Jessa Duggar had an abortion

[Anonymous]

again, religion should not be an argument for public policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:again, religion should not be an argument for public policy

Yet someone who claims to be a Christian claims babies can be killed because they are soulless creatures.

Pp- very very interested in the Christian denomination that has taught you that abortion is ok because unborn babies are soulless creatures.

pp could never, ever be a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:again, religion should not be an argument for public policy

Yet someone who claims to be a Christian claims babies can be killed because they are soulless creatures.

Pp- very very interested in the Christian denomination that has taught you that abortion is ok because unborn babies are soulless creatures.

pp could never, ever be a troll.

Look. Whatever you are driveling on about....you make the decisions for your body based on your beliefs and other women will do the same based on their beliefs. The fight is to get rid of outrageous laws that impose one person's religious tenants on another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

Starting about 2-3 pages ago, a pp started claiming to be a Christian and claiming his/her church taught that inside women soulless creatures existed. They said it was ok to remove soulless creatures because God didn’t give these creatures souls. There are multiple posts claiming this, how did you miss them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

Starting about 2-3 pages ago, a pp started claiming to be a Christian and claiming his/her church taught that inside women soulless creatures existed. They said it was ok to remove soulless creatures because God didn’t give these creatures souls. There are multiple posts claiming this, how did you miss them?

I am not the PP you are talking about and I am not a Christian, but you have heard of the breath of life in Genesis, right? So I wouldn't be surprised if some may adhere to the idea that a soul isn't present until god breathes life into a newborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

Starting about 2-3 pages ago, a pp started claiming to be a Christian and claiming his/her church taught that inside women soulless creatures existed. They said it was ok to remove soulless creatures because God didn’t give these creatures souls. There are multiple posts claiming this, how did you miss them?

I am not the PP you are talking about and I am not a Christian, but you have heard of the breath of life in Genesis, right? So I wouldn't be surprised if some may adhere to the idea that a soul isn't present until god breathes life into a newborn.

+1 I’m not that PP either but it was known as the quickening. Abortion was just fine through the quickening for most of American history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:again, religion should not be an argument for public policy

Yet someone who claims to be a Christian claims babies can be killed because they are soulless creatures.

Pp- very very interested in the Christian denomination that has taught you that abortion is ok because unborn babies are soulless creatures.

pp could never, ever be a troll.

Look. Whatever you are driveling on about....you make the decisions for your body based on your beliefs and other women will do the same based on their beliefs. The fight is to get rid of outrageous laws that impose one person's religious tenants on another.

More examples; it’s beyond creepy. Starting on or about page 11.

“Why would you think a fetus younger than 12 weeks has a soul? You know more about souls than Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas? The arrogance!

And no we're not talking about unborn *humans.* Without a soul, they can't be human!“

“The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?“





Anonymous wrote:





“Until they get a soul, they're not human. Sign of the godless times we live in; thinking you can be human without a soul. Surely, you'll agree that there is something more to being human (something holy!) than simply having biological functions and the correct number of chromosomes.“


“What are you talking about? I don't know better than God. If God chooses to give these beings souls at the quickening and not before, it's not up to me to second guess His will.“

“They are not HUMAN without a SOUL. Why do you insist on putting creatures without a soul on the same level as those babies and humans who have been graced by our Savior?“

“I'm not sure who you're arguing with. If it's me, please know that there cannot be any moral problem with abortions of fetuses before they have a soul. And without a moral problem, there shouldn't be any legal prohibitions. About 99% of abortions happen before quickening. So, we might disagree with the rare situation, if it arose, where the pregnancy is far enough along for the fetus to have a soul, pose no threat to the health of the mother, and the mother still seeks to abort the child.“

“Why would a doctor intervene? If your god wanted Jessa to survive this, certainly he would have expelled the fetus. Otherwise, his will is clearly for her to die along with her unborn child.“

See, pp? There are one or more posters making multiple posts about souls, abortion, etc.

If you are contributing to the thread and ignoring those posts, I get it.

But that’s what *I* am “driveling” on about.

