Jump to content

The abortion Debate - Why is incest a special case?


Guest

Recommended Posts

So I was listening to my normal news this evening on the way to work (night flying this month) and they were talking about all the various red states that are rushing to outlaw abortion in one form or another.  The outrage continues to center on Talibama for their having no exception to rape and incest.  I get why someone would desire to have an abortion if they were raped.  But why incest?  What's the big deal about that?  Presumably, it was consensual - otherwise it would just be classified as rape, correct?  

I would especially like to hear from the Pro-life crowd on the question of incest.  Many of you have said that while you're against abortion, most of you would make the exception for "rape and incest".  So why is incest lumped together with rape as an acceptable exception?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But why incest?  What's the big deal about that?

Gold. 

You should put that in your sig.  Presumably it’s not a big deal in the Jeffreaux clan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

  But why incest?  What's the big deal about that?  Presumably, it was consensual - otherwise it would just be classified as rape, correct?  

Usually, the argument falls along the lines of consent and agency.   That's about as far into this topic as I care to venture.  I agree with Saxdog.

The reason the Alabama law was specifically crafted to not include rape and incest - in fact, they pushed back an amendment that would have exempted rape and incest - is because the Roe V Wade decision specifically side-stepped the issue of life at conception.  That is the purpose of that language is to try and force the SCOTUS to rule on THAT issue.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not incest?  Some hereditary monarchies come to mind.......maybe we have enough drooling idiots as is, much less rich and self entitled drooling idiots?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Incest? Why does the AKC track lineage? Why do I separate my calves from the bulls?

Breeding close is a very bad idea.

Yeah but the brother & sister likely don't have the same father anyway.

OTOH the supposed first cousins likely do.....

DNA testing is the only way to be sure.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Incest? Why does the AKC track lineage? Why do I separate my calves from the bulls?

Breeding close is a very bad idea.

Donnies just keeping the incest option open just in case he ever gets lucky with Ivanka, shes a fine piece of ass everyone's saying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I was listening to my normal news this evening on the way to work (night flying this month) and they were talking about all the various red states that are rushing to outlaw abortion in one form or another.  The outrage continues to center on Talibama for their having no exception to rape and incest.  I get why someone would desire to have an abortion if they were raped.  But why incest?  What's the big deal about that?  Presumably, it was consensual - otherwise it would just be classified as rape, correct?  

I would especially like to hear from the Pro-life crowd on the question of incest.  Many of you have said that while you're against abortion, most of you would make the exception for "rape and incest".  So why is incest lumped together with rape as an acceptable exception?

I think it's in there so that the Forced Birthers can make the larger package of female control legislation more palatable.

There are a lot of Forced Birthers that still bank at the idea of rape & incest victims being forced to bear children. Mostly women, I think. The men don't really seem to give a fuck, based on their comments about "legitimate rape", "consensual rape" and other appalling howlers that show their fundamental lack of interest in women's health.

But you can make banning abortion more palatable to more people by allowing the exceptions.

Realistically speaking, allowing NO exceptions is actually the less hypocritical viewpoint (from a viewpoint that is steeped in massive hypocrisy). And as @cmilliken said above, it forces a test case for the definition of life beginning at conception.

Except for IVF of course.

Fucking hypocrites, all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

An exception for incest?  Are we still talking about Alabama?

Well, they ARE exceptional in that regard I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.... Ah guess if the momma wants to tetch her son how ta do it, thet's OK...... And if Daddy want's ta make sure his lil' sweet thing of a daughter don't get spoiled by the truckers a the diner first, he has the raght ta do the tha raght thang for her..... But whan it comes down to the younger brother jumpin' his sister's bones while she's shavin' the hogs...... That just ai'nt raght.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

I think this is all part of the master plan the Righteous Right have had ever since they introduced politics into the pulpit. 

may god save us all. 

But which god?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

But which god?  

Jennifer.

If you never had the pleasure, then you won't know what I'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/208578-incest-and-rape/

I actually started a thread about this very subject. If a fetus is a person and abortion = murder, then you can't really go around murdering people because their father and their grandfather are the same person :rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

Abortions should be legally allowed only when pregnancies result from sexual attacks, there are serious foetus development problems, incest or it could hurt the physical or mental health of the mothers-to-be. I guess that's not a position that's in line with members of the dupe-opoly. 

