I'd love to meet someone honest enough to say, "Yes, I know that the life growing in me is a human being, but I simply can't deal with that at this time in my life. I'm going to kill my child because that seems better than any other option available to me at this time in my life."
I'd also love to meet an atheist honest enough to say, "Of course God exists. Only a fool would think otherwise. However, I am not going to bow down to anyone who lays claim to my life and that includes my Creator."
I don't think that's asking too much. It's just honesty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with your first statement, Makarios, to a degree. Ultimately, this is an argument about when, to wit: when does a lump of cells become human enough for one to become squeamish about their destruction? I don't know enough about human embryology to have an opinion, though throughout history infanticide has not always been looked upon with horror. I have often felt, given the vicissitudes of life, that it were better if no unwanted child were allowed to continue in this life.
Your second statement, however, is absurd to an astounding degree, and betrays an incredible want of understanding à propos the atheist mind. The atheist believes no more in the god you imagine than in all the other gods that have been invented by mankind. The fool to the atheist is the man who dogmatically clings to the primitive superstitions of his ancestors, and who will have no progress--progress which, once conducted under the auspices of religion, is now freed from these jealous institutions, and is disseminated broadly to the general benefit of mankind. This is not to say religion is a bad thing—that I would never argue. Even the atheist can see the benefit and power of religion. Religion acts as a sort of morality-lite which frees the bulk of mankind from the wearying philosophical pursuit of finding for oneself the true nature of Good and Evil.
As always, Makarios, you present your case in the most incendiary manner you can devise—that is, I don’t doubt, what keeps me returning to your blog.
"it were better if no unwanted child were allowed to continue in this life."
Mmm, two of our children were the result of rape. I don't know any pro abortion person who would suggest that they should have been allowed to live. Yet they are here, and the world is already a better place for it. Neither mother "wanted" these children, but thankfully they didn't make the choice of life for the children. Peter Singer of course would have given the mothers 28 days to decide and then killed them. I better stop before my blood boils over.
"incendiary"
Ya, sometimes I don't even try to put the brakes on my tongue. But I'm getting better - don't you think?
Fiddler, I feel as though I could go for a beer with you and enjoy the evening. Unless you're in AA and then I'd, um, go with someone else.
First, let me thank you for your kind invitation: many thanks.
Second, let me somewhat clarify my position with regard to 'unwanted' children, lest I sound too callous. Your adopted children, I am glad, have found with you a happy home--not so for many others. The system of adoption which presently exists (in the U.S.) leaves many children in a precarious limbo, where, as wards of the state, they can find no permanent home. I think it a terrible thing that some children must be placed in foster care, never knowing a stable home with loving parents, and simply aging out of the system. I can only imagine the sense of abandonment and lack of self-worth such an individual might feel.
The world being so cruel as it is, and so uncertain, I do almost believe it were better that no 'unwanted' child be allowed to exist. (Better by far, of course, would be, if no person engaged in sexual relations, who was not committed to providing their progeny with a stable and loving home).
In the U.S., the Shakers (a Christian sect) once followed Jesus' injunction to aid the fatherless and the orphan, adopting into their communities those infants who would otherwise know no home. This continued until the government took upon itself the ‘burden’ of these children. This I view as a grave error—these orphans were far better off being adopted into loving Christian communities than ever they could be as wards of the state.
It's no different here in Canada. The system is a mess - or more correctly WE are a mess. I'm not suggesting that adoption is for everyone. Adoption comes with many significant challenges. However, just counting Christian homes, never mind the potentially excellent secular homes, there are many millions more homes than there are children in need of a home.
I know what you're saying Fiddler. I really do. On the other hand, are we suggesting that growing up in hardship or in difficult circumstances has no benefit whatsoever? Haven't you noticed that your times of greatest growth in character have come out of your most difficult times?
Or perhaps your experience has been like the line that goes, "That which doesn't kill me just makes me more of a bitch."
Post a Comment