I want to know what Christian denomination/church teaches what op is posting about. Thus far, despite posting many, many times, they are avoiding answering. Which is odd, because it’s not a hard question to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

also, why do you call humans “creatures?”

They aren’t creatures, they are humans.

Until they get a soul, they're not human. Sign of the godless times we live in; thinking you can be human without a soul. Surely, you'll agree that there is something more to being human (something holy!) than simply having biological functions and the correct number of chromosomes.

Are you trying to base laws on your spiritual beliefs?

God's laws. Not mine. If it were up to me, I'd give fetuses a soul at conception.

Damn. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and I’m pretty sure if I said that at church it would’ve been considered blasphemous, thinking you could do a better job than God. No wonder you think you should control women, you think you know better than God so of course you know better than all the baby mamas. That post really cleared things up for me.

And this is why we can never win with logic against people like this. There is none, and they simultaneously want to use god to control other people and criticize god for not doing a good enough job.

What are you talking about? I don't know better than God. If God chooses to give these beings souls at the quickening and not before, it's not up to me to second guess His will.

Why would a doctor intervene? If your god wanted Jessa to survive this, certainly he would have expelled the fetus. Otherwise, his will is clearly for her to die along with her unborn child.

God gave us the intellect to create medical techniques to extract the soulless fetus from a woman in need.

Why do you refuse to answer what Christian denomination you are a member of?

I'm not sure anyone asked. But "denominations" are heresy. Christianity is Christianity. Those who don't follow the true faith might call themselves a variety of names, but they aren't truly one with Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

also, why do you call humans “creatures?”

They aren’t creatures, they are humans.

Until they get a soul, they're not human. Sign of the godless times we live in; thinking you can be human without a soul. Surely, you'll agree that there is something more to being human (something holy!) than simply having biological functions and the correct number of chromosomes.

Are you trying to base laws on your spiritual beliefs?

God's laws. Not mine. If it were up to me, I'd give fetuses a soul at conception.

Damn. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and I’m pretty sure if I said that at church it would’ve been considered blasphemous, thinking you could do a better job than God. No wonder you think you should control women, you think you know better than God so of course you know better than all the baby mamas. That post really cleared things up for me.

And this is why we can never win with logic against people like this. There is none, and they simultaneously want to use god to control other people and criticize god for not doing a good enough job.

What are you talking about? I don't know better than God. If God chooses to give these beings souls at the quickening and not before, it's not up to me to second guess His will.

Why would a doctor intervene? If your god wanted Jessa to survive this, certainly he would have expelled the fetus. Otherwise, his will is clearly for her to die along with her unborn child.

God gave us the intellect to create medical techniques to extract the soulless fetus from a woman in need.

Why do you refuse to answer what Christian denomination you are a member of?

I'm not sure anyone asked. But "denominations" are heresy. Christianity is Christianity. Those who don't follow the true faith might call themselves a variety of names, but they aren't truly one with Christ.

You are way too focused on judging other peoples beliefs. Leave my daughters out of your beliefs because they are not a member or your religion. No one is telling you what to do..that is your life and your body and your choice. And the same is true for me, my daughters and every other women.

[Anonymous]

Two the two non-Christian pps above posting about God breathing into Adam’s nostrils in the first book of the Bible and “quickening,” the religion I follow does not use either of those things to support abortion.

Aristotle believed that quickening took place at forty days for males and eighty days for females. (That’s factually incorrect and misogynistic, yikes! That’s not based on science.)

Contrary to popular belief, quickening is never cited as a standard for determining the onset of human life, or hominization. Instead, Aristotle’s “Experienced Midwife” is credited with the first discussion of quickening.

The point of quickening, as described by Aristotle, was the moment at which the life in the womb became human, as opposed to its previous vegetable and animal states.

Abortion at any stage, as well as infanticide, was widely accepted in Greek culture during and after Aristotle’s time. (Another yikes- big nope on infanticide, thankyouverymuch.)

Jewish, Tao, and Confucian faiths generally permit abortions (early, or pre-quickening, with later abortions requiring serious reasons); and Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism generally condemn abortion, especially after quickening.

