This is why I said "both." I believe God designed pregnancy to happen when sperm from a male fertilizes the egg from a female. He created the "science" by which every pregnancy occurs.

 

This guy was attempting to stand for his belief that a life that comes about as the result of rape is still a life that God cherishes & values. He could have better stated his position by simply saying, "Rape is an awful & horrific act, but the life that may result of that is still a life that God values."

I believe, like Randy, that God created the "science." I also believe that God, being omnipotent, knew that that life resulting from the act of sex (whether or not the sex was consensual) was going to happen...although He didn't directly cause the act to take place.

 

He created our ability to procreate, and has the ability to know when we will choose to do it through our own free will.

Why would so many react negatively to the comment? Why did Gov Romney distance himself?

Why would so many react negatively to the comment? Why did Gov Romney distance himself?

 

Because the perception is that God ordained the rape so that He could get the life.

Why would so many react negatively to the comment? Why did Gov Romney distance himself?

 

Because he knows what people's perceptions will be. Not many people will see the comment in a positive light. It's less than two weeks to election day, and Romney is trying to get elected. He's not going to side with a comment seen as negative by the majority of the audience that's listening.

Edited October 24, 201213 yr by Colonels_Wear_Blue
grammar

Why would so many react negatively to the comment? Why did Gov Romney distance himself?

 

1) It's not an easy concept to explain. Attempting to discern the will of God in individual, specific moments is a difficult proposition in even the most mundane instances. This particular discussion involves the philosophy of good and evil, the concept of when exactly life begins and the nature of God himself. That's a lot for scholar to tackle alone in a study; it's extremely tricky to examine in public with cameras in your face and countless people looking on, ready to dissect every phrase of your statement.

 

2) It's an easy attack politically. All the opposition campaign has to do for the next 24 hours is say "Mourdock" and "rape" close together in a sentence as many times as possible and it'll have serious consequences.

I'm going with science. Science is behind my vasectomy and behind the reason that my wife hasn't ever gotten pregnant since that vasectomy.

I'm going with science. Science is behind my vasectomy and behind the reason that my wife hasn't ever gotten pregnant since that vasectomy.

 

I don't see how that really applies to the discussion. Sex following a vasectomy (when done correctly) does not take any part of creating life. Its outcome is known and determined. I'm assuming this argument only applies to a situation where conception is a potential outcome?

I don't see how that really applies to the discussion. Sex following a vasectomy (when done correctly) does not take any part of creating life. Its outcome is known and determined. I'm assuming this argument only applies to a situation where conception is a potential outcome?

 

My point is that if God wanted my wife to be pregnant she would be whether I had a vasectomy or not. We can't say God made science but then act like he can't overrule the same science he made. For me it seems it should be one or the other and not both. Either God plays a role in conception or he doesn't and science does. Science shouldn't be able to stop God's will.

My point is that if God wanted my wife to be pregnant she would be whether I had a vasectomy or not. We can't say God made science but then act like he can't overrule the same science he made. For me it seems it should be one or the other and not both. Either God plays a role in conception or he doesn't and science does. Science shouldn't be able to stop God's will.

 

Wouldn't that fly in the face of "free will"? I see your choice to get a Vasectomy is no different from my choice to get Taco Bell for lunch today and no different from one person choosing to punch another in the face. They are all decisions made by one person through their own free will. If God wanted to miraculously alter the outcome of that decision, I believe He could...but I also believe that would be removing His gift of free will from that decision.

 

I don't believe God wanted anyone to be shot in a movie theater in Aurora, CO...but that doesn't mean he stopped the shooter from buying the weapons and committing the act.

My point is that if God wanted my wife to be pregnant she would be whether I had a vasectomy or not. We can't say God made science but then act like he can't overrule the same science he made. For me it seems it should be one or the other and not both. Either God plays a role in conception or he doesn't and science does. Science shouldn't be able to stop God's will.

 

But then this brings us to still another distinction; we're beyond simply science or God's power. This begs questions of free will and to what extent God will interfere with that free will as part of his plan. It was your will not to father any more children, regardless of what God's plan was. Does your free choice figure into his plan?

But then this brings us to still another distinction; we're beyond simply science or God's power. This begs questions of free will and to what extent God will interfere with that free will as part of his plan. It was your will not to father any more children, regardless of what God's plan was. Does your free choice figure into his plan?

 

 

Excellent question. I guess so because I have always lived my life with the belief that this is God's plan for me. That is my initial answer. Your question is too deep though. I need to think on that.

Wouldn't that fly in the face of "free will"? I see your choice to get a Vasectomy is no different from my choice to get Taco Bell for lunch today and no different from one person choosing to punch another in the face. They are all decisions made by one person through their own free will. If God wanted to miraculously alter the outcome of that decision, I believe He could...but I also believe that would be removing His gift of free will from that decision.

 

I don't believe God wanted anyone to be shot in a movie theater in Aurora, CO...but that doesn't mean he stopped the shooter from buying the weapons and committing the act.

 

What about the people in the theater who were shot but lived and probably should have died? Science or God's will?

 

Okay, nevermind. I can see both now.

So do you agree with what the candidate said about rape?

 

And by agreeing would you also say that a mispregnancy is the result of God not wanting the child to be born?

 

I'm gonna stick with "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose."

I believe this^

My point is that if God wanted my wife to be pregnant she would be whether I had a vasectomy or not. We can't say God made science but then act like he can't overrule the same science he made. For me it seems it should be one or the other and not both. Either God plays a role in conception or he doesn't and science does. Science shouldn't be able to stop God's will.

 

To me, a vasectomy is no different than you deciding never to have sex again. God gave you the ability, you just don't choose to use it.

 

As for the question, God is involved, IMO.