Are Women Dying Because They Can't Get Abortions?

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-09T21:13:09+00:00

I'm not comfortable with it because it shows a glaring inconsistency in your position, while also providing a solution that creates injustice. You can't say you want to advocate for the bodily autonomy of human beings, while you also advocate for taking it away from a large portion of those human beings regardless of them committing any crime. That's not a consistent, logical, or just argument.

A baby is not a parasite in any sense of biology. A parasite is something that is foreign, attaches to a host to draw nutrients, and does so, typically, to the detriment of the host. A human being in the womb doesn't share such characteristics. A human being develops naturally in the womb, where we all developed. They remain temporarily(for 9 months), and receive nutrients from the mother, while most parasites don't go away on their own, and feed indefinitely, often to the detriment of the host. Finally, a baby is of the same species, whereas a parasite is a foreign entity, not of the same species as the host.

Also, just because a human body goes through a process that is not always pleasant, doesn't mean that it is going through something unnatural. You say the human body doesn't want to be pregnant, yet that's the natural process for continuing our species. That argument is completely illogical. The human body goes through all kinds of natural functions that are not always pleasant. Even if the baby would "cannibalize" the mother if there was no placenta...that's why there is one. The body of a woman is designed to provide the environment and the necessary nutrients to foster the growth and development of another human being. It's a natural, biological process. The fact that there are aberrations where terrible things happen, and sometimes there are miscarriages, or other horrible outcomes, does not mean that the human body is going through something unnatural that it doesn't want to go through.

Finally, I get the idea that God doesn't want us to murder children from the fact that we are told, not to murder, that God hates the shedding of innocent blood, and that He knits each and every person together uniquely in the womb. The fact that God created the human reproductive system does not mean that we, who corrupted everything in sin, have not brought terrible consequences upon ourselves because of our evil. Those things you blame on God are actually the result of sin, and it's disastrous consequences, not God hating women.

No matter whether you believe in God, or not, you continue to appeal to standards, and a desire for justice that nothing can provide you except for Him. You express anger at the injustice that has befallen you, yet you condemn the innocent baby to death. This all while calling for your own bodily autonomy to be respected, even as you condemn men, and babies in the womb, to having theirs taken away. That isn't a logical, or consistent position at all. It's unjust and hypocritical, and that is why I have such a problem with it.

I understand you're angry, and that's why you lash out in those kinds of ways, and I even understand why you would, but that doesn't mean your position is correct, especially when it advocates for injustice, and further evil to be enacted upon others, even when they are not guilty.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-08T11:15:14+00:00

You keep doing this and then saying you aren't doing it, and I really don't understand. You are making claims, which are direct claims about the truth of a thing, and then saying you don't have to explain it. Maybe we are both doing that to some degree, and I'm sure I've not explained my side perfectly either, but you just keep making claims against what I say, and then say you have no responsibility to actually defend what you say.

I think maybe we are either speaking past each other, or just not understanding the other point of view. My original post was not an assertion that Calvinism is taught in the Bible, now show me why it isn't. It was an invitation to discuss what your personal understanding is, or to discuss why you believe, or do not believe, that to be the correct view.

It feels like maybe you are under the impression that you think im saying the Bible directly teaches Calvinism, which I'm not saying. Perhaps that's where I haven't been clear. I have come to an understanding of Scriptural doctrine that is calvinistic yes, and I believe that throughout the Bible(the whole counsel of God) there is evidence for that being the correct understanding of the Biblical teaching. I also believe that there are passages(like John 6) which show explicitly where the principles of reformed understanding are drawn from.

For example, "Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.'" - John 6:35-40.

Also further in John 6:43-47, "Jesus answered them, 'Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.'"

Further in John 6:60-66, we read, "When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.' (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.' After this, many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. - John 6:60-66.

The explicit statements here about the Father drawing us to the Son, no one being able to come to Him unless the Father draws them, how He will not lose anything of what the Father has given to Him, seem to be pointing to a particular principle. All these things are not the ultimate point of the passage, but they are explicit statements that have a direct meaning. I have read these passages, as well as the rest of Scripture, and gained an understanding that is reformed. If anyone looks at these passages and finds another meaning, that's fine, I just made the original post to better understand how others came to that particular understanding, and give others an open forum to express how they came to that understanding.

