Actually, it's not "my science". I provided credible sources for the information I've corrected coming from you (stating that a fetus has a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization). First you said my science was "old", now you say isn't science at all, it's my personal ideology. Which is it?! Why are you not countering with any source to verify your [false] claims? Where is your (heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization) science coming from? Please stop deflecting my question. lol
55 Year Old Man Impregnates His 11 Year Old Granddaughter
- Thread starter Colorful
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, I wasn't asking for you to post any sources proving that life begins at the first breath. I was wanting you to back up your [false] claim that a fetus has a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization. You tend to hate the sources I've posted and disagree with their findings... I just want to better understand why you believe... A.) heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization and B.) the fetus having a heart beat indicates the fetus is breathing
Why blast the sources and information I post if you can't offer anything to back up what you're saying?
Why blast the sources and information I post if you can't offer anything to back up what you're saying?
S
The mothers circulatory system is not connected to babies....never. So you tell me how the circilatory system of a baby works. I also think that you are assuming that fertilization begins right away when in reality it begins after a period of time when mommies period ends. I really don't want to talk to you anymore. Sorry.
I'll go ahead and accept wikipedia as a "credible source". It does accurately describe oxygen saturation. Having said that, you clearly are unaware of how fetuses receive their oxygen. I posted you several sites that explain how they get their oxygen. Do you want more?
"In utero, oxygen is delivered through the placenta to the baby." But when the baby is born and the umbilical cord is clamped shut, the placenta can no longer do its job, so the lungs take over. In the womb, a fetus's lungs are filled with a fluid that helps them mature."
A Baby's View of Birth
"In utero, oxygen is delivered through the placenta to the baby." But when the baby is born and the umbilical cord is clamped shut, the placenta can no longer do its job, so the lungs take over. In the womb, a fetus's lungs are filled with a fluid that helps them mature."
A Baby's View of Birth
Last edited:
Funny, you ask me to do something, followed by "I don't really want to talk to you anymore." lol
I'm not going to talk about another topic (circulatory system) until you provide ANY credible source that states a fetus "has a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization". I've given you 2 sources already that counter that claim and you've yet to give me one... at this point, I'd even settle for a not-so-credible source (other than yourself) that claims a fetus has a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization, at this point.
My theory is you KNOW you are wrong (now) and that a fetus DOESN'T have a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization, but rather than admitting it to me, you are wanting to introduce the "circulatory system", something I've made no mention of until now. Furthermore, you did this while blasting my sources and calling it "old" and contradicting yourself, "not science at all, but my personal ideology".
Lastly, I've made no assumption as to when fertilization occurs... I'm just challenging your claim that a fetus doesn't have a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization.
I'm not going to talk about another topic (circulatory system) until you provide ANY credible source that states a fetus "has a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization". I've given you 2 sources already that counter that claim and you've yet to give me one... at this point, I'd even settle for a not-so-credible source (other than yourself) that claims a fetus has a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization, at this point.
My theory is you KNOW you are wrong (now) and that a fetus DOESN'T have a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization, but rather than admitting it to me, you are wanting to introduce the "circulatory system", something I've made no mention of until now. Furthermore, you did this while blasting my sources and calling it "old" and contradicting yourself, "not science at all, but my personal ideology".
Lastly, I've made no assumption as to when fertilization occurs... I'm just challenging your claim that a fetus doesn't have a heartbeat within 8 days of fertilization.
Last edited:
H
I fail to see how this new development has anything to do with the ethics of the decision to abort or not. Can we honestly say that the creator of the universe hinges his definition of "life" on any single characteristic we've assigned to it? Is sarcasm and insult slinging truly a constructive way to reach an understanding? Also, "Sirk" is it? When a brother in Christ raises a valid, ethical question, do you honestly think "do your own homework" is the appropriate response? I don't think anyone is gaining any understanding this way. If you begin a discussion, finish it. If you don't have an answer, admit it. If you disagree, why? Otherwise we all end up where we started. We're not learning anything, and that very quickly leads to "godless chatter" and "division in the body of Christ". His "homework" was to ask brothers and sisters in Christ what they thought. As well it should have been. It's okay to admit you don't know. It's okay to disagree. It's GOOD to talk these things out. But only if you do it in love. And "kennethcadwell", I'm sorry to have to be "that guy" but wikipedia is nowhere near what you want to use to support your side of any discussion.
I also have seen biblical references drop from the discussion? Does anyone have a prayerfully considered answer to offer?
I also have seen biblical references drop from the discussion? Does anyone have a prayerfully considered answer to offer?
