Moral Delima

[Conveyor Belt]

I've written, deleted, and re-written this post again and again... I'm hoping that writing it out will help me out, but I just don't know...

Here's a question for everyone: If someone is going to use the money you give them for something you morally oppose, is it okay to with-hold the money?

Problem is, I can't with-hold the money, for a varitey of reasons. I wish they'd just kept their mouth shut about what they were going to do with it, then I would feel this way. I'd rather be mad and lied to rather than feel guilty about the decision they're making... *sigh*

There... I think that's ambiguous enough...

[Booshay]

Its still your money until you give it to them...just tell them that youre not comfortable with knowing what it will be used for and it goes against your morals. Hopefully theyll understand and seek the money elsewhere.

[selmore]

I consulted the sage of my household. The only adult with any wisdom in our house.

My wife said you can withhold the money if its something you oppose. An example would be if the person wanted to hire a hitman.

Once, It happened to me. I received a tip from a stranger and mentioned that I'd buy a beer after work. He said gimmie it back, I don't drink and yada yada u know the rest of story.

[fuzzis]

If there truly is no way for you to get out of providing the money, then the debate about the morality of where the money goes is kinda moot.

Anyway you can convince yourself that the money you're providing does go to something you can get behind...say paying rent...and the money that would have been used for rent pays for for that which you find repugnant? :smt102

fuzzis

[XC9]

Pray about it and see what your heart tells you afterwards. You should NEVER do anything thaat will give you a guilt trip. They can cause ulcers and nerve problems. My husband calls me Dr. Phil-ina, so, I say if you have to get others opinions you are just asking for validation for something you don't honestly agree with. It is easier to let someone else make the decision for you then you can't blame yourself. Pray and sleep on it and you will get your own answer. Peace be with you.

[Conveyor Belt]

If there truly is no way for you to get out of providing the money, then the debate about the morality of where the money goes is kinda moot.

Anyway you can convince yourself that the money you're providing does go to something you can get behind...say paying rent...and the money that would have been used for rent pays for for that which you find repugnant? :smt102

fuzzis

There really isn't a way to deny access to the monies... not ethically. I can't lie to myself, either... I'm just stuck in the middle, sort of... It's not my actions, afterall, but that doesn't bring me any peace. I think I'll just sleep on it and call a preist or something...

[ynotme297]

to me, if a person needs the money for a good valaid purpose, i would give it them. if they want to buy dope, hire hookers, gamble, or get drunk, well then NO!!!!!! if you give them money for something that you do not think is right, then you are not helping that person. you may tell yourself that your mind is clear and that what they did with it is their own business. its one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda things.

[Conveyor Belt]

Thing is, I'm sure the money for the activity would appear from somewhere else if it didn't come from my actions, so, would I really be preventing anything at all? That thought still doesn't help...

[zorro]

I'm just stuck in the middle, sort of... It's not my actions, afterall, but that doesn't bring me any peace. I think I'll just sleep on it and call a preist or something...


Or you could try listening to what God's Word says.

e.g. The last sentence in Romans 14 tells us, "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"

That is, if you do something that you are not convinced that God would approve of, or that you suspect that He would disapprove, then for you to do it, it is sin. And sin, as we have discussed previously, is primarily against God (no matter who else you have sinned against).

[Conveyor Belt]

Or you could try listening to what God's Word says.

e.g. The last sentence in Romans 14 tells us, "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"

That is, if you do something that you are not convinced that God would approve of, or that you suspect that He would disapprove, then for you to do it, it is sin. And sin, as we have discussed previously, is primarily against God (no matter who else you have sinned against).

My action is inert. It's the actions of those who use my intert action for 'sin'.

I'm not being an ass, but I don't think the guy who fills up the car of a guy who later goes out, gets drunk and kills someone, committed a sin. He's doing his job, but in doing his job, he is enabling someone to hurt someone else. That's more of the situation I'm in.

Wow, responding to you kind of helped me out there...

[zorro]

Obviously, you are being vague about this particular situation, and I was just trying to set up a principle from God's Word that is given to Christians that at least helps them to make decisions.