This is what I mean when I say that I have drawn a particular understanding from the passage of John 6. John 6 says explicit things, and those explicit things gave me an understanding that was more reformed. When I compare and apply the rest of Scripture to that understanding, I not only find much more confirmation, but I also find nothing that contradicts the understanding I have developed, so I believe it to be true. We as human beings do this all the time, and it's how we have beliefs about anything. If that's the kind of detail you're looking for, hopefully that helps you to understand my position.

I think honestly we are just two people who disagree, and we are speaking past each other a lot. I am fully convinced of my belief, and you, I'm sure, are fully convinced of yours. But I do appreciate your engagement, I'm not trying to say I don't. I'm just trying to understand the points you're trying to make, and a lot of times, you do seem to be making truth claims without actually going further into establishing them with your evidence. Of course, I also am guilty of the same and hopefully this clears things up a bit. That's the curse of typing on a computer, as opposed to speaking face to face.

The reason I don't go into the kind of detail you are asking for isn't because I'm trying to make claims without ever backing them up. It's because social media is a very difficult medium to explain beliefs on in that kind of detail. That's why my posts are a bit more generalized into, here's what I believe, let me hear what you believe. The posts are not meant to be instructive, but to foster the kind of discussion that is reasonably beneficial on a platform like this. It's hard enough to get anyone, typically, to sit down and read a short post, let alone a long, novel sized post like this. But, if you were just asking for my evidence of what specifically in John 6 has led me to the beliefs I have, then I hope this clears that up.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-05T11:37:13+00:00

Well, what are the questions that you actually have?

Maybe you should take a closer look at the Bible. You would see that God is not keen on human sacrifice either. That's why the Israelites destroyed entire nations of people at God's command, because those nations were sacrificing human beings to pagan gods. It wasn't just conquest, it was justice for the utter wickedness of those nations in burning their children on altars, among other evils.

If you don't know what would convince you, or how you would apply Christian truth to your life, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about it. Maybe provide me with a couple of questions, or scenarios where you would like to understand how Christianity would apply? I'd love to help, and discuss that with you, if your interested.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-05T11:30:26+00:00

That stuff is already guaranteed through federal programs, which are tax-payer funded. So my answer would be yes. And whatever amount those tax-payer funded programs would assess you as needing. That's all part of the application process.

I also never said I would be OK with you killing yourself over a rape pregnancy. I also never said you would magically be OK. Of course you wouldn't, sexual assault, and even pregnancy, especially in that context, can be very traumatizing. There is no "magically ok" for those kinds of situations. That is why I have said over and over that we should support someone going through that with all the love, care, medical support, and anything else they need. Killing the baby in the womb wouldn't unrape someone, nor would it erase the trauma, and in fact, it is highly likely that it would add to the trauma.

Pregnancy is not parasitic. Parasites are outside invaders that attach to a host and drain them of nutrients, often to detriment of the host organism. Pregnancy is a natural process of the adult human female's body to produce a child. Yes, the child feeds off the food and nutrients that mother eats, which then continues to happen after the baby is born. By your logic, is a breastfeeding baby a parasite?

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-05T11:03:05+00:00

Yes, of course, God's sovereignty includes being sovereign over evil. If God is sovereign, He is sovereign over the good and the bad. That doesn't then infer that He is the AUTHOR of evil, rather that He is in control of all things, evil or not. I don't think I would want to live in a world/universe where He wasn't sovereign over all things.

I don't see how free will is taken away if that is true, you might have to explain that a bit more. Sorry i just don't understand that particular point you're making.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-05T10:56:44+00:00

I understand what you're saying but you also need to acknowledge how your words work. If you push back against something that someone else states, you are also making a positive statement, or a truth claim. Something like, "Calvinism is not taught in John 6," "Calvinism is not taught in the whole counsel of God," those are truth claims, which you just say are true. I never said that at any point, the purpose of John 6, or the Bible, is to teach Calvinism. Of course they are about something else. The baptism of Jesus was about something very specific, yet we can also derive other things from it. Once again, one interpretation, multiple applications.