H
As the original poster, do you feel this thread has helped you reach any sort of conclusion? Or do you have more questions than when you started? If you have more questions you're really seeking answers to, I'd say now would be a great time to outline them and get the thread back on track. 
Maybe that'll give it a clean slate and we can all take a step back, remove our emotions and baseless "guess work", and try to reach some sort of conclusion based on the ORIGINAL questions, or questions having to do with those questions. (I'm sure you're not the only one who has had questions like this, and the point of this community is so that we can come together and answer the tough questions like this to the best of our ability, and build each other up.
Soooo let's try this again? And if anyone finds they can't contribute in a helpful manner, then feel free not to contribute? At least that's what I think may be a productive way to go about it.
Maybe that'll give it a clean slate and we can all take a step back, remove our emotions and baseless "guess work", and try to reach some sort of conclusion based on the ORIGINAL questions, or questions having to do with those questions. (I'm sure you're not the only one who has had questions like this, and the point of this community is so that we can come together and answer the tough questions like this to the best of our ability, and build each other up. Soooo let's try this again? And if anyone finds they can't contribute in a helpful manner, then feel free not to contribute? At least that's what I think may be a productive way to go about it.
U
What is the benefit of the abortion?
Unless the life of the mother is in danger, I don't see a valid excuse for abortion (which I could understand happening to an 11yr old).
Even so, she should wait until at least 5 months, if not 6, and have a Ceasarian to give the child a fighting chance, rather than simply aborting.
An abortion does not solve the harm already done.
Unless the life of the mother is in danger, I don't see a valid excuse for abortion (which I could understand happening to an 11yr old).
Even so, she should wait until at least 5 months, if not 6, and have a Ceasarian to give the child a fighting chance, rather than simply aborting.
An abortion does not solve the harm already done.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
A bit of back story from the article, she was 32 weeks (roughly 8 months) pregnant when she was brought into the hospital. And she did in fact give birth (I am assuming cesarean). If they had caught it earlier though, I can see your line of logic. The possible benefits of the abortion would be mostly medical, given that the child was 11 years old and that's quite a bit to ask of such a little body. I think, for me at least, it does help knowing the how the story played out to separate the hypothetical from the facts of the case.
Then there's the child's mental well being to consider. Either decision is a tough road. Either is traumatic for such a young girl (or any rape survivor, honestly). But I believe what we see as "solving the harm" and what the survivor may see as "solving the harm" are two very different things.
The question wasn't whether or not it would "solve" what happened to her. But more along the lines of "is it acceptable in your opinion to grant this girl an abortion"? All of the questions are in the framework of the ethical decision of the parent, it seems. Though I believe, again it should be left up to the girl. I can understand how some could disagree with that line of thinking, however.
The only thing that can "solve" the harm done is a relationship with Jesus Christ. But I don't believe her decision to abort or not is the defining factor on whether she's done that. As a mother, if I had a daughter instead of a son, and she went through this horrific thing, I'd be prayerfully considering all angles. Not just the ones I'm personally okay with. I'm not okay with war, but weren't there times in history where that call had to be made? I wouldn't have been in the position to make the call to abort any more than I would be to go to war. I'm against both personally, but I don't understand either well enough or have authority over either situation to make that call. The leader of a country makes that call because it's his to make. Just as a woman makes the decision to abort because it's hers to make. And if it's the wrong call, her and the Lord will have to work that out between them. I think the plank in my eye serves me well enough not to point out the speck in hers. It's a complex case. One we can all use to broaden our scope of how big God is. He can use an abortion just as easily as he can the life of a little child in the same way. Saul tortured and killed Christians, later becoming a mighty man of God. If we ran into him when he was killing Christians, we probably wouldn't have stopped and thought "Hmmm I bet God's gonna turn that guy into a mighty man of God." Well he did. And he can turn a girl's heart for him in much the same way. Whether we personally agree with her choices or not.
Then there's the child's mental well being to consider. Either decision is a tough road. Either is traumatic for such a young girl (or any rape survivor, honestly). But I believe what we see as "solving the harm" and what the survivor may see as "solving the harm" are two very different things.
The question wasn't whether or not it would "solve" what happened to her. But more along the lines of "is it acceptable in your opinion to grant this girl an abortion"? All of the questions are in the framework of the ethical decision of the parent, it seems. Though I believe, again it should be left up to the girl. I can understand how some could disagree with that line of thinking, however.