However, your last post provoked me to think of the following.......

Let me use an example that could easily happen in just a few days. We have a gun and knife show coming to Hattiesburg this weekend. It is legal to sell a gun to most US adult citizens who are not felons, etc. Let's say, however, that when a guy has filled out his form to buy a gun, and it flies through that it is OK for that person to buy it, IF that person tells the seller before he buys it that he is going use the firearm to commit a crime, AND you (the seller) go ahead and sell it to him anyway, THEN I think that you will find yourself liable before the law in some capacity if that crime occurs and it is discovered that you were the seller of the gun knowing ahead of time that the guy was planning to commit a crime with it.

[selmore]

if u give the money, they will buy dope, drink, gamble, and chase women. The rest they will just waste.

[Buggy]

Does this have something to do with taxes?

[Conveyor Belt]

Let me use an example that could easily happen in just a few days. We have a gun and knife show coming to Hattiesburg this weekend. It is legal to sell a gun to most US adult citizens who are not felons, etc. Let's say, however, that when a guy has filled out his form to buy a gun, and it flies through that it is OK for that person to buy it, IF that person tells the seller before he buys it that he is going use the firearm to commit a crime, AND you (the seller) go ahead and sell it to him anyway, THEN I think that you will find yourself liable before the law in some capacity if that crime occurs and it is discovered that you were the seller of the gun knowing ahead of time that the guy was planning to commit a crime with it.

Yes, I am being vauge. If I were to lay it all out on the table, it could be potentially damaging to those involved in a number of ways... that why, as I said in my OP, that I'd written and re-written the post.

I agree with your example of the gun dealer, but, it's not really comparable... I'm going to mess around and finally find the right analogy. I feel a little more at ease, this morning... that quesy feeling is almost gone. I believe that I've stumbled upon the answer to the situation in my sleep.

[Conveyor Belt]

Does this have something to do with taxes?

I wish it were that simple.

[daisy]

I don't know about your situation and I understand the need for keeping it vague to protect parties involved. Mine is simple to yours-I'm sure. Aa few years back I got upset when I gave someone a gift and they didn't cherish the gift as I thought they should--my control. After all I did GIVE it to them and I was venting to a friend who reminded me that they can do what they want. I gave it to them. They can trade it,donate it ,regift it whatever. I still wanted to tell them what to do and had to let it go. On the other hand, I'm sure I haven't handled all the gifts I've been given wisely.

On the other hand, if I was obligated or owed someone something that's different. Do what you're obligated to do and if you know they're going to use it in the act of a crime go to the appropriate agency-- if it's something such as assault or murder someone.

I will keep your concern in my prayers.

[SouthChic]

I've written, deleted, and re-written this post again and again... I'm hoping that writing it out will help me out, but I just don't know...

Here's a question for everyone: If someone is going to use the money you give them for something you morally oppose, is it okay to with-hold the money?

Problem is, I can't with-hold the money, for a varitey of reasons. I wish they'd just kept their mouth shut about what they were going to do with it, then I would feel this way. I'd rather be mad and lied to rather than feel guilty about the decision they're making... *sigh*

There... I think that's ambiguous enough...

You morally do not agree with the way the money will be used, so say no. Plain and simple. Never go against your gut.

[58ford]

without your being more specific about the situation it is hard to give advice. But if you are morally obligated to give the money, that is where your responsibility ends.
I disagree with the dispensation of my taxes, from time to time, but I still have to pay.
Wish I could be more help.

[Southern_Belle]

I agree that it is your money. If you don't like what it is being used for then you have the right to withhold it. I would, I have before. You may feel guilty or bad about denying it, especially if that person is close to you, but it may be a better decision on your part. Even if they will get it from somewhere else - at least you aren't condoning something you disagree with. That would make you a hippocrite.

[TheGenius]

I was somewhat in the same situation in college when a friend needed money for an abortion. I gave her some money because she had no where else to go. I guess you can rationalize and say we pay taxes that go to fund immoral things also.

