Jesus and free will

Jesus and free will Sept 8, 2017 18:57:08 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Sept 8, 2017 18:57:08 GMT

^tpfkar

Sept 7, 2017 14:37:59 GMT @miccee said:

Sept 7, 2017 5:10:33 GMT rachelcarson1953 said:

There are too few people that can provide good parental support. Too many people just have kids without giving it a thought - it's what their friends are doing, or their parents expect to have grandkids or, oops, the birth control failed. The 'pro-lifers' only care about the fetus before it's born; once it's out of the uterus, they couldn't care less about how the child is raised, can the mother be a good mother at age 15, will the child be abused or neglected. And they certainly don't want their tax dollars going to more social aid programs.

And no one seems to think about whether the earth can continue to support as much life as there is now. I look at pregnant women in the grocery store with another two kids in tow and wonder, what are they thinking, bringing more kids into a world that is going to be stressed to the max.

I know I made the right choice. My non-existent children were spared a dysfunctional childhood and troubled life. I feel my life has been enriched by not having children; I've pursued other interests. The animal rescue groups I have volunteered with have a policy; any animal that comes in to the rescue is spayed or neutered before being put up for adoption. No unwanted litters to be abandoned, drowned or thrown into a dumpster in the heat of summer. And if an animal comes in that is too sick to survive and is suffering, it is humanely euthanized. Reduce the suffering.

I think that most of the research tends to validate your reflection that your life has been enriched without the need for producing children. And people are increasingly starting to see that the perceived need for children is a trick that is being played upon us by a DNA molecule. The ecological argument against having children is gaining some traction, and perhaps give some reason to be optimistic that people will start to consider whether it is worth imposing suffering and risk.

The pro-life medievalists are still completely in thrall to their base biological instinct (through the lens of theological commandments), and will always sacrifice quality in order to maximise quantity; but there is certainly a trend towards more people being able to transcend their raw genetic programming. This shows that many people are able to grasp that they don't owe some kind of debt of obligation towards a non-existent entity. The logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that there is an obligation not to impose risk and harm on a potential future person to which that individual cannot consent; but there's a long way to go before significant numbers of people begin to make that logical next-step.

Love how you try to somehow associate people having kids and "Pro-Life".

Standard broken morbid nutcasery. And "obligation not to impose risk and harm on a potential future person to which that individual cannot consent" - booby hatch stuff.

Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.