How can a god, that apparently loves everyone, allow this kind of thing to happen?

[Zazzy]

One murder is better than a million and one murders. Compromise.

You are willing to compromise on murder? That's strange, given that your brethren are busy making it so that there needs be no compromise and poor women will be forced to be brood mares. I think you know that having an abortion when you are in this situation is entirely reasonable. You just don't want to admit it.

People are calling me a dick regarding what I think I would do with my own family.

Well, quit saying dicky things like:

The suffering of the baby affects a lot of other people as well. It could be necessary for them.

This is a really, really dicky, awful thing to say. And my point was that you and your family get to decide what to do in that circumstance, and no one should judge you for it.

You're of course welcome to this clarification, but my interpretation was not a twist of your words. They're there for all to see.

Nope- don't see where I said it was evil to have such a baby.

No, I do not clearly think abortion is OK in such a circumstance. Again, that's a compromise position.

It's not clear at all that you don't think it's OK if you're willing to compromise on it. You think these lives are worth less than the lives of healthy fetuses, or you wouldn't compromise on it. Admit it.

If you could pick one little kid and kill them to save a school full of children, would you do it?

---

Go troll somewhere else

Or how about you stop asking questions about subjects in which you really don't want to know the answer.

Yes, rationalman, the answer to your question is angels. BAD angels running amok. Stop fighting the truth.

[Esquilax]

You're spinning. The comparison is valid. If finite crimes aren't comparable to eternal punishment, then neither is finite suffering comparable to eternal happiness. Speaking of desperate needs, you're really showing such with this argument.

Except that the comparison isn't a matter of content, but one of motivation; there simply isn't one, could not be an acceptable one, for the suffering of babies, and therefore it serves no purpose but to detract from the moral credibility of the god that would allow it, regardless of whatever reward comes later. Just restating the initial flawed premise doesn't suddenly mean I need to back off, John.

What we're saying is, it's a baffling cruelty to inflict this fate on a child, irrespective of what happens after. If I kill a child and then save a busload of children from dying, am I absolved of the murder?

Suffering can serve a purpose and accomplish good in those touched by it. It affects more than the baby you know.

And if you can't see why that logic is some of the most intensely immoral possible, then you are a monster, and beyond hope.

Incorrect. I didn't shrug. The question just hadn't come up yet, and the answer is so obvious I'm amazed it did come up. Again, suffering in one person affects other people, too.

And you find it moral that an undeserving, innocent person be forced to suffer terribly, so that their suffering can be transferred to others? That's... that's okay to you? Your mitigating circumstance, of this tragic fact of life, is that the parents will feel bad too?

Oh yes, the people advocating life and hope are callous. The people saying to just abort it and move on are the caring ones.

I don't believe I mentioned abortion at all, John.

[Bad Wolf]

Go troll somewhere else

Or how about you stop asking questions about subjects in which you really don't want to know the answer.

I repeat: go troll somewhere else

[Faith No More]

The suffering of the baby affects a lot of other people as well. It could be necessary for them.

By what measure? Any benefit you try to ascribe to suffering is negated by the fact that god is omnipotent and could bring about those benefits any way possible. Suffering is superfluous to an omnipotent god unless suffering is goal.

[John V]

You are willing to compromise on murder?

Sure, if it means a large reduction in murder, as this would.

This is a really, really dicky, awful thing to say.

Why? Are you claiming that some people can't grow through the suffering of others? Or do you just not like to deal with that fact?

It's not clear at all that you don't think it's OK if you're willing to compromise on it.

No, not clear that you don't think it's OK is not equivalent to clear that you think it's OK.

You think these lives are worth less than the lives of healthy fetuses, or you wouldn't compromise on it. Admit it.

Incorrect.

If you could pick one little kid and kill them to save a school full of children, would you do it?

It doesn't matter, as that's not the situation. The question applicable to the situation is, "If a school full of children are about to die and you could save all but one of them, would you?"