I can only assume you tell your wife what to wear, what to eat, and I'd say what to say but of course, she's not allowed to speak in public.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I can only assume you tell your wife what to wear, what to eat, and I'd say what to say but of course, she's not allowed to speak in public.  

Didn’t know he lived in such a myopic universe.

He comes from the “as soon as you understand that I am god we’ll get along just fine” school of thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some answers to the OP:

1. All fetuses are unique human entities. 

2. Why the incest Exception?? If I were the one justifying the exception I would base my reasoning in the fact inbreeding is bad for the gene pool. 

3. The rape exception makes no sense as rape is fundamentally the same thing as an abortion ban. Each is forcing an unwilling woman to participate in the reproduction process.

4. Why are fetuses  a special class?? Nobody else can just take up residence inside a woman. 

5. Going back to rape: Isn’t removing the woman’s right to say, “ I do not wish to go through the reproductive process” rape? 

Or

If you restrain her until she misses her period Alabama will thoroughly finish the rape 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok, so we have 3 now voting for the gene pool argument.  Anyone else?  

But.. 

All abortions terminate the life of the parasite human . 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The assumption to the question is that of course incest is frowned upon for many social reasons, but if a pregnancy occurs - its already too late to worry about those social norms.  The central question I'm asking is:  Once a pregnancy occurs, why is abortion in this case usually made an exception by most pro-life camps?  Again, is it strictly or mostly the risk of hereditary issues in the child?  Or is it something else?

It destroys the evidence of who provided the sperm......

I'm in the genetics camp - inbreeding is not a good thing unless you also have a heavy program for culling the defectives (I used to work in animal genetics in a past life) but I'm also firmly in the camp of 'the pro-lifer people can fuck off' too.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shootist Jeff wants us to define simple morality for him, as defined by “right to lifers.” 

Ok.

Sex with family members is abhorred because not only do genetic flaws multiply and propagate, but the internal dynamics of families are amplified, distorted and ruined by such couplings. The power dynamics typical within such a family strip some sense of “consent” in ways hard to fathom.

Essentially, it is always wrong in the eyes of society. Forcing a baby to come to term in such a situation creates a lasting reminder of that original sin.

In this case, and in the case of rape, right to lifers acknowledge that the “damage” done to the woman by forcing this baby to be carried to term after she has understood the nature of her sin, is worse than an abortion, because the power dynamic is more starkly realized & the brutality of the “right to life” forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby harder to justify. 

 

The fact that this all gets into pseudo-Christian psychobabble isn’t lost on you, I hope.

It is much simpler to say it’s her body. Stay the fuck away unless invited in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So out of 30 replies, only two people actually bothered to answer the question.  And the rest made it into either a messenger attack that I'm advocating for incest or made it a joke.  

So the only two real replies centered on the idea that it is a hereditary thing and that we want to avoid putting bad genes into the gene pool.  Is that a correct summary?  So putting aside all the societal prohibitions on incest itself,  do the pro-life guys here agree with that as why there is usually an exception carved out for incest?  The assumption to the question is that of course incest is frowned upon for many social reasons, but if a pregnancy occurs - its already too late to worry about those social norms.  The central question I'm asking is:  Once a pregnancy occurs, why is abortion in this case usually made an exception by most pro-life camps?  Again, is it strictly or mostly the risk of hereditary issues in the child?  Or is it something else?

The incest exception I think is mostly predicated by the idea that it's not a Jaime/Cersei situation with consenting adults, but more of a Craster type situation.

If consenting adults knock each other up you may quite likely not ever know about it.

If a father or brother impregnates an underage daughter or sister, it is rape. But it's hard to prove it. But the exception in most cases I think is aimed at underage victims of incest, not adult women like Lot's daughters from the Bible , who jump on dad when he's drunk to knock themselves up.

image.png.3384979bb1a70240a7c0503463dd4a9b.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

It destroys the evidence of who provided the sperm......

I'm in the genetics camp - inbreeding is not a good thing unless you also have a heavy program for culling the defectives (I used to work in animal genetics in a past life) but I'm also firmly in the camp of 'the pro-lifer people can fuck off' too.

FKT

No, it doesn't.

And aborted fetus doesn't go *poof* into an alternate dimension. There is genetic evidence that can be examined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B.J. Porter said:

No, it doesn't.

And aborted fetus doesn't go *poof* into an alternate dimension. There is genetic evidence that can be examined.

