Hoops wrote:interesting that those who are so quick to condemn God for His alleged moral failings seem to be taking a wait and see approach here. The writers seem pretty clear to me.
But let's move on...
I applaud the writers for their willingness to embrace what is clearly the next step to morality apart from God. Morality is simply a function of a highly ordered society and therefor there is no moral imperative to life until that life can contribute in a meaningful way. In fact, social darwinism demands this view - if one is willing to be honest. Let's see how consistent the aah's on this board are really willing to be. That sound you hear is the clippety-clop hoofbeats of a furious retreat. But then they're left with explaining why.
The religionist, otoh, demands that life be protected simply because it's life. Life is enough.
What you're advocating is by and large the secular position. God has always been pro-slaughter of babies. The Biblical record is clear on that.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: What you're advocating is by and large the secular position. God has always been pro-slaughter of babies. The Biblical record is clear on that.
In Exodus killing a fetus results in a fine in line with property damage while killing a person either results in the death penalty or exile, depending on the circumstances. The Bible isn't particularly clear on abortion, but to the extent that it is, it does suggest that fetuses don't have the same status as the born. But you don't want to go down the path into prooftext land with an evangelical poster. It's best to try to figure out whatever it is they think and address that.