The only thing that can "solve" the harm done is a relationship with Jesus Christ. But I don't believe her decision to abort or not is the defining factor on whether she's done that. As a mother, if I had a daughter instead of a son, and she went through this horrific thing, I'd be prayerfully considering all angles. Not just the ones I'm personally okay with. I'm not okay with war, but weren't there times in history where that call had to be made? I wouldn't have been in the position to make the call to abort any more than I would be to go to war. I'm against both personally, but I don't understand either well enough or have authority over either situation to make that call. The leader of a country makes that call because it's his to make. Just as a woman makes the decision to abort because it's hers to make. And if it's the wrong call, her and the Lord will have to work that out between them. I think the plank in my eye serves me well enough not to point out the speck in hers. It's a complex case. One we can all use to broaden our scope of how big God is. He can use an abortion just as easily as he can the life of a little child in the same way. Saul tortured and killed Christians, later becoming a mighty man of God. If we ran into him when he was killing Christians, we probably wouldn't have stopped and thought "Hmmm I bet God's gonna turn that guy into a mighty man of God." Well he did. And he can turn a girl's heart for him in much the same way. Whether we personally agree with her choices or not.
As the original poster, do you feel this thread has helped you reach any sort of conclusion? Or do you have more questions than when you started? If you have more questions you're really seeking answers to, I'd say now would be a great time to outline them and get the thread back on track.
1.) Assuming you believe the fetus is a living human being, why is the life of the mother the only dependent variable on whether the man pays "life for life" (if the fetus dies, the man is to pay a monetary fine, not "life for life")? Why is the penalty a monetary fine if the man "murdered" the fetus (caused the mother to miscarry)?
DiscipleDave said
God does not will that anyone sin, but they do sin. It is never God's will that a parent terminates a child that will be born in 9 months. a parents does this because it is there will and not God's will. You still are not getting what i am saying. It is God that decides if a person gets pregnant or not get pregnant. Getting pregnant or not getting pregnant has nothing at all to do with sin or not sinning. If you can grasp this simple Truth, then you will understand. God creates life. Humans do not, devil does not, demons do not. ONLY God creates life. Is it not written that God knows us even before we are in the womb? Do you know why He does? Because He knows who is going to get pregnant and who is not, it is Him that allows a person to conceive. He and Him alone. The mom does not cause the conceivement, the dad does not cause the conceivement. ONLY God causes that. True God gave that man and that woman free will to choose to procreate, How many of us are here right now, NOT from a procreation from a Husband and a wife? You keep on throwing procreation out of your mouth, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with who gets pregnant and does not get pregnant. We are talking about the very moment an egg cell gets fertilized, NOT the how or why the sperm cell is there to do so.
If a person goes to a clinic and gets pregnated from a test tube, it is still God who decides if that person will have a child or not, ONLY God. For some reason you are not, or not willing to grasp that Truth. Getting pregnant is an act of God. NOT how a person procreates to get there. It is God that decides if that persons egg cell will conceive. IF God does not want that person to have a child, that person will not have a child. i think you are stuck on the HOW that person became pregnant, as evil and sick as that is. While i am on the life that was created by God in that girl.
What do you think grandpa can create a life. All grandpa can do is give of his seed. What do you think that girl can create life? All she can do is provide the egg. Know you not it is GOD that creates life. That is what i am talking about.
^i^
If a person goes to a clinic and gets pregnated from a test tube, it is still God who decides if that person will have a child or not, ONLY God. For some reason you are not, or not willing to grasp that Truth. Getting pregnant is an act of God. NOT how a person procreates to get there. It is God that decides if that persons egg cell will conceive. IF God does not want that person to have a child, that person will not have a child. i think you are stuck on the HOW that person became pregnant, as evil and sick as that is. While i am on the life that was created by God in that girl.
What do you think grandpa can create a life. All grandpa can do is give of his seed. What do you think that girl can create life? All she can do is provide the egg. Know you not it is GOD that creates life. That is what i am talking about.
^i^
DiscipleDave said
i understand that just fine, but just because God gave humankind the freewill to procreate, does not decide who will and who will not get pregnant. How many people freely procreate all the time and never get pregnant? Just because God gave us free will to procreate has NOTHING to do with who will get pregnant and who will not get pregnant.
You are not getting it are you? Just because you have the ability to procreate, does not mean you automatically bare children, or even can have children. Your statement above is a witness that you believe humans create life, When the Truth is if you get a vasectomy, you will no longer give God the option to create life. YOU do not create life, True you have the ability to procreate, which gives God the option to get the female pregnant or not. lol, if man had that option, they would say before procreating "i decide this time you will not get pregnant" and the next time says "This time i decide that you will get pregnant" lol, as if man decides who will and who will not get pregnant, do you see how silly that is? God decides who will and who will not get pregnant, even though we have free will to procreate.