I'll bet the DNA is human.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B.J. Porter said:

No, it doesn't.

And aborted fetus doesn't go *poof* into an alternate dimension. There is genetic evidence that can be examined.

Oh dear. Should I have used the purple font, then?

In 2 weeks I'll be in one of our newborn screening labs for a couple months work. I'll be sure (not) to canvass the genetic counselors on what the state of play is WRT incest, abortion and at what stage of gestation an in utero foetus is a viable baby if transferred to a humidicrib.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Oh dear. Should I have used the purple font, then?

In 2 weeks I'll be in one of our newborn screening labs for a couple months work. I'll be sure (not) to canvass the genetic counselors on what the state of play is WRT incest, abortion and at what stage of gestation an in utero foetus is a viable baby if transferred to a humidicrib.

FKT

Maybe you should have. There was actually a fellow on Twitter make that *exact* argument, how forcing the girls to deliver the baby is the only way to preserve the evidence.

It did not go well for him...

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

Abortions should be legally allowed only when pregnancies result from sexual attacks, there are serious foetus development problems, incest or it could hurt the physical or mental health of the mothers-to-be. I guess that's not a position that's in line with members of the dupe-opoly. 

I don't get this rape/incest exception .

If the Anti abortion crowd are serious about it being about the "vulnerable, innocent baby" and murder, why would the product of rape or incest be any less vulnerable or innocent or abortion of such be any less murderous?

They obviously don't really care..another proof that it's all about controlling women and nothing to do with protecting "life".

All or non .

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok, so we have 3 now voting for the gene pool argument.  Anyone else?  

It’s a moral judgement.   The incest exception Christians are arguing that abortion is murder, but though shall not suffer an abomination to live.    

Is there any data on how many incest pregnancies occur in a year?    How many of them were rape as well, so they would be covered if that was excepted.    The desire to make a woman who suffered rape carry the reminder to term is appalling to me.    The religious right are trying to shame her for getting raped. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lark said:
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok, so we have 3 now voting for the gene pool argument.  Anyone else?  

It’s a moral judgement.   The incest exception Christians are arguing that abortion is murder, but though shall not suffer an abomination to live.    

Is there any data on how many incest pregnancies occur in a year?    How many of them were rape as well, so they would be covered if that was excepted.    The desire to make a woman who suffered rape carry the reminder to term is appalling to me.    The religious right are trying to shame her for getting raped. 

Yeah, there's that

To the original question- I have no clue why they want to make an exception for incest.

Logically, it can't be based on genetics because this is the crowd that made a huge celebrity.... and wanted to make her President...... out of a woman who got pregnant when she had a high risk for a defective baby (due to age) and had a differently-abled son whom she then carried around with her for months showing him off to crowds. The anti-abortion righties are appalled at the idea of screening for genetic/birth defects and aborting a fetus that will never have a decent human life or could pass on serious genetic flaws.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Donnies just keeping the incest option open just in case he ever gets lucky with Ivanka, shes a fine piece of ass everyone's saying it.

I get why everyone might say that.  Heck, I find her damned (physically) attractive.

That her Dad shared his agreement with Howard Stern about her being a "piece of ass" is repugnant.

Other really fucking creepy stuff he's said about his daughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey @MakePHRFGreatAgain and the rest of the pro-life crowd - what is your take on why an incest carve out for abortion exceptions is OK?  

That’s for the good of  society to protect us from ugly mutations, like the House of Windsor and HoneyBooBoo. Our abortion policies are also  formulated to selflessly improve the gene pools greater good. Not because we are too lazy and selfish to care for a toddler during medical school, flunked the contraception course, and fear missing a toga party or two. 

OKay, good.

I like the way you were completely dispassionate and non-judgemental there..............

Now another question, please

Why is it good to protect the gene pool from incest, and not from other devasting mutations? Let's say you have a family history of inheritable heart defects, and your 19-weeks unborn has it.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Why is it good to protect the gene pool from incest, and not from other devasting mutations? Let's say you have a family history of inheritable heart defects, and your 19-weeks unborn has it.

