The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: What annoys the Left more?||Date: 10/15/2012 11:24 AM|
|Author: Frydaze1||Number: 648910 of 794439|
I like you Frydaze
Ditto, and I will respond to your post as a differing opinion, rather than an attack, because I'm sure that's how you wrote it. That's difficult with other posts that make broad generalizations about what people are or aren't in favor of. For example: I'm not in favor of banning sodas. Even though I don't drink them and never have.
But your post is specifically about abortion and religion, so I'll stick to those topics.
I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue. I hope we can agree to disagree.
It *is* a sensitive issue. And yes, we can agree to disagree. I'm not sure if that means you'd rather I not post details about my disagreement. So I'll go ahead and post them, and hope I'm not going against the spirit of your "agree to disagree" statement.
>>God (if you believe in such a being, which you seem to) aborts millions of babies. If God does it, it must (by definition) be moral. So, yes, my conscience is also clear on that score.<<<
You may have to elaborate on that one. But even if he did, God is God. He can do what he wants to and we do not have the perspective or the intelligence he does. Does the bowl have the right to question whether or not the potter makes it for nobel or mundane purposes? We are infinately smaller than God. It is a fool's game to question his purposes.
To elaborate: God cannot commit an immoral act, right? He is god and everything he does has to be moral by definition, doesn't it? Though I no longer believe in god, I'm pretty sure that's an accurate statement within the framework of christian belief. And yet god ends pregnancies prior to birth. Lots and lots of them.
Of course I was just saying that to make a point. God also kills full adults, and I don't think it's moral for me to do so. But the fact is that the bible is pretty silent on the subject of abortion (since it wasn't an option back then). So even if I were using the bible as my moral rulebook, it wouldn't help with this one.
I did find myself thinking this weekend about how to answer CC's posted link with the pictures and his insistence that it should upset me. And now he's posted it twice in the same thread as if that makes it more powerful. And I realized why it doesn't make me react the way he wants me to. Hopefully by sharing that I'll help you understand my perspective better:
Those beings (I'm not going to argue terminology) didn't have developed brains and nervous systems, so they didn't feel pain. Those pictures are intended (I assume) to produce feelings of pity, but I don't pity anything that doesn't suffer. Living, walking, breathing children feel pain. And they suffer when they are unwanted. I pity those. I am pro-choice *because* I have compassion, not because I don't (as many pro-life people seem to think).
From a moral standpoint, I think if you get pregnant, you now have the responsiblity to figure out how to get that child raised, either by yourself or give it for adoption.
But why? Why is it immoral to choose a different solution? Why would it be moral to raise a child in a household where it is unwanted and won't be properly taken care of? (You didn't say the person *must* give it up for adoption, and most don't.) I don't consider that a moral solution in the slightest.
There are lot's of people that want kids that can't have them. I know a middle class couple that ended up spending tens of thousands of $ to get 3 children from overseas. If more children were available in the states, the cost would have been far less. But we abort most of our unwanted children instead.
There are plenty of unwanted children now,