Because of René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laennec’s stethoscope in 1816 and the use of ultrasound technology for prenatal care in 1956, quickening was gradually replaced by conception, viability, or birth as the moment of hominization, and therefore the beginning of legal protection.

I don’t know any Christian church that uses “quickening” as any measurement of pregnancy. There may be some that do, and that’s why I am asking pp to share their denomination.

Modern medical technology has replaced “quickening” for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

also, why do you call humans “creatures?”

They aren’t creatures, they are humans.

Until they get a soul, they're not human. Sign of the godless times we live in; thinking you can be human without a soul. Surely, you'll agree that there is something more to being human (something holy!) than simply having biological functions and the correct number of chromosomes.

Are you trying to base laws on your spiritual beliefs?

God's laws. Not mine. If it were up to me, I'd give fetuses a soul at conception.

Damn. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and I’m pretty sure if I said that at church it would’ve been considered blasphemous, thinking you could do a better job than God. No wonder you think you should control women, you think you know better than God so of course you know better than all the baby mamas. That post really cleared things up for me.

And this is why we can never win with logic against people like this. There is none, and they simultaneously want to use god to control other people and criticize god for not doing a good enough job.

What are you talking about? I don't know better than God. If God chooses to give these beings souls at the quickening and not before, it's not up to me to second guess His will.

Why would a doctor intervene? If your god wanted Jessa to survive this, certainly he would have expelled the fetus. Otherwise, his will is clearly for her to die along with her unborn child.

God gave us the intellect to create medical techniques to extract the soulless fetus from a woman in need.

Why do you refuse to answer what Christian denomination you are a member of?

I'm not sure anyone asked. But "denominations" are heresy. Christianity is Christianity. Those who don't follow the true faith might call themselves a variety of names, but they aren't truly one with Christ.

You seem to have very customized beliefs, goody, but they are yours alone. If you won’t share your denomination, you are hiding something. People who can’t be honest when asked and hide things (especially in a debate in which they are supporting opinions/public policy/ legislation) can’t be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

also, why do you call humans “creatures?”

They aren’t creatures, they are humans.

Until they get a soul, they're not human. Sign of the godless times we live in; thinking you can be human without a soul. Surely, you'll agree that there is something more to being human (something holy!) than simply having biological functions and the correct number of chromosomes.

Are you trying to base laws on your spiritual beliefs?

God's laws. Not mine. If it were up to me, I'd give fetuses a soul at conception.

Damn. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and I’m pretty sure if I said that at church it would’ve been considered blasphemous, thinking you could do a better job than God. No wonder you think you should control women, you think you know better than God so of course you know better than all the baby mamas. That post really cleared things up for me.

And this is why we can never win with logic against people like this. There is none, and they simultaneously want to use god to control other people and criticize god for not doing a good enough job.

What are you talking about? I don't know better than God. If God chooses to give these beings souls at the quickening and not before, it's not up to me to second guess His will.

Why would a doctor intervene? If your god wanted Jessa to survive this, certainly he would have expelled the fetus. Otherwise, his will is clearly for her to die along with her unborn child.

You're the extremist here. You are the only one arguing against D&C.

No, I’m asking why these obvious holes exist in your logic. If only god can take a life, why should Jessa be spared? She is just a vessel, right? Why would a doctor intervene if god’s will is to end her life? I thought God was all knowing.

Omnipotence, omniscience, and free will. Pick 2. Having all 3 is a metaphysical impossibility.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Matthew 19:26


Also, pp who claimed unborn babies have no souls- what actual church teaches that?

Aquinas and Augustine knew this eternal fact. Only after the antichrists took over in the 14th century did "the Church" start teaching otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two the two non-Christian pps above posting about God breathing into Adam’s nostrils in the first book of the Bible and “quickening,” the religion I follow does not use either of those things to support abortion.

Aristotle believed that quickening took place at forty days for males and eighty days for females. (That’s factually incorrect and misogynistic, yikes! That’s not based on science.)