 

One is Gods creation. The other is caused by man.  Every defective child born I’ve ever known of (heart, downs, whatever) was joyus, loving, but maybe  difficult  experience for the parents they would never have missed and felt blessed to have even a short  time on earth with their child rather than none. And many heart issues can be fixed  

 

Fixed, maybe, always risky; but the point is that they will pass it on to their kids too

Perhaps it was a result of incest several generations back, so it could still be man-made

So, "every defective child" brings joy etc etc. And you insist that you're right to make this choice for everybody else?

5 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

...     ...     ...

Others leave them in a trash can and go sailing. 

Again, thanks for being non-judgemental.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

Read it again.  I said the ones ‘Ive  known’ 

Your elk may lead to different results. 

Read my answer again- you're claiming the right to make this decision for everyone else

Glad to see you admit that you don't know everything. Supposedly, God does..... isn't He (or She) telling you what rules to impose on others here in this land of the free?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MakePHRFGreatAgain said:

Read it again.  I said the ones ‘Ive  known’ 

Your elk may lead to different results. 

Again you people are only thinking in binary terms. There are too many varying degrees and factors.

Dr. Mengele, what would you do with the ones that have genetic predispositions to obesity, diabetes, arthritis?

what about brown eyes? Or lefties? 

Wow, a really subtle way of playing the Hitler card.  Nice going.

Me, I'm firmly against short people.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

Wow, a really subtle way of playing the Hitler card.  Nice going.

Me, I'm firmly against short people.  

 

I'm firmly against stupid people, especially stupid people whose entire moral structure is based on some message from an invisible sky fairy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been firmly against some very short people. I even got one pregnant (or so she says). She had no intention of mothering a baby, and asked me to help out paying for an abortion. I paid for 1/2..... She figured that I was half responsible, and I agreed. I had to sell my stereo speakers to my room mate, but I made another, better pair the following summer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This strange question is really just a question for Republicans as they are the anti-abortion party; that’s in the 2016 Republican Party Platform. If you’re a Republican then you’re anti-abortion to the extent that you actually support representatives (and judges) who actually oppose abortion rights.

So Jeff’s question is really just for them. Democrats don’t see a particular need to have a check box on the abortion form that says incest. Republicans apparently do.

So Republicans, what is so special about incest?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:
17 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

Abortions should be legally allowed only when pregnancies result from sexual attacks, there are serious foetus development problems, incest or it could hurt the physical or mental health of the mothers-to-be. I guess that's not a position that's in line with members of the dupe-opoly. 

I don't get this rape/incest exception .

If the Anti abortion crowd are serious about it being about the "vulnerable, innocent baby" and murder, why would the product of rape or incest be any less vulnerable or innocent or abortion of such be any less murderous?

They obviously don't really care..another proof that it's all about controlling women and nothing to do with protecting "life".

All or non . 

In the case of rape or incest I think it's safe to assume you didn't enjoy the sex or do it willingly.

Therefore there is no need to punish you for it.

I think that sums up the forced-birther/misogynist position pretty succinctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

In the case of rape or incest I think it's safe to assume you didn't enjoy the sex or do it willingly.

Therefore there is no need to punish you for it.

I think that sums up the forced-birther/misogynist position pretty succinctly.

Ha ..that only works if they actually believe in rape without the bruising.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

This is probably the ugliest OP ever. And that's saying a lot.

Not really. There have been plenty worse in here.

It is like trying to nail jello to the wall, but somewhere somehow some Forced Birther type that equates abortion to murder really needs to explain why rape and/or incest babies are fair game for murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

 

 

“Let me make quite clear that I am for abortion and, in your case Sir, we should make it retrospective.”

whitlam-campaign.jpgPicture: Getty Images

– On being repeatedly pestered by a punter on the campaign trail wanting to know Whitlam’s stance on abortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So out of 30 replies, only two people actually bothered to answer the question.  And the rest made it into either a messenger attack that I'm advocating for incest or made it a joke.  

So the only two real replies centered on the idea that it is a hereditary thing and that we want to avoid putting bad genes into the gene pool.  Is that a correct summary?  So putting aside all the societal prohibitions on incest itself,  do the pro-life guys here agree with that as why there is usually an exception carved out for incest?  The assumption to the question is that of course incest is frowned upon for many social reasons, but if a pregnancy occurs - its already too late to worry about those social norms.  The central question I'm asking is:  Once a pregnancy occurs, why is abortion in this case usually made an exception by most pro-life camps?  Again, is it strictly or mostly the risk of hereditary issues in the child?  Or is it something else?