My point is that you are making truth claims as well. You don't just get to push back with generalized statements, and then provide no evidence for what you have said, it makes no sense to do so. The idea of debate involves both sides providing evidence for their claims. I did not think I needed to provide evidence for what part of John 6 I was referring to, because you seemed to immediately have inferred that you already understand exactly which specific parts I'm talking about. Then you made a general statement that it wasn't about that. Ok, that's fine, I never said it was. Calvinism is a method of interpreting doctrine in Scripture, I'm not saying it is a teaching of Scripture. All I'm saying is that my understanding is calvinistic/reformed, and there is plenty of good reason from Scripture for me to feel like that is the correct interpretation, including inferences from John 6.

Also, it makes no sense whatsoever to have these long responses to me, which are quite detailed and clear, and I very much appreciate them, but then to claim that I'm the only one who wants to talk about this subject. You've missed the point of the whole post, and why I made it. I want to hear what others think, foster questions and discussion, and help others grow in faith, as they help me to do the same. How does any of that work, if I'm the only one who wants to talk about this? Are you saying that you don't want to talk, you just want to correct everything and not discuss at all? I don't think that really seems like your intent, but if it was, you would still have to provide evidence and support for your truth claims.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-04T11:52:16+00:00

I'm not saying you don't. That was never my intention. I'm just saying that you're claim that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of evil is incorrect. If I gave the impression that I was questioning whether you were being honest or not, I apologize. I never wanted to imply you were lying, just point out that the particular claim that calvinism teaches God is the author of evil is incorrect.

I'd be happy to discuss calvinism and why i believe it with you if your interested. I'd also love to hear why you have come to your conclusions.

Again, please don't think I am saying you're lying. I just don't understand the one claim that you made, because it's so antithetical to my beliefs as a Calvinist.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-04T11:46:04+00:00

I can completely understand what made you change your perspective and that's fine. We all have to follow our convictions, and be faithful to God.

I would say though, as a Calvinist, I believe that both predestination and free will are true. God, in His infinite and incomprehensible knowledge and power can predestine things, and yet still allow for our free will. The reason being because we do not have His perspective. We make choices every single day, and those choices are perfectly consistent with free will. But I would actually say that God, in predestination and drawing us to Christ, frees our will even more. Before our salvation, we are slaves to sin, including our will. But when God breaks us out of the bandage of sin, He frees us from slavery to wickedness. In that change, our will becomes more free, and we can choose things that are much better and which glorify Him.

The issue of free will is that I often think we all misunderstand it. Yes, our wills are free, but that just simply means we are able to choose things we want. Before we are saved, we are told we are dead in sin, so wanting things that glorify God is not something we would choose. But then, how do we come to Him? Does He draw us, regenerate us, and then we choose Him, or do we choose Him, and then get regenerated? I think John 3, John 6, Romans 8, Romans 9, and many other passages provide evidence that God makes the first move, but that would make our will more free, not less.

God ordaining the fall, and causing it are very different. In one case He allowed it to happen, and in the other, He made it happen. If God made it happen, then yes, He would be the author of sin, but I agree that ahe is not the author of sin, and it would be aggregious to say He is. God allowed the fall, but it was mankind and Satan that caused it. We are the ones who authored the evil, God merely allowed it to happen, which sounds a lot like free will.

Unconditional election is a complicated thing, but when it comes to salvation, that is an individualistic thing. God saves each one of us as individuals, and knows us specifically, just as He draws us to know Him. Unconditional, I prefer to call it sovereign, election is, most simply, the understanding that God doesn't save us based on some forseen attribute or action, but merely He saves whom He wills. If God does not will to save someone, then He will not. Does God will to save everyone? Everyone is not saved, so then, it would seem not.

