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

[Zazzy]

John, stop being willfully stupid, you know damn well what zazzy meant

Rereading it it seems she meant to recharacterize "insignificant" in a way I didn't intend.

Where on earth from that post do you get "having a baby with an early fatal disease is evil"? YOUR mindset- that such suffering is insignificant- is evil.

Oh, I see. You thought I mischaracterized your post, where you directly said that such suffering is insignificant, so you thought you'd do the same to me by, as I said earlier, deliberately twisting my words. Nice job. If you didn't mean that the suffering is insignificant, then RETRACT THE DAMNED POST THAT SAYS SO, which is likely to get you into FSTDT.

[John V]

Where on earth from that post do you get "having a baby with an early fatal disease is evil"? YOUR mindset- that such suffering is insignificant- is evil.

Oh, I see. You thought I mischaracterized your post, where you directly said that such suffering is insignificant, so you thought you'd do the same to me by, as I said earlier, deliberately twisting my words. Nice job. If you didn't mean that the suffering is insignificant, then RETRACT THE DAMNED POST THAT SAYS SO, which is likely to get you into FSTDT.

No, as I said, I only recently saw that you mischaracterized my post. But whatever - I'll take complete responsibility for misunderstanding you if it will get you to shut up about this distraction.

[Zazzy]

One can compromise and then keep fighting. In the meantime, a lot of murders have been avoided. Makes sense to me, but there are a lot of Christians who agree with you and won't compromise in the slightest.

And they're on firmer ground than you are.

Theoretically you and they are correct. I'm just being practical.

Except that it's not a practical solution.

You can't end murder either. You can just reduce it by making it more difficult. Same with abortion.

So because I have the means to do so, I'll go to a civilized country for my medical care, and you can just force poor women into reproductive slavery, or injury from illegal abortions. That's awesome, and SO practical.

I disagree. We think of, for example, compassion as a good thing. Right now you think you're more compassionate than me on this subject. But think about it logically - you can't be compassionate if no one ever suffers. by allowing suffering, god also allows compassion, and sacrifice, and a bunch of other traits which we consider worthy and honorable, but which wouldn't exist without suffering in others.

And I keep telling you that this is a disgusting position. That you hold it is sickening. What a great rationalization for suffering babies. Again, if your god turned out to be real, I would do everything I could to fuck with it, the nasty asshole.

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.

Yes, that's the case in both scenarios.

It seems you are saying you WOULD pick a child to die- or even kill it yourself- to save a bus full of kids. 'K.

---

Where on earth from that post do you get "having a baby with an early fatal disease is evil"? YOUR mindset- that such suffering is insignificant- is evil.

Oh, I see. You thought I mischaracterized your post, where you directly said that such suffering is insignificant, so you thought you'd do the same to me by, as I said earlier, deliberately twisting my words. Nice job. If you didn't mean that the suffering is insignificant, then RETRACT THE DAMNED POST THAT SAYS SO, which is likely to get you into FSTDT.

No, as I said, I only recently saw that you mischaracterized my post. But whatever - I'll take complete responsibility for misunderstanding you if it will get you to shut up about this distraction.

It's not a distraction. Your disgusting post about how such suffering is insignificant is the root of this whole conversation. You said DIRECTLY that such suffering is insignificant. If you didn't mean that, then say what you actually meant and quit whining about being mischaracterized.

[John V]

And they're on firmer ground than you are.

I disagree, but neither do I fault them. Principle v. practicality can be a tough issue.

Except that it's not a practical solution.

It would reduce deaths - seems practical top me.

So because I have the means to do so, I'll go to a civilized country for my medical care, and you can just force poor women into reproductive slavery, or injury from illegal abortions. That's awesome, and SO practical.

you seem to think women are animals who can't help but to spread their legs when they're in heat. I have more respect for them than that.

And I keep telling you that this is a disgusting position. That you hold it is sickening. What a great rationalization for suffering babies. Again, if your god turned out to be real, I would do everything I could to fuck with it, the nasty asshole.

As you support killing them preemptively so that their mothers don't become reproductive slaves, whatever the heck that is, I think you're sick and disgusting as well.

It seems you are saying you WOULD pick a child to die

Yes, if the child is going to die anyway, and allowing it to do so would save the lives of many others, of course I would.