 I seems there is a general agreement that close-relative inbreeding produces damaged people, sometimes horribly so. It doesn't seem a difficult concept to grasp.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 4:46 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

  But why incest?  What's the big deal about that?  

 

puritanism, and crooked smiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

“Let me make quite clear that I am for abortion and, in your case Sir, we should make it retrospective.”

whitlam-campaign.jpgPicture: Getty Images

– On being repeatedly pestered by a punter on the campaign trail wanting to know Whitlam’s stance on abortion.

Gosh I hope he said Retroactive.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Thank you!  THIS ^^ is exactly what I was trying to get at with the OP.  If the carve out for incest by the anti-abortion crowd is all or mostly about the gene pool and the possibility of mutated kids, why then would they object when a woman wants to abort when they KNOW they have a deformed fetus that may or may not live for very long or if it did, it's quality of life would be very low.  They would call a woman who wants to abort a Down's syndrome fetus a murderer, yet they give a pass on an abortion to the girl who has been banging her first cousin or brother down in the hills of W. Pennsatucky.  

That was the intention of the OP was to find out from the people that oppose abortion why they are OK with incest when they are not ok with aborting for other genetic deformities.  Its incongruous.  

Well, I hope you're not expecting logic and reasoning from a crowd whose main grasp of the universe is that their invisible friend did it.

I think part of the incest carve-out is due to the Bibles endorsement of it. Their invisible friend in the sky gave them a get-out-jail-free card.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

Punish? It seems being responsible is "punishment" to the mindless fake liberal corperate media parrots. 

Wouldn't recognizing that one was incapable of caring for a child and thus not bringing it into the world be the epitome of responsibility?  

If you want to use the "responsibility" argument, you must first be able to ascertain that bringing a child into the world is a responsible thing to do.  For some people it is.  For others, it isn't.

 There are those who realize what it is and what it means to raise a child.  Some know they are not capable.  In those cases, how does forcing them to carry to term what starts off as a small collection of non-viable cells, benefit them or the child?  Granted, in some cases parents can and will step up and do a fine job and raise great kids.  But in other cases, exactly the opposite happens.  So tell us again, why should not parents who know they are incapable of caring for, starting during the gestational period and onward, this life, not have the choice of how to approach their situation?

Again, who benefits?

And again, I would buy the whole responsibility and pro life argument if the same people who made those arguments actually pretended to give a damn about life after birth.  You know, making sure that parents have access to quality healthcare for their children (currently, they do, but only because of the ACA, which the so called "pro lifers" have been trying to eliminate), making sure that parents have access to quality nutrition for their children (currently, the R's are trying to curb the food stamp and welfare systems), and so on.  

The bottom line is that the whole "pro life" argument is nothing more than a continuation of "christian" patriarchy and values, and the desire to impose those views on others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sail611 said:

Wouldn't recognizing that one was incapable of caring for a child and thus not bringing it into the world be the epitome of responsibility?  

If you want to use the "responsibility" argument, you must first be able to ascertain that bringing a child into the world is a responsible thing to do.  For some people it is.  For others, it isn't.

 There are those who realize what it is and what it means to raise a child.  Some know they are not capable.  In those cases, how does forcing them to carry to term what starts off as a small collection of non-viable cells, benefit them or the child?  Granted, in some cases parents can and will step up and do a fine job and raise great kids.  But in other cases, exactly the opposite happens.  So tell us again, why should not parents who know they are incapable of caring for, starting during the gestational period and onward, this life, not have the choice of how to approach their situation?

Again, who benefits?

And again, I would buy the whole responsibility and pro life argument if the same people who made those arguments actually pretended to give a damn about life after birth.  You know, making sure that parents have access to quality healthcare for their children (currently, they do, but only because of the ACA, which the so called "pro lifers" have been trying to eliminate), making sure that parents have access to quality nutrition for their children (currently, the R's are trying to curb the food stamp and welfare systems), and so on.  

The bottom line is that the whole "pro life" argument is nothing more than a continuation of "christian" patriarchy and values, and the desire to impose those views on others.

Well said.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rat's ass said:

Are you pissing yourself again? Next you will be insulting the prophet Muhammad. :ph34r:

You really are a developmentally-disabled gibbering moron.  Stay golden, Pony Boy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rat's ass said:

As you may have noticed I have a strong prejudice against hypocrites and assclowns. :rolleyes: 

Avoid mirrors and FFS, find the right movie quote.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, I hope you're not expecting logic and reasoning from a crowd whose main grasp of the universe is that their invisible friend did it.