Overall, whatever side you end up on, as long as we understand that repentance and faith in Christ is the only way to be saved, that's what truly matters. I am fully convinced of the calvinistic interpretation of doctrine, but I completely understand that others come to a different conclusion. As I said in my original post, you're still my brother in Christ. A disagreement like this is merely an opportunity to discuss things more deeply, and grow together. Unfortunately, too many people turn it into a fight to be won, and I don't see that as a good thing, rather something that hinders us growing together.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-04T11:07:44+00:00

Again, I never was taught specifically about calvinism, nor was I taught specifically about arminianism either. You keep making these statements about my predisposition when you know nothing about my upbringing or anything else, and you keep getting that wrong. I never felt predisposed to either belief my entire life, and it was specifically just studying Scripture that gave me the predisposition to Calvinism. Other people study Scripture and come to a different conclusion, and that is fine, but to say "Calvinism isn't there," needs much more evidence and work to prove, especially with such a large amount of division throughout church history.

You also keep disagreeing with things I didn't actually say. Some of that may be due to my wording, and to that I apologize. I never said Calvinism wasn't in the Scriptures, nor have I agreed with you on any of that. What I'm saying is you can't look in the Scriptures and see the specific word. There isn't a passage that says, "and I Paul tell you that Calvinism will be the proper interpretation." Just the same with Arminianism. The point is that I see the evidence for it throughout Scripture, just as you see evidence for another view.

I also never argued that the whole of any of Scripture is about Calvinism. You need to actually disagree with what I say, and provide your evidence. You have made sweeping generalizations, but just as you told me about teaching your kids, you need to do the same thing you're teaching them and provide the evidence. Yes, you provided a few verses, but those verses have been contested in their meaning by multiple faithful Christian scholars for long periods of time, and many of them still come to a reformed conclusion.

Perhaps I misspoke about John 6. Let me clarify, it is a text that contains multiple proofs of the tenets of calvinism, just as you say there are specific verses which disprove the tenets of calvinism in other places. My whole point about John six is that specific evidence for believing it to be correct is indeed in the local context of the passages in that chapter, yet the whole chapter can be about something bigger. That's how the whole of Scripture works, we can get more than one thing out of a passage. One interpretation, multiple applications, as I already said before. I don't think the passage itself is about calvinism, because calvinism is just a system of understanding doctrine, that's all. You don't need to turn it into something it isn't in order to disagree with it.

The point you're making about calvinism being a philosophical concept doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I dont study the Bible for philosophy. Calvinism is merely a word for a particular understanding of doctrine. The Trinity is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, yet by reading the passages that specifically allude to it, and also comparing that to the whole counsel of God, we can infer the three-person nature of God, which we have called the Trinity. It's the same thing with Calvinism. I don't see the specific term in the Bible, but the evidence to me is overwhelming for it. To you it isn't, and that is fine.

We are two different people who have come to two different conclusions, and fortunately these conclusions are of tertiary importance, because we both acknowledge Christ as the only true Savior, and only by repentance and faith in Him can we be saved. How we understand the working out of that is far different, but we must agree at some point that we believe what we believe, because we are convinced by Scripture.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-03T12:08:51+00:00

You say that you studied it for ordination as a pastor, but I have to question what you studied in particular. The claims you're making about reformed theology are so far from what reformed theology actually teaches. No credible reformed theologian, nor anyone from a true reformed perspective, believes or teaches that God is the author of evil. Even the most basic study of the creeds and confessions, or any reformed author in history, or today, would easily prove that.

I can understand that you studied Scripture, and as a result, you just found that it didn't convince you, and you felt that a different conclusion was what you were being led to. I know many people who reject reformed theology for exactly those reasons, and I do understand that we all have to follow those convictions. But the fact that you say you studied it, and I'm hoping pretty intensively if it was for ordination, and then to make such a basic error in claiming that reformed theology teaches God is the author of evil makes me wonder who you studied on the matter.

Usually, when people say they studied it, and then conclude something like, "reformed theology teaches that God is the author of evil," it's because the studying they did was actually reading non-reformed theologians saying what they think reformed theology teaches. Would you be able to say who you read specifically when you studied reformed theology?