- or even kill it yourself-

No, I wouldn't, and your attempt to demonize your opponent is telling.

to save a bus full of kids. 'K.

What would you do - let all of them die because it wouldn't be fair to single out one of them?

---

It's not a distraction. Your disgusting post about how such suffering is insignificant is the root of this whole conversation. You said DIRECTLY that such suffering is insignificant. If you didn't mean that, then say what you actually meant and quit whining about being mischaracterized.

The mischaracterization I'm speaking of is your taking a position from a debate and assuming you know from that how I would speak to a family which had just gone through this.

ETA: You'd probably think it a mischaracterization if I proposed that you would tell a family who had just received news of a terrible genetic condition in their unborn baby by flippantly saying "Just abort it, it's no big deal." That statement would be in line with your position, but I would assume you'd be more tactful if in the actual situation than you are in an online debate. Apparently you don't extend the benefit of the doubt which you receive from me.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Not the point of my post (which you didn't respond to in its entirety).

Get back to me when you understand it.

It helps if you view this life as a tiny fraction of eternity and we develop and grow as creatures of God along the way.

A tiny fraction, billionths of a billionth, and that's the time this god character gives us to 'grow'?

Apparently this can be days or even minutes long if you're one of the things this god apparently just likes to casually create and then destroy. No biggie. Circle of a pointless life and all that.

It doesn't mean God created the universe as a sadistic test either there is a good reason why he made all this and why exist as we currently are.

Oh? Do tell. You're saying there's an inherent reason why a child would be born and die in minutes in severe pain? I'm eager to hear what divine free will this child has.

I'd say the freewill to have a genuine relationship with God and be allowed to have genuine compassion (or malice if you choose) toward others is a part of the reason. You would rather have this life and the opportunity it gives you than be denied it.

Creating something with no ability to understand or comprehend any of the above (say, a severely handicapped child who will never develop the ability of comprehension?) kind of contradicts that thesis though, doesn't it?

Oh yes, but there's a reason for everything. Yes, just seems like nobody defending that thesis can present a coherent explanation as to why. Appears like the only get out clause is that such children are simply sent as tests for others...which does support the idea that the god in question (whatever that is) is rather sadistic and utilitarian in its MO.

Needless to say, evidence for any of this god stuff too?

I get the impression that some (not all) of the theists on here just jump head first into these kind of debates without without realizing they're trying to defend a contradiction. Or maybe they are they just don't actually care at all. Whatever.

[Zazzy]

Principle v. practicality can be a tough issue.

On this I agree.

It would reduce deaths - seems practical top me.

It would not. It would force abortion into back alleys.

you seem to think women are animals who can't help but to spread their legs when they're in heat. I have more respect for them than that.

I am a woman, and I like sex. Some women do and some women don't. Despite best intentions, often birth control fails. I think women are grown folk who can decide what to do with their own bodies. Your position reduces them to baby mills- like we do to breeding animals.

As you support killing them preemptively so that their mothers don't become reproductive slaves, whatever the heck that is, I think you're sick and disgusting as well.

I don't support anyone having an abortion or not having an abortion. It's none of my business what other women do with their own bodies. I can only make my own choices, and help make sure other women get the same choices I have. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion, as I'm sure you already know.

As a matter of fact, I'd love to see the number of abortions in this country reduced, just for different reasons than you.

It seems you are saying you WOULD pick a child to die

Yes, if the child is going to die anyway, and allowing it to do so would save the lives of many others, of course I would.

How would you pick?

- or even kill it yourself-

No, I wouldn't, and your attempt to demonize your opponent is telling.

So it's OK to let it die, but not OK to kill it. Gotcha. You're doing a fine job of demonizing yourself, John.

What would you do - let all of them die because it wouldn't be fair to single out one of them?

I honestly don't know what I'd do in this situation. I hope I never find myself in it.

The mischaracterization I'm speaking of is your taking a position from a debate and assuming you know from that how I would speak to a family which had just gone through this.

So if there is a family that had just gone through this that read your post, they'd be mischaracterizing you if they felt that you didn't know fuck-all about their position and that your words were judgmental of and hurtful to them?