[Conveyor Belt]

Genius, are you morally opposed to abortion?

[TheGenius]

I almost hate to answer this question because I don't want to start a fight, but I am opposed to abortion except in the case of rape or incest.

[Conveyor Belt]

So, if you're opposed to abortion, and this abortion wasn't necessitated by rape or incest, do you feel responsible for the death of the fetus/baby?

[MSQueen]

there are alot of different scenarios floating around in my head, with a lot of questions. depending on the answers to those questions, my response to u could possibly be different.

if the above is somewhat similar to what ur situation is, it would be a tough call. i have my own beliefs about abortion, which may not follow the "majority" here, and i personally don't want to dictate to other people what they can or can't do with their bodies because i don't want that done to ME. but -- IF someone came to me and asked to borrow some money for an abortion, i would probably tell them i couldn't do it. Of course, alot of my decision would depend on several different factors -- who the person was, how well i knew them or how close i was to them, what the particular circumstances were, was there anyone else they might be able to go to to borrow the money, would they do WHATEVER it took to Not continue their pregnancy, etc., etc.

everything in life isn't always BLACK or WHITE -- there are many different shades of GRAY! u basically should let ur conscience be ur guide. if it's too late, and u can't change what u have done, don't beat urself up over it. just realize what u have learned from the situation and use that knowledge to help guide u in other decisions to be made later in life.

[nooskye]

C-belt ... I feel your moral / obviously very emotional pain ... I think that if you are under moral pressure ... the only thing you can do is be honest with yourself and the others involved. When you give your money ... because you sound like you'll have no other choice really ... tell the other party(s) how you feel about the situation and that you object to the possibilities ... most importantly that you know what the possibilities are ... They can either appreciate you concerns and figure out another way to finance whatever; or they can be jerks and do it anyway ... Either which one, you have been honest about the situation with all concerned ... including God ... and should be able to finally justify it ... maybe even sleep better at night.

I know it sucks enabling someone that we love to do something that has adverse effects on their lives ... but sometimes all we can do is sit back and watch them mess up ... There's nothing like a Tough Lesson Learned the Hard Way ... and honey, that is between them and God ... You've kept yourself right ...

I hope this has help some ... I'll pray for you.

[TheGenius]

I was so young the time that I really didn't feel any guilt. I only wanted to help out a friend. I'm not really sure what I would do now if I was approached by a good friend who needed money.

[Conveyor Belt]

After a day like today, I've almost completely forgotten about this. I did, however, think of a scenerio that closley matches the feelings involved, but does not give it away.

Here goes:

You're a divoced male who's forced to pay allimony to your ex-wife, who leads a dirty and foolish life. Your ex wife gets pregnant by another man, and decides to have an abortion. She decides to have the abortion before 28 weeks, the cut off time, but is short of cash, until you pay her the monthly allimony. If you withhold the money to till the end of the month, she can't get the abortion, and you're just paying her late. However, if you give her the money, she's going to the abortion clinic as fast as she can to get "that thing sucked out". Do you feel guilty about the death of the fetus/baby? However, if you withhold, and she's forced to carry the baby to term, she'll probably keep it and it'll live in squalor and decay and end up in jail before it's 18, more than likely. However, a chance of life is still that, a chance not to end up like it's mother.

That's pretty close to the feelings involved in the situation, without the details.

[zorro]

In the example that you just gave, I wouldn't even think about paying the alimony on time. I think that it would be wrong to do so because I'm convinced that abortion is murder. I also know that I am responsible to God and that He controls the future. He might unexpectantly convict her of her sin and need of Christ in the future, and she might flee to Him for salvation (in which case the child's life will be radically different from what it would have been). Even if not converted to Christ, she might decide to place the baby for adoption. Again, the child might then be placed in a loving home and end up having a great life. Even if she decides to keep the baby, you cannot say with certainty that his/her subsequent life will not be worth living.

The truth of the matter is that we are only responsible for doing what is right; we must not mistakenly think that we can always predict the future. The future is often quite different from what we expect it to be. God is God; we are not.