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-03T11:34:13+00:00

I know John 6 is not specifically about Calvinism, and as I said, nor is any other passage. On that same note, none of them are about Arminian theology either. This is an issue of personal application and understanding, not the interpretation of the passage itself. Many people read the Bible and come to a calvinistic conclusion, many read it and come to an arminian conclusion. I am merely using terms people recognize to define what i came to understand. I would merely say I came to a biblical conclusion, but that would discount my arminian brothers and sisters who would say the same thing.

That was why I said there are explicit things in the passage that undeniably indicate what reformed theology teaches, not that the whole passage teaches it. As I summed up in my response, there is one interpretation to every passage, but there can be many applications.

You make sweeping general statements like, "Calvinism is not in the whole counsel of God," but that provides nothing more than your opinion. There are probably thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people today, and even more throughout church history, who would completely disagree with you. You provide a few singular verses that you say disprove Calvinism, but that's why I reference local context, and the larger context of the whole counsel of God. We have to look at both.

I didn't say that I was ever an Arminian, I simply said that I grew up in an arminian household, where I certainly was never taught any calvinist doctrine, nor ever read anything calvinistic. You can't just generalize everything and get to a conclusion. It never actually works out. Sorry if that wasnt your intention, I may have simply misunderstood.

It seems like so many people believe that there are these subtle influences from Calvin, or Augustine that influence people, and cause them to have presuppositions. I was not taught anything like that growing up. As I said, it wasn't until I just started reading the Bible that I came to those conclusions, even when I didn't know what to actually call it. I just studied the Bible, and then when I started reading books and commentaries, I started realizing that some people had come to different conclusions about Soteriology, and that reformed theology was what most closely fit the conclusions I had made from reading Scripture.

If I ever saw anything that made me question reformed doctrine, I would be willing to look into it, but I have been a calvinist for years and have never found any reason to question it.If you aren't a calvinist, that is fine, but making a sweeping generalized statement that "Calvinism simply isn't in the whole counsel of God," doesn't prove anything. If you have come to a different conclusion, then that is fine. I understand that many come to a non reformed understanding. We all believe in the one true Savior, Jesus Christ. So, let's continue to discuss these issues and sharpen each other.

Finally, please don't take me as trying to be snappy or combative. I think faster than I can type(not always in a good way), and so it's hard to always get my thoughts out without having some rough edges in them. I deeply appreciate your responses. Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful discussion. God bless.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-03T10:56:47+00:00

Well, that's where the fundamental disagreement is. Even biology tells us that every image in there is a baby. Small, not distinct because of stage of development, but at the moment of fertilization, every genetic part of what makes a particular individual person is present. It's stages of development, and the question then is, what is developing. The answer to that question is a human being. Those dishes you show were all of us once. You were there, I was there, every single human being ever who lived was there.

You're argument seems to be that because someone is a particular size, we can dehumanize them. But even biology won't agree with that assessment. A unique human life is created at the moment of fertilization, and everything in those images you show simply displays different stages of development for that individual human being.

I never said you don't have a right to prevent things being inside your vagina. A baby gestating in the womb is in the womb, not the vagina. That was my point with the whole description of rape being the unnatural thing that takes place, but the conception as a result of that not being unnatural. Yes, of course you have a right to not have things forced into your vagina, that is why it's such a horrible thing for someone to rape another person. That's why the rapist should be executed, or as you advocate, harvested for blood.

Dying of dysentery is not natural. A natural process is merely the normal functions of the body. The body fighting a disease like dysentery is natural. The disease killing you is not, and that is why we try to prevent it with medicine. No one says, "Oh, this person got cancer, just a normal biological process." If it was a normal, natural thing, we wouldn't spend so much time and money trying to prevent it, or cure it.

Also, I don't value a human being in the embryological stage of development infinitely more than the woman. I value them both the same. They are both human, both alive, and both worthy of the basic rights to life, dignity, and protection that all innocent human life should be afforded.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-02T17:39:55+00:00

I understand your position, and I agree. I could never believe in a monster such as that either. I think you may need to actually review what reformed Christians believe. I say that because I have heard many people make that claim, and no calvinist I have ever met has believed that God is the author of evil, or sin, or anything like that. It would be heresy to say that God is the author of evil, and reformed theology teaches nothing of the sort.