ETA: You'd probably think it a mischaracterization if I proposed that you would tell a family who had just received news of a terrible genetic condition in their unborn baby by flippantly saying "Just abort it, it's no big deal." That statement would be in line with your position

Damned straight it would be a mischaracterization, since it wouldn't be in line with my position. As I have consistently said (and as you have consistently ignored because it doesn't fit into your feminazi stereotype), I don't get to make any decisions for anyone else about their reproductive issues, and I don't have the right to judge anybody for the decisions they make about such an event in their lives- whether due to an early fatal disease or not.

[Bad Wolf]

John, i'm finding it very hard to believe that you can misunderstand someone so badly by accident. Its almost as if you are trying to misrepresent zazzys position....hhmmm

[John V]

It would not. It would force abortion into back alleys.

Many women would have the child rather than have an illegal abortion, if only because they didn't know where to obtain one. Total abortions (legal and illegal) doubled from 1969 to 1980.

I am a woman, and I like sex. Some women do and some women don't. Despite best intentions, often birth control fails. I think women are grown folk who can decide what to do with their own bodies. Your position reduces them to baby mills- like we do to breeding animals.

If they can decide what to do with their own bodies, they can decide not to have sex until they're prepared to handle the consequences.

As a matter of fact, I'd love to see the number of abortions in this country reduced, just for different reasons than you.

How much would you love it? What measures would you accept, if any, to reduce it?

How would you pick?

In this scenario the choice is already made - the one with the congenital disease which is going to kill it anyway.

So it's OK to let it die, but not OK to kill it. Gotcha. You're doing a fine job of demonizing yourself, John.

I honestly don't know what I'd do in this situation. I hope I never find myself in it.

Oh crap, if we're allowed to cop out, then I retract my earlier statement and likewise don't know what I'd do. Wow, that makes things a whole lot easier!

So if there is a family that had just gone through this that read your post, they'd be mischaracterizing you if they felt that you didn't know fuck-all about their position and that your words were judgmental of and hurtful to them?

Yes.

Damned straight it would be a mischaracterization, since it wouldn't be in line with my position. As I have consistently said (and as you have consistently ignored because it doesn't fit into your feminazi stereotype), I don't get to make any decisions for anyone else about their reproductive issues, and I don't have the right to judge anybody for the decisions they make about such an event in their lives- whether due to an early fatal disease or not.

There you go.

[Zazzy]

Many women would have the child rather than have an illegal abortion, if only because they didn't know where to obtain one. Total abortions (legal and illegal) doubled from 1969 to 1980.

Yup. Poor and uneducated women won't know what to do or where to go. You'll have beaten them into their rightful place.

If they can decide what to do with their own bodies, they can decide not to have sex until they're prepared to handle the consequences.

Having an abortion IS handling the consequences, John. I know that you don't like the idea of sexual freedom (although you appear not to be singling women out for this, which I applaud). I DO like sexual freedom, and so do many other people. And I can deal with the consequences, as can most women. You sniffing around our reproductive parts is weird.

How much would you love it? What measures would you accept, if any, to reduce it?

That's probably an issue for another thread. Actually, almost all of this is an issue for another thread. If you'd like, start one and I'll reply there.

How would you pick?

In this scenario the choice is already made - the one with the congenital disease which is going to kill it anyway.

I'm not sure what to make of this, since that's the logic behind many abortions in the scenario of this thread. It's going to die in horrible pain, so spare it- and everyone else- the suffering.

Oh crap, if we're allowed to cop out, then I retract my earlier statement and likewise don't know what I'd do. Wow, that makes things a whole lot easier!

Well, I did realize pretty quick that it was actually a pretty bad analogy. But watching you defend that position was fun. Sorry- I should have simply said earlier that I made a bad analogy.

So if there is a family that had just gone through this that read your post, they'd be mischaracterizing you if they felt that you didn't know fuck-all about their position and that your words were judgmental of and hurtful to them?

Yes.

Perhaps, John, you ought to rephrase your initial remark about insignificance, then, because that remark sounds really awful, as everyone here is telling you.

[John V]

Yup. Poor and uneducated women won't know what to do or where to go. You'll have beaten them into their rightful place.

Now I'm beating women. And you wonder why someone would view you as a feminazi? This is straight out of the demonization handbook, and you already had a warning. Bye-bye.