[Conveyor Belt]

Even if not converted to Christ, she might decide to place the baby for adoption.

You're reply was more in line with what I was thinking, Zorro. However, you keep throwing Jesus into the mix. There are plenty of people who are brimming with Jesus and Christianity who don't take a second thought when they're walking into or out of the Women's center in Jackson. Now, it's easy to label them as 'not really Christian', but they spew Jesus as the one and only answer just like you do. And they talk to me as you've talked to me on this board. I know Jesus is important to you, and you feel obligated to share your experience, but, I've heard it all before, been there, done that, got the bible and the t-shirt, and I'm not going back. Blame me, blame Satan, whatever, but there are some of us out here in the world who've made a decision that Jesus is not the answer. Some even believe that abortion is wrong. Go figure.

[TheGenius]

Someone earlier posted something about (everything is not always black & white/right & wrong), and I tend to agree. I know the majority of Christians say wrong is wrong and abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstances but here is where I struggle with a situation like you just mentioned.

Assume you decide to hold payment for a week and she has no alternative but to have the baby. The unwanted child will more than likely grow up with little parental involvement, no moral guidance or father figure and will probably slip through the cracks and become a statistic. I can see the argument that the child could beat the odds and become a productive citizen but there are tens of thousands of kids and young adults living out their lives in county jails and prisons all over Mississippi right now.

I think it is irresponsible for anyone to give birth to a child when they are unwanted and the child ends up on the streets and lost in the drug and crime scene. I went to court in Lamar County yesterday and watched as they paraded prisoner after prisoner in front of the judge and was amazed at the horrible things these young people and young adults had done. And, I noticed only two prisoners had family members there (both had their Mothers) and no Fathers were in attendance. One of the elderly Mothers told the Judge she didn’t want her son back at her house because he abused her. The young man never said a word. No "I'm sorry Mother", "I love you", he only looked at her. The Judge sent the young man back to jail for 60 more days in jail. Who pays for that? We all do.

God may punish us for abortion but I think he is also disgusted at they way we run out and have sex with random partners and then give birth to unwanted and unloved children...

[Conveyor Belt]

As the Genius has layed it out, thus, a moral delima... there are more details that make it extrememly complicated and even more of a damned if I do, damned if I don't, Zorro says I'm damned anyhow :)

[nooskye]

After a day like today, I've almost completely forgotten about this. I did, however, think of a scenerio that closley matches the feelings involved, but does not give it away.

Here goes:

You're a divoced male who's forced to pay allimony to your ex-wife, who leads a dirty and foolish life. Your ex wife gets pregnant by another man, and decides to have an abortion. She decides to have the abortion before 28 weeks, the cut off time, but is short of cash, until you pay her the monthly allimony. If you withhold the money to till the end of the month, she can't get the abortion, and you're just paying her late. However, if you give her the money, she's going to the abortion clinic as fast as she can to get "that thing sucked out". Do you feel guilty about the death of the fetus/baby? However, if you withhold, and she's forced to carry the baby to term, she'll probably keep it and it'll live in squalor and decay and end up in jail before it's 18, more than likely. However, a chance of life is still that, a chance not to end up like it's mother.

That's pretty close to the feelings involved in the situation, without the details.


C-Belt ... if it helps you out any ... a fetus develops an audible heartbeat at / around 12 weeks of gestation ... I am at 25 weeks of gestation ... almost 7 months along (she's due in November) ... At our last ultrasound, she had a completely developed body ... arms, legs, all ten toes and fingers ... tissue, organs ... a head of hair even ... she's just getting fat now and finishing up her lungs ... how can she even think about aborting a fully developed baby ... no longer a fetus ... a BABY?!?!?!? I thought late term abortions were illegal???

I know this is a 180 from my previous post, and I apologize ... but my heavens ... IF she is in fact that far along, I would completely understand your hesitation ... it's called a sixth sense and it should be listened to ... maybe she should be made to live with the consequences of her actions and be forced to have the baby afterall ... Even then ... if the situation turns out as you suggest ... "she'll probably keep it and it'll live in squalor and decay and end up in jail before it's 18, more than likely. However, a chance of life is still that, a chance not to end up like it's mother." There's always the option of DHS ... yeah, sure, the baby would be put into foster care ... temporarily ... but there's always good, stable couples ... or even well-to-do singles who LOVE adopting babies ... because they either can't have or don't want to actually have them theirselves ...

[zorro]

Zorro.....you keep throwing Jesus into the mix...... I know Jesus is important to you, and you feel obligated to share your experience, but, I've heard it all before, been there, done that, got the bible and the t-shirt, and I'm not going back.

1st point: if you don't want a Christian response to your questions, you have the choice of just ignoring their responses; but don't blame Christians for answering as if they really believe what they believe. In other words, don’t count on them seeing the world and life as you do.

This reminds me of an incident that happened a couple of years ago at our house. My wife loves birds. She also owns 2 cats which she keeps outside (they are not allowed to come into the house). One day she became furious at one of the cats because it had killed a bird. My response was to point out that she was being silly for blaming her cat for being a cat.

And, to you, I would suggest that it is not something which should surprise you when a Christian gives an answer consistent with his profession of being a Christian. Of course, a Christian will seem to you to "throw Jesus into the mix" when moral issues are discussed. Christians see and think differently from non-Christians (Romans 12:2; II Cor. 10:5). Christ is not just “something thrown into the mix” for the Christian (Col. 3:17). As I pointed out in the “Legislate Prostitution???” thread (found in the National news forum), I am self-consciously posting remarks consistent with a Christian worldview.

2nd point: what exact “experience” have I shared that you find so objectionable? In point of fact, I would argue that I am not the one of the two of us that “shares their experiences”. I openly share my beliefs though, just as you do.

3rd point: I am completely aware of your rejection of Christ. You have been proud in publicly displaying it in many threads even before I joined this group a month ago and you continue to make that point clear to all. But all arrogance aside, neither of us finite individuals have “heard it all before”. And don’t assume that when I am answering one of your posts that I am only writing it for you. If I wanted to do that, then I would send you a private message. For the record, I haven’t done that; therefore, my arguments and reasonings are not just for you to see, but they are in order for a Christian position to be displayed for others to see also. Whereas, you might refuse to see or hear what I have written, God may use it in someone else’s life or help clarify somebody else’s thoughts.

Verses referred to above:

Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

II Cor. 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Col. 3:17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

[zorro]

Zorro says I'm damned anyhow

Did I say that or did someone else say that?


Everybody loves to hear John 3:16. It seems that few remember the verses connected with it or that follow it at the end of the same chapter.


For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.


from The Gospel of John: verses 16-20 and 35-36 from chapter 3.

[Conveyor Belt]

1st point: if you don't want a Christian response to your questions, you have the choice of just ignoring their responses;

Touche'



This reminds me of an incident that happened a couple of years ago at our house. My wife loves birds. She also owns 2 cats which she keeps outside (they are not allowed to come into the house). One day she became furious at one of the cats because it had killed a bird. My response was to point out that she was being silly for blaming her cat for being a cat.

Did you quote scripture to her about it?



But all arrogance aside, neither of us finite individuals have “heard it all before”.

When you say something I haven't heard before, I'll let you know. So far, it hasn't happened. Probably vice-versa.

IMO, you're screwed in too tight, Zorro.

Thanks for your responses in the thread, though. I appreciate your angle and it's aided me some in my decision.

[zorro]

Since abortion has been brought up, let’s be reasonable. If abortion is not the killing of an innocent human life (and thus really murder in the eyes of God), then there is no reason to find it an objectionable act. On the other hand, if it is the killing of an innocent human life, then that should be enough to end all debate. BUT it’s not enough for many. I have talked with many who are abortion proponents who were honest enough to admit that they thought that it probably was a person that was being destroyed when abortion was performed, and yet, they still insisted that they should have the right to do so if it is what they want to choose. Logic plays no part in these thought processes. Self-centeredness is all that really matters to them. They self-consciously choose to be their own god, even when it comes down to the life of another individual. And as long as we can’t actually see the baby, as long as we are not charmed by it because it is hidden in the womb, our society says that it is OK and we soothe any conscience about this matter that we might have left and “believe” that it is OK too.

[Conveyor Belt]

Since abortion has been brought up, let’s be reasonable. If abortion is not the killing of an innocent human life (and thus really murder in the eyes of God), then there is no reason to find it an objectionable act. On the other hand, if it is the killing of an innocent human life, then that should be enough to end all debate. BUT it’s not enough for many. I have talked with many who are abortion proponents who were honest enough to admit that they thought that it probably was a person that was being destroyed when abortion was performed, and yet, they still insisted that they should have the right to do so if it is what they want to choose. Logic plays no part in these thought processes. Self-centeredness is all that really matters to them. They self-consciously choose to be their own god, even when it comes down to the life of another individual. And as long as we can’t actually see the baby, as long as we are not charmed by it because it is hidden in the womb, our society says that it is OK and we soothe any conscience about this matter that we might have left and “believe” that it is OK too.

If it were a case of the mother or the unborn child who is not developed enough to possibly survive outside the womb, what would your decision be? Just curious.

[MSQueen]

Sorry, Zorro, but i had to do this...

I originally posted this in 4/06, post #22 under National, Skirting the SD Abortion Ban:

Re: Skirting the South Dakota Abortion Ban
con, what's ur thinking about why all the "do-gooders" only want to stop abortion but do nothing to help those children who are ALREADY HERE and who need help? why can't all of those folks see that there IS something really CONSTRUCTIVE they can do about their beliefs and it would be to PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE! if they are so concerned about children and CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, FIX the problems with the children who are ALREADY HERE and once u have fixed THAT problem, move on to the unborn. so many of the children who have been "left behind" or neglected ARE those whose mothers possibly wanted an abortion but may have been talked out of it by all of the "righteous pro-lifers"! where are those righteous ones AFTER they have talked (or scared) the mothers into having the children???!!!

Comments on this post wilebill agrees: you bring up some very good points

[zorro]

When you say something I haven't heard before, I'll let you know.


Thank you! But the truth of the matter is that I have already said things that you hadn't heard before. In fact, you still haven't "heard" some of the things that I have said. If you ever do, I would love to know it. If it occurs, however, while you are still participating in myhattiesburg.com, I am convinced that everyone here will know it.

Interestingly, I just found out this weekend about an old acquaintance who just became a Christian earlier this year. We worked together nearly 25 years ago (boy, how time flies). This guy and his wife have been professing atheists/agnostics for much longer than I have known them, and they are both quite intelligent individuals. He and I had many conversations together years ago discussing issues like what we have discussed, and he was as adamant as you are that he would never become a Christian. This year, however, both he and his wife as well as 3 of his 5 children have become Christians. They finally "heard" and they wanted me to hear the wonderful news. When we used to have our discussions, he remembered how I once mentioned to him that his problem with Christianity wasn't intellectual, but that it was moral. He denied it at the time quite vehemently, but now he admits that it was true.

Will you be a similar case? God knows, but I do not. What I do know is that if you never see your need of a Savior and come to Christ, then what was said of Judas Iscariot will be true of you as well (Mark 14:21).

And please understand this: that if what is written just in the Gospels is true, then you know that what I just wrote in the last sentence above is true also. Therefore, don't go blaming zorro for what the Bible clearly teaches; he is just a messenger (II Cor. 5:16-21).

Verses referred to above:

Mark 14:21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.

II Cor. 5:16-21 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

[zorro]

If it were a case of the mother or the unborn child who is not developed enough to possibly survive outside the womb, what would your decision be? Just curious.

Well, if you've already heard everything that I have said, as you claim, then you certainly should also know the answer to this as well.

However, just to clarify what I think that you are asking, I think you mean this question specifically: "If it was the case that the mother's very life was in true danger (i.e., she would be in true danger of actually dying herself) if the pregnancy continued