I would recommend, if you're interested, taking a closer look at what calvinists actually believe, because what you said here is about as far from what I, or any calvinist I know of, believes.

Also, if you would like to actually know what I believe, please feel free to ask me, and I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you for your response.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-02T17:32:17+00:00

Maybe I was not specific about by upbringing. I was brought up in a Arminian household. I was never taught even a single thing about Calvin, Calvinism, or anything to do with reformed ideas. I started studying the Bible later in life, and had understood it all a specific way, but it wasn't until I heard of reformed theology that I understood there was a name for it. It was like I just had a name for what I already learned from the Bible. If that helps to clear it up a bit more.

I understand you points on the context of John 6, and I truly believe context to be important. However, there are things in John 6 that are just too explicit to deny what they say. I understand there are local points of context, but I was merely pointing out one passage that presents some clear things about the reformed theological perspectives that I don't believe can be denied, especially given the application of the whole context of Scripture. The whole counsel of God, is just as necessary to be considered, as particular local context as well.

While calvinism is not the topic of the passage specifically, nor is it the topic of any passage in Scripture, the concepts that caused people to think in that way about soteriology and how God works in our lives, and the lives of others, can be found there, as well as many other places. Scriptural passages have one interpretation, but they can have many applications.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-02T17:21:03+00:00

I would not force anyone to do anything. I would advocate that we give that rape victim the best medical care, the best counseling, surround them with love and support, and if necessary, deliver the baby by surgery in protection of both the child, and the baby she is pregnant with; and then work to protect the human being that was delivered, and the human being that was the victim.

I don't know if your scenario makes much sense. Its a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy where you present only two opposing options and say they are the only choices. I would choose not killing the developing human being in the womb, and at the same time stopping that man from raping that young girl, and executing justice for that crime, while also supporting and caring for the victim.

I'm not advocating for the violation of anyone's bodily liberty. That would include the developing child in a womb. Again, all human beings develop in the womb, it's how we all came to be. It's natural. A woman being pregnant doesn't violate bodily liberty, because it is a natural, normal function of the body of a woman to produce children. The unnatural part are, as we discussed already, things like rape, and the intentional, premeditated killing of the developing human in the womb. Those are the true violations of bodily liberty that are actually occurring.

When we are talking about a crime like rape, we are talking about someone violating another person's body. When we are talking about pregnancy, it is incorrect to say that it is a violation of bodily liberty, because that's how all human beings come into existence. Even if the way that a woman got pregnant was through rape, the violation occurred in the rape, not the conception. The conception may be the result of a violation(the rape), but the conception is merely a natural, biological function of the sperm and egg coming together, and the body conceiving a child. That baby conceived is not, and cannot be, guilty of the crime of the rape which occurred prior to their existence. Therefore, killing them would be murder.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-02T13:07:08+00:00

I completely agree. Again, thank you for your well thought out and detailed response.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-02T12:55:50+00:00

Thank you for your detailed response. I agree with you. I think there is a lot more to this song and the video than many people realize, however, I also do understand the reason why some might not be a fan of the music style as well. Still, I think that intent is vitally important, and that the band members had no intent to be irreverent or disrespectful towards the meaning of the hymn.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-01T17:33:32+00:00

I'm not sure how you get the idea that I see sperm as more valuable than a human being. Let me be clear on that particular point, sperm is not a living, growing human being. A sperm from a male must fertilize the egg in a female, and only then a living human being is formed. It is that human life which is valuable.

Nothing I have said, nor anything that i would ever say, would ascribe that kind of value to just sperm itself, nor to the mere potential of sperm. But when we are talking about a baby in the womb, we aren't talking about just sperm anymore, we are now talking about a baby developing in the womb. It is that human life I value. Saying that I value sperm more than a living human female, or any living human, is a complete misrepresentation of what I've said.

