The OP question is quite a loaded one, and should probably better phrased like so:
"Is it inconsistent to support abortion and also maintain that the god described in the Bible is a reprehensible being because, at times, he either seems to support or is directly involved in the murder of human children (often large scale)?"
Abortion kills beings that are of no or very little ethical concern for one who is pro-choice. The god described in the Bible clearly murders actual children and actual human persons of any age. These children are actually of ethical concern to someone who is pro-choice. In some cases, the only transgression of said children was the failure of their parents to adorn the door of their home with lambs blood on the appropriate night.
So obviously, if you hold a pro-choice philosophy towards life, than there is nothing inconsistent about simultaneously accepting abortion, while believing the biblical god isn't exactly what a sane person would call a wondrous deliverer of righteous justice who simply graces humanity with his incomprehensible (literally) but allegedly beneficent morality when he slaughters or commands the slaughter of kids (of the walking, crawling or talking variety). No inconsistency at all... in fact, its called having a functional moral compass.
If one is pro-life, it might appear that a pro-choicer is being inconsistent with his own beliefs, but to think so is simply a failure (or refusal) to understand the character of pro-choice philosophies. They certainly are being inconsistent with pro-life philosophy. It would, of course, be ridiculous to expect a pro-choice person maintain any consistence with pro-life philosophy though, wouldn't it?
To convince one who is pro-choice that they are being inconsistent with themselves will require you to convince them that an embryo or a fetus is what you claim it is... which will bring us all back `round full circle everything to the same debate thats been going on and on... and on. So actually... your theory couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Last edited by wilbur; 03-28-2009 at 09:32 PM.
That may have been the most lunatic thing you've ever said in reference to God.Abortion kills beings that are of no or very little ethical concern for one who is pro-choice. The god described in the Bible clearly murders actual children and actual human persons of any age. These children are actually of ethical concern to someone who is pro-choice. In some cases, the only transgression of said children was the failure of their parents to adorn the door of their home with lambs blood on the appropriate night.
Besides there are a couple of good reasons not to abort that have nothing to do with religion.
Your original question did not challenge the rationality or irrationality of believing the god as described in the bible was wrong to kill children.
You said to believe both X and Y at the same time is irrational... as if there is something about the character of both those beliefs which make them or should make them mutually exclusive. You never questioned the rationality of holding them singly... and the way you phrased your question implied that it wouldnt necessarily be a given that it is irrational to hold either of the beliefs on their own.
Now you are just arguing that believing Y is irrational, period. As per usual, you simply reshape debates at will by moving goalposts, changing topic, and otherwise just disobeying any of the typical rules one must obey to participate honestly in any conversation or debate.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|