Contrary to popular belief, quickening is never cited as a standard for determining the onset of human life, or hominization. Instead, Aristotle’s “Experienced Midwife” is credited with the first discussion of quickening.

The point of quickening, as described by Aristotle, was the moment at which the life in the womb became human, as opposed to its previous vegetable and animal states.

Abortion at any stage, as well as infanticide, was widely accepted in Greek culture during and after Aristotle’s time. (Another yikes- big nope on infanticide, thankyouverymuch.)

Jewish, Tao, and Confucian faiths generally permit abortions (early, or pre-quickening, with later abortions requiring serious reasons); and Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism generally condemn abortion, especially after quickening.

Because of René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laennec’s stethoscope in 1816 and the use of ultrasound technology for prenatal care in 1956, quickening was gradually replaced by conception, viability, or birth as the moment of hominization, and therefore the beginning of legal protection.

I don’t know any Christian church that uses “quickening” as any measurement of pregnancy. There may be some that do, and that’s why I am asking pp to share their denomination.

Modern medical technology has replaced “quickening” for most people.

What does science have to do with ensoulment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

Starting about 2-3 pages ago, a pp started claiming to be a Christian and claiming his/her church taught that inside women soulless creatures existed. They said it was ok to remove soulless creatures because God didn’t give these creatures souls. There are multiple posts claiming this, how did you miss them?

Sounds like a loon but thankfully other peoples crazy religious ideas have no impact on me or policy.

Whoops

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most insane part of this ridiculous thread:
Conservatives trying to use semantics to convince people that a D&C isn’t an “abortion” 😂

We live in the worst time line.

I’m pro-choice, and I had a miscarriage with a D&C, and I wouldn’t go and say that I had an abortion (even though that is the medical term). The accepted connotation of “abortion” is voluntarily ending a pregnancy.

Precision of terminology is important. If the term abortion is fully understood in its medical definition then sweeping abortion bans would have to be rewritten. But GOP doesn’t want that. They like the fear that the imprecision brings along because it makes the law even stricter than what they claim it is. Your procedure was legal, but there are extremists put there who would want to make it illegal.

And if we stopped demonizing the word abortion it wouldn’t matter to people what medical records say.

Yes, let’s just kill the unborn and call it “health care.”

The "unborn" don't even have souls. What's your problem with a woman removing these soulless creatures from their bodies?

also, why do you call humans “creatures?”

They aren’t creatures, they are humans.

Until they get a soul, they're not human. Sign of the godless times we live in; thinking you can be human without a soul. Surely, you'll agree that there is something more to being human (something holy!) than simply having biological functions and the correct number of chromosomes.

Are you trying to base laws on your spiritual beliefs?

God's laws. Not mine. If it were up to me, I'd give fetuses a soul at conception.

Damn. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and I’m pretty sure if I said that at church it would’ve been considered blasphemous, thinking you could do a better job than God. No wonder you think you should control women, you think you know better than God so of course you know better than all the baby mamas. That post really cleared things up for me.

And this is why we can never win with logic against people like this. There is none, and they simultaneously want to use god to control other people and criticize god for not doing a good enough job.

What are you talking about? I don't know better than God. If God chooses to give these beings souls at the quickening and not before, it's not up to me to second guess His will.

Why would a doctor intervene? If your god wanted Jessa to survive this, certainly he would have expelled the fetus. Otherwise, his will is clearly for her to die along with her unborn child.

God gave us the intellect to create medical techniques to extract the soulless fetus from a woman in need.

Why do you refuse to answer what Christian denomination you are a member of?

I'm not sure anyone asked. But "denominations" are heresy. Christianity is Christianity. Those who don't follow the true faith might call themselves a variety of names, but they aren't truly one with Christ.

You seem to have very customized beliefs, goody, but they are yours alone. If you won’t share your denomination, you are hiding something. People who can’t be honest when asked and hide things (especially in a debate in which they are supporting opinions/public policy/ legislation) can’t be trusted.

Before you waste too much time hounding pp for their denomination, please remember the Duggars’ own peculiar ways of living their faith. They’re not mainstream either.