The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE
|Subject: Re: What annoys the Left more?||Date: 10/15/2012 4:08 PM|
|Author: decath||Number: 648949 of 795223|
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.
That's a fair statement. The only apt comparison I can come up with is that God exists on a higher plain than we do. Just like we exist higher than the animals or microbes. God is infinitely higher than us. Since we are created, he can end us if he chooses. We may not like it, but if you accept that he is always just, then what he is doing is for the best. We can't or know what the best is. This mind bending argument is something each person has to decide for himself. Been there myself. In fact, I debated with myself, with other people, read books for almost 2 years before God opened my eyes. I remember very distinctly when it happened. I remember asking (praying I guess if you consider any kid of talking to God 'praying') to God that I wanted to know the truth. 2 years of earnest searching. It was partly a mental exercise but much, much more a supernatural whammy the day I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. After that, there was no going back.
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:
Just and FYI, CC is a woman.
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).
It probably depends on at what point you define the fetus as being a baby. I realize most pro-choicers are uncomfortable with abortion after the 1st trimester.
The decision to have an unplanned child is very difficult. There is no way that decision is easy. No way at all. Especially if you are a young woman in HS or college, alone and scared.
DW and I had to make that tough choice. At the time, she was a Catholic and pro-life. I had never really considered the issue seriously until then. I was leaning towards pantheism at the time...New age...Star wars "force"...I was a Rosicrucian. But we had dated for 2 years and I was hopelessly in love with her. During that 30 minute discussion when she told me she was pregnant, she said she would never consider an abortion. She said she would understand if I chose not to be with her anymore so I could pursue my Olympic decathlon dreams and finish college.
I remember her asking me if I could live with myself if I paid to have my 1st child aborted. I had never thought about it much until then and I did not like it. If we stayed together, that ghostly apparition would remain to me until this day of the child I chose to lose. So, within that 30 minute conversation, I proposed to her and I became an adult pretty much that day, a few months after I turned 21.
I told her we could do it all. Both finish college, continue my track & field training and raise the baby which eventually became our 1st born daughter.
I realize we were one of the lucky ones. Already committed to each other. Her staunch Catholic family all but blackballed us and gave us no support. MIL outright hated me. My family allowed us to move into one of their rental homes but I paid full price for the rental. There were no subsidies from family or gov't.
We married; We both worked as I finished school; she chose to drop out of school and become a SAHM after I landed a decent full-time job; I worked like a dog as a software developer and spent all my free time training 3-5 hours for the 92 Olympics. I eventually gave up mainly because of sport's injuries but I also found it difficult working 40-50 hours a week, training the rest of the time, getting enough sleep and the guilt that my poor wife was doing everything else.
Would I have made the same decision if conditions had been differently? I can't really say. But it changed me.
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.
I would agree that it is not moral either. Perhaps unethical is a better term, especially if the child is abused. Since I personally reject abortion as a solution, there honestly is no easy answers except perhaps pregnancy prevention. I disagree with the Catholic church on bc so I believe that is an option just like condoms and the many other anti-pregnancy devices. I taught my 3 kids is abstinence. But as regulars on this board know, my 1st daughter rebelled and had an unplanned pregnancy the summer after she graduated from college. She married a loser and is now raising 3 little boys alone after he left her to go frak whoever and whatever he wants. But even with her 3 little boys, each kid is a special child of God, despite the circumstances they were born in.
I watched them on Saturday afternoon and played with them for 2 hours, my limit <g>, and just had a ball with them.
There are plenty of unwanted children now, and they aren't often put up for adoption or you wouldn't be noticing a shortage. They are more often raised by parents who resent them. I don't know that more children would solve the problem. According to the statistics I've read, well over 100,000 children are put up for adoption in the U.S. each year. And they aren't all adopted. In fact, there are often stories of them being abused by their foster families. I don't think that's a moral solution either.
Going back to my earlier reply, I think prevention and abstinence is the way to go.
What makes an act moral in one state but immoral in another?
Nothing. It just sets a stage where some states have the autonomy to decide for themselves which way to go. Just like in gambling.