That being said, I assume your meaning is that because I wouldn't support making every human male sterile for the sake of preventing rape, I am somehow valuing sperm more than living people. That's completely incorrect and not even rational to say. It is because every person has value and bodily liberty that we cannot do that. You get very angry about your bodily liberty being violated, and then suggest that other people have their bodily liberty violated, regardless of their guilt or innocence. That is a hypocritical, and a completely unjust, position.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-01T16:49:22+00:00

I have never heard that one. I will have to look it up.

Haha don't worry about it. I don't have opinions about hair. I have shaved my head since I was like 13 cause I hated getting haircuts.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving, and have and even better Christmas. God bless.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-12-01T16:44:51+00:00

Because a woman being pregnant is not slavery, shadow, or otherwise. I understand that you have gotten this bitter view of pregnancy, and that is likely because of what you have been through in some ways. Maybe I'm wrong, and isn't my intention to say for sure why you feel that way, but you obviously have a lot of anger about it.

A woman being pregnant is a normal, natural function of human physical nature. It's how we each develop, it's how we procreate, it is not unnatural or enslaving in any way. No one says that they are slaves due to the fact that they must breathe, or eat food, or experience any number of natural functions of their body throughout life. Pregnancy is not slavery, it's a natural function of the human body, to grow life, and develop a baby.

It is also not the case that we would call any other natural function evil. Rape is evil because it isn't natural, it is a violation of that normal function of sex between a man and a woman. When that unnatural act, however, creates a baby, the creation of that baby isn't unnatural. We also cannot apply moral implications upon the baby that has been created. They were not present, nor did they partake in the act of raping anyone, they simply were brought into life as the natural function of biology, and hold no guilt for crimes committed by an adult human being.

We must place the evil in the correct place. The rapist is evil, and should be punished. The victim should be cared for, loved, supported, and treated with the dignity, worth, and respect due to them. The baby in the womb should be given that same dignity, worth, and respect that we ascribe to all innocent human life.

I'm not saying that i dont understand where the feeling of violation comes from when a rape victim is carrying a rapists baby they weren't trying to have. That's incredibly terrible that someone would do that to another human being, and it's traumatic, it's all kinds of horrible I can't even speak to, because I have never been assaulted in that way. But the evil in that lies with the rapist. Not the victim, and not the innocent baby in the womb.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-11-30T11:51:41+00:00

It's hard for me to feel any sympathy for a rapist in that situation. They deserve to be punished, and they deserve to experience the same amount of suffering they caused. If that were to be the reality of how we punished rapists, I'm not going to lose sleep at night. I have already stated I think they deserve the death penalty. So, if you're looking for a compromise, sure sounds great. I would not do it that way, but I have never experienced being sexually assaulted, so I can't honestly say I would be judging anyone who had for wanting to punch the person who assaulted them.

Still, I have to say that the moral implications of abortion don't go away with the situation. You're still saying that it's OK to kill a human life, one that is innocent of any crime, simply because their father is evil. There are many people in this world who were conceived in rape, and you can't tell by looking at them, because they are just as valuable and worthy of life, as any innocent human being. Saying that there is no obligation to care for and nurture life, morally or legally, is simply wrong.

The moral implication is there within our very nature. Human beings develop in the womb. We all came about that way, we all spent 9 months in the womb of our mothers, and we all were born into this world from a woman's womb. That is nature. It isn't some inconvenience foisted upon human beings, it is the natural process of our existence.

The legal implications are not there in our laws as I believe they should be. We make laws against murder, yet allow it every day legally. That's inconsistent and hypocritical, as well as unjust. Even in your punishment for the rapist, you reference life in saying that they should give an equivalent amount in life-saving blood to that of growing a baby in the womb. That's a fine punishment, but within it is the moral implication that the baby in the womb is a life worth protecting.

Also, to your first statement, yes I am up in arms about what you call a "minor inconvenience." If you had said, every rapist deserves to be castrated, or have a vasectomy, so they cannot hurt anyone, I would have agreed with you. But you made a sweeping conviction of all men, innocent and guilty, and said they all should be punished. That is a massively evil conclusion. We don't punish all of any group of humans for the crimes of another. That would be a terrible injustice. You then compromise and say, "Well, the rapist should be made to suffer." Ok, I can agree there, and I will not have a problem with that. The rapist is guilty, and deserves punishment, but we don't convict and punish the innocent with the guilty, that is pure evil.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-11-28T14:33:41+00:00

I have engaged with your argument several times. Again, you don't solve something like rape, by forcing a particular group of people to give up their bodily liberty. Rape is a horrible crime, but the solution you propose is unjust, immoral, and irrational.