^i^
The dependent variable is man and his free will, not God MAKING people pregnant. Just because God allows man to exercise unrighteous free will... in this case, the grandfather exercised unrighteous free will by impregnating his 11 year old granddaughter (God being the independent variable pertaining to the girl's conception)... doesn't mean that this is what He wants. That isn't to say God COULDN'T stop the fetus from developing...[/quote]
You are not getting it are you? Just because you have the ability to procreate, does not mean you automatically bare children, or even can have children. Your statement above is a witness that you believe humans create life, When the Truth is if you get a vasectomy, you will no longer give God the option to create life. YOU do not create life, True you have the ability to procreate, which gives God the option to get the female pregnant or not. lol, if man had that option, they would say before procreating "i decide this time you will not get pregnant" and the next time says "This time i decide that you will get pregnant" lol, as if man decides who will and who will not get pregnant, do you see how silly that is? God decides who will and who will not get pregnant, even though we have free will to procreate.
^i^
The dependent variable is man and his free will, not God MAKING people pregnant. Just because God allows man to exercise unrighteous free will... in this case, the grandfather exercised unrighteous free will by impregnating his 11 year old granddaughter (God being the independent variable pertaining to the girl's conception)... doesn't mean that this is what He wants. That isn't to say God COULDN'T stop the fetus from developing...[/quote]
DiscipleDave said
You use this same logic in your previous posts. What you don't understand is that every person has a specific date that they will die. So in your above example if it is not that person time to die, then God will most assuredly prevent that person from dying. And if it is that person time to die, then there is nothing that will stop it. A person getting pregnant is either God's will or it is NOT His will for that person to get pregnant. Getting pregnant, starts another LIFE, which God is full aware of that LIFE, He is the one that allowed that LIFE to happen, regardless how the situation of how the sperm got there. God creates life. so simple that children can understand. God creates life, humans do not create life. As i said before a fertile couple can procreate forever and a day and never get pregnant, because it is not the will of God that she does. OR that same couple can become pregnant, because it was the will of God that she has a child. God decides who will and who will not get pregnant? Are you saying God does not decide who will get pregnant and who will not? That surely seems to be what you are saying, your logic is because we can procreate, we create life. You do error not knowing the Truth.
^i^
^i^
DiscipleDave said
Brother, i understand what exercising free will means, But if one gets pregnant has nothing to do with free will at all, that is what you are not understanding, nor hearing what i am saying. You keep talking about free will. Did the girl choose to become pregnant? She had NO free will whatsoever concerning her getting pregnant. Tell me, was it Grangpas free will choice that the girl becomes pregnant? It was not his choice at all. God decides who will get pregnant and who will not get pregnant, this has nothing to do whatsoever with mans free will. This you seem not to grasp or understand. You keep on saying free will, free will, and it has nothing to do with the girl getting pregnant. Now if you want to discuss the topic of the rape, let us do so. If you want to talk about the free will choice the grandfather did have, lets talk about that, if you want to talk about how the girl had no free will choice at all concerning the rape, lets talk about that. But those things are different then the topic of her getting pregnant, and who allowed her to get pregnant. Did grandpa want her to get pregnant? He probably thought theres no way an 11 year old will get pregnant, he probably would not want her to get pregnant. Did the girl want to get pregnant? Thats probably a big NO.
Here is where the problem is, you think that grandpa and that girl created a life? because he has the free will to procreate. You do error and do not know the Truth. God decides who will get pregnant and who will not get pregnant, this has nothing to do with the rape, this has nothing to do with sinful things. ONLY God decides who will get pregnant. Grandpa didn't decide that, the girl didn't decide that, God decided that.
Now this generation will spit out that Truth, because this generation believes the best thing to do, for everyone, is to abort the baby, and since that is what this generation believes they can't possibly believe the Truth That it is ONLY God that creates a life, because if they did have to believe that, then they would realize that abortion is against God.
^i^
Here is where the problem is, you think that grandpa and that girl created a life? because he has the free will to procreate. You do error and do not know the Truth. God decides who will get pregnant and who will not get pregnant, this has nothing to do with the rape, this has nothing to do with sinful things. ONLY God decides who will get pregnant. Grandpa didn't decide that, the girl didn't decide that, God decided that.
Now this generation will spit out that Truth, because this generation believes the best thing to do, for everyone, is to abort the baby, and since that is what this generation believes they can't possibly believe the Truth That it is ONLY God that creates a life, because if they did have to believe that, then they would realize that abortion is against God.
^i^