I think part of the incest carve-out is due to the Bibles endorsement of it. Their invisible friend in the sky gave them a get-out-jail-free card.

-DSK

you mean they regard a product of incest as an unholy abomination or something and thus can be killed?

Please explain.

Wow...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

you mean they regard a product of incest as an unholy abomination or something and thus can be killed?

Please explain.

Wow...

No, I was thinking of all the incidents in the Bible where some patriarch resorted to incest to repopulate his tribe, presumably with the Lord's smiling down from Heaven..... or maybe just looking the other way.

Therefor in the case of incest where the tribe doesn't need recruits, it's OK to ditch them.

Old Testament, yeah

3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think I effectively made my point here.  

That's an easy shot. Wanna take on teaching evolution?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you allow abortion for incest and rape then about 1/2 the woman in Al.could still get them.

as probably most of the woman / girls  get pregnant are raped by there fathers and brothers in Al.

then you would have to arrest the fathers/brothers for incest/rape

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 8:11 AM, Steam Flyer said:

No, I was thinking of all the incidents in the Bible where some patriarch resorted to incest to repopulate his tribe, presumably with the Lord's smiling down from Heaven..... or maybe just looking the other way.

Therefor in the case of incest where the tribe doesn't need recruits, it's OK to ditch them.

Old Testament, yeah

That's an easy shot. Wanna take on teaching evolution?

-DSK

But you see.... There's a reason for the matrialineage thing....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 5:55 PM, Ease the sheet. said:

We're fucked

brutal, in the end, you get what you deserve. at this point, we're about half as fucked as the planet, which didn't deserve any of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

After scanning through this thread I thought to myself, “self. You just wasted some of your time.”

Count yourself lucky.
Some here wasted some of their seed today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Count yourself lucky.
Some here wasted some of their seed today.

A species of invasive snail ate all my lettuce and radishes. Seeds were wasted here as well 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/21/2019 at 5:31 PM, Shortforbob said:

you mean they regard a product of incest as an unholy abomination or something and thus can be killed?

Please explain.

Wow...

I'm going with that one. The bible deems both rape and incest to be sins so the rationalization for the exception is that it rids us of the unholy product of sin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm going with that one. The bible deems both rape and incest to be sins so the rationalization for the exception is that it rids us of the unholy product of sin.

Whereas the bible does NOT mention abortion, but it does explicitly talk about dashing babies heads on rocks and God does send a bear to eat forty-two little kids who were making fun of one of his prophets for being bald. And it's OK to kill pregnant women who live in a town that rebels against God. And their babies.

So we already know God is willing to make some exceptions when it comes to murdering children and "unborn babies".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Whereas the bible does NOT mention abortion, but it does explicitly talk about dashing babies heads on rocks and God does send a bear to eat forty-two little kids who were making fun of one of his prophets for being bald. And it's OK to kill pregnant women who live in a town that rebels against God. And their babies.

So we already know God is willing to make some exceptions when it comes to murdering children and "unborn babies".

 

Great points. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 5:59 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:
On 6/11/2019 at 7:46 AM, B.J. Porter said:

God does send a bear to eat forty-two little kids who were making fun of one of his prophets for being bald.

 

Modern evangelicals are dedicated to this by being steadfast followers of Profits. 

This meme upsets me because it forgot feed them to the bears which is my personal favorite biblical method of murdering children.

The bible sure does protect the lives of children though.

 

image.thumb.png.fddcafd6a3494b49a05c9e3b18b6450c.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

This meme upsets me because it forgot feed them to the bears which is my personal favorite biblical method of murdering children.

The bible sure does protect the lives of children though.

image.png.c877d22d64cb3afe59ff1ea4ee62af0c.png

 

 

 

Fixed it for you. I know the story about the bears was one of the Old Testament prophets (Elisha?) but I just felt like writing in "Colossians"

That would be a mediocre name for a band "Elisha and the Colossians"

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Fixed it for you. I know the story about the bears was one of the Old Testament prophets (Elisha?) but I just felt like writing in "Colossians"

That would be a mediocre name for a band "Elisha and the Colossians"

-DSK

2 Kings 2:24

Lots of 2's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...