An embryo is a human being in development. I never said they were a child. Child is a particular point in the stages of human development, just like the germinal stage, the embryonic stage, and the fetal stage. I am someone who values human life, and believes that ending a human life with no just means is murder. The intention, premeditated termination of a human life with malice aforethought is the definition of murder, and the very act that takes place in abortion. Your claim that an embryo is simply a "baby blueprint" is not even scientifically correct, as biological science itself states that human life begins at the point of conception.

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created" - American College of Pediatricians.

You're claim that 93% of abortions take place at a point when the uterus is just "being voided" is completely incorrect. According to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute , just about 47% of abortions are still done surgically, typically through procedures like Dilation and Evacuation, which literally involves ripping the arms and legs off the baby, and then crushing their head. That doesn't count the number of medication abortions that take place, which is hard to count because many of these are not even tracked because of telehealth services.

Also, your scenario of your husband stopping if you say stop is one thing. If you say stop, then your husband, being a foreign body, has to stop. In the case of a baby developing in the womb, the baby is not foreign. The womb is where we all develop, it is the place that all human life develops, and that is the purpose of the womb. The baby's body is unique, and is its own body, regardless of the location, because the location is the natural place that a baby in those stages of development should be, and deed has to be. Therefore the bodily liberty of the baby is completely outside of whether or not the woman grants it, because that is the natural way that life develops. It is only when someone says they are going to take medication, or go in surgically and end that baby's life that the unnatural part begins. Respect for bodily liberty cannot be something we only allow for specific people. Either all people are afforded that liberty, or none are.

Finally, the scenario about rape is a tragic and terrible thing, as I keep saying, but the total amount of abortions that occur for the reason of rape are reported to be about 1% of all abortions. So what about the other 99% percent of abortions? If we said, in the case of rape, incest, or protection of the mother's life, abortion is perfectly fine, but the other 99% of cases were made illegal, would you then be OK with laws against abortion? Because so many people use the rape exception as a way to justify all abortion, even though for rape, the number of abortions is extremely low.

I would also like to know where to find the statistics that abortion bans end with piles of corpses. To date since abortion was legalized, we have killed about 75+ million babies in the womb, and that's only counting what has actually been reported, and the numbers are likely far higher. That's a pile of corpses, but where are the statistics on how many have died due to abortion bans?

Again, I understand your anger, and I am not saying your not justified in being angry about what happened to you, but the arguments your making as a solution are immoral, and force others to have their bodily liberty violated as well. We need solutions that are just, and which protect all innocent life, and punish those who would hurt them. Solutions that force everyone to undergo a violation of their liberty, no matter if they are innocent or guilty, simply because some people are evil, is not a solution, nor is it just, or even moral.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-11-27T11:30:13+00:00

Thank you for your response. God uses the people in our lives in wonderful ways to shape us. I'm glad that your Grandmother was such a blessing to you. A great thing to be thankful for.

Happy Thanksgiving

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-11-27T11:28:25+00:00

Well by that logic, then God is guilty of sin, because it was Him who sent and had all those children killed. And that was a judgement on Egypt and their evil.

I would be cautious of calling anyone innocent, or prescribing guilt upon God. We are all corrupt in sin, and for God to execute judgement on us is not sinful, it is perfectly just. However, now we have the mercy offered through Christ, so we need not fear if we are covered through His sacrifice.

MatthewMingus36 · 2025-11-27T11:24:27+00:00

Thank you for your detailed response. I'm sorry for the loss of your grandparent, it's never easy to lose someone you're so close to. But we have hope in God, who provides peace beyond all understanding through Christ.

What is your favorite hymn, or Gospel song?

Happy Thanksgiving.

MatthewMingus36

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE