.