[StuW]

Why? Are you claiming that some people can't grow through the suffering of others? Or do you just not like to deal with that fact?

There's a huge difference between something that CAN happen and something which you state is NECESSARY.

It doesn't matter, as that's not the situation. The question applicable to the situation is, "If a school full of children are about to die and you could save all but one of them, would you?"

I would try to save all of them regardless.

[John V]

Except that the comparison isn't a matter of content, but one of motivation; there simply isn't one,

I gave a possibility - the affect on others.

And if you can't see why that logic is some of the most intensely immoral possible, then you are a monster, and beyond hope.

Appeal to emotion.

And you find it moral that an undeserving, innocent person

I find it gracious that this person is in existence in the first place. you guys never consider that.

be forced to suffer terribly, so that their suffering can be transferred to others? That's... that's okay to you? Your mitigating circumstance, of this tragic fact of life, is that the parents will feel bad too?

Yes, the parents, other family, caregivers can all grow through it.

I don't believe I mentioned abortion at all, John.

Others have mentioned it. Do you disagree with their position? If so, then whiskey tango foxtrot is your point in all this?

[Esquilax]

I gave a possibility - the affect on others.

Hardly a moral reason.

Appeal to emotion.

Appeal to the immorality of the words you spew.

I find it gracious that this person is in existence in the first place. you guys never consider that.

Ah, but then we run into that problem where god doesn't have ownership over human lives without contravening free will: you guys keep going on about how god isn't responsible for human actions because of free will, but that extends to the creation of more humans through sex, doesn't it?

Besides, given that the alternative is a normal life that isn't filled with meaningless agony, something that would cost god nothing, then I don't particularly see that as gracious.

Yes, the parents, other family, caregivers can all grow through it.

Then you are beyond hope. And severely lacking in creativity, if you believe that the only method by which god could impart whatever message he felt was required, is through something as needlessly cruel as that.

Others have mentioned it. Do you disagree with their position? If so, then whiskey tango foxtrot is your point in all this?

I'm discussing the initial point, John. It's got nothing to do with abortion.

[Zazzy]

You are willing to compromise on murder?

Sure, if it means a large reduction in murder, as this would.

Well, then you and I are fundamentally different. If I felt murder was occurring, I wouldn't say that some murders are acceptable, even to prevent others. I'd keep fighting for all murders to end. There is no one small group I'd compromise on.

In any case, this is a compromise that wouldn't work. You can't end abortion- all you can do is make sure that the women having them are doing it less safely.

This is a really, really dicky, awful thing to say.

Why? Are you claiming that some people can't grow through the suffering of others? Or do you just not like to deal with that fact?

What I'm saying is that your statement that such suffering of babies might be NECESSARY for some people is flat-out horrible. Yes, I know some people get off on the suffering of others, and that some people when confronted with suffering grow through watching it. But to insinuate that that might be a GOOD REASON to allow suffering is, as Esquilax said, monstrous.

No, not clear that you don't think it's OK is not equivalent to clear that you think it's OK.

But it's clearer than what I thought you thought I said was OK, but less clear than what you thought was OK about what I said. Are we clear?

Incorrect.

So you would also compromise on a small group of women aborting perfectly healthy fetuses if that group was as small as the one we are discussing?

If you could pick one little kid and kill them to save a school full of children, would you do it?

It doesn't matter, as that's not the situation. The question applicable to the situation is, "If a school full of children are about to die and you could save all but one of them, would you?"

But that's not what's happening with your compromise, either. You are saying that you would ALLOW the one to die in order to save the rest.

*Edit- and I'm waiting for you to point out to me where I said that having a baby with a painful early fatal genetic disease is evil.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So a god creates people with free will, but automatically impairs some people from utilising it by ensuring some newborns are born with severe brain damage to the point where they are unable to comprehend what a god or gods are for their entire lives (often short).

That don't make no sense. So, what, they go straight to heaven, right? So what's the point in them being born at all? I mean, what would be the difference if they went straight to heaven and cut out of the middle man (being born)?