Let’s set the record straight.

For the very last time, no, no, it’s not a shotgun wedding. I am pleased to announce that there will be no baby in eight or nine months, nor will there be one — as per the plan — for a while yet.

Tags: ,
Posted July 3rd, 2007 in main. Tagged: , .

7 comments:

  1. ::K:::

    good luck with that whole “planning” bit. it doesn’t always work so well (speaking as a case in point) unless you employ the use of a small round little pill containing friendly doses of death.

    - http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html
    - http://www.epm.org/articles/pilldebate.html

    i have about a dozen more links (from both sides of the fence) in the event you were uninformed and are thus now smashed in the face with the duty of research.

    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
  2. daniel:

    I am not uninformed. I do, however, not believe what is essentially a non-differentiated bit of tissue has a soul.

    July 4th, 2007 at 11:33 am
  3. Laurs:

    I was and AM still very skeptical of this. Some say the baby has a heartbeat at 5 weeks.. but what about before then? When is a baby a baby? It’s essentially a parasite.. I mean.. technically speaking.
    I don’t know what I think about all this yet. I can’t wait to talk about it Dan! YEEEAH discussionizing :)

    Lox

    July 4th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
  4. ::K:::

    life begins at conception. period. that is when God passes on the spark, as Michaelangelo (or was it Da Vinci?) so poignantly put forth. that’s “where soul meets body”, so to speak, when it all occurs. there is no logic to back the idea that somewheres along in the first few weeks is where God decides, “hey, i think i’ll attach that soul right about now”. the spark of life, the beginning of a person is all a catalytic explosion at one dynamic moment. while we seem to think of the beginning (as in when the sperm penetrates the egg) as small, or slow, in your lady’s netherlands it is actually HUGE. we are like giants not noticing the life-altering occurences in an ant colony; inside her body, instantaneously EVERYTHING changes — messages are sent from the brain to start producing different hormones, preparing the endometrium (lining where the fertilized egg implants) as an incredibly nutrient-filled, fertile “garden”, etc.,etc.,etc. to believe otherwise would be essentially the same as believing that i am not a man until i move from in the grocery store to on the street — my very being, identity, and life-status don’t change one iota depending on my location.

    the issue is, if i may borrow from Gore, that we must be willing to accept an inconvenient truth, rather than a convenient untruth. such was the case for Sarah and I. believe me, we would not have chosen to have a child so early in our marriage or before i was done school. but after we were married, we found out about how the common pill is, in fact, an abortifacient; this meant, no matter how inconvenient, as Christians, we were without option — the pill wasn’t one. and a lack of success with the more morally-acceptable methods of birth control we decided to employ brought us here today, with one of the most incredible gifts God has ever deigned to give us.

    July 7th, 2007 at 8:27 am
  5. daniel:

    See, you just wrote two extensive paragraphs of what consists of elaborate handwaving (though congratulations for having borrowing from Mr Gore and TMNT, both well-known experts in the field of ethics).

    You need to explain why this non-conscious bit of tissue has a soul, and not, say, your appendix. You need to explain it with a just a tiny bit more than, “It is logical that this tissue has a soul, ergo it has a soul!”

    And let’s not forget that just because something is inconvenient, that doesn’t make it true.

    July 9th, 2007 at 11:51 am
  6. ::K:::

    thank you — took me a bit to get the TMNT note … and you missed my DeathCab one.

    to write off my tidbit as “elaborate handwaving” is bullshit. in fact, that sentence itself is much closer to what you accuse me of than i was. and i never jumped on the “inconvenient” side of the fence for its own sake, nor without backing it up.

    however, since you hold my end of the discourse as irrelevant to the end, i put the ball in your court. you are not neutral here — one can believe life starts at any number of points, from the logical idea that it occurs at conception to the ridiculous notion that we are robots who never come alive.

    July 20th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
  7. ::K:::

    …and for some reason i hit ’submit’ before finishing.

    to continue — the ball in your court: explain to me when you think life begins, and back it up with some facts. you are in no position to disbelieve life begins at conception and not fall on another specific answer — i would say the “default” would be conception, even if only for the fact that it is the most obvious and simple.

    and yes, inconvenient.

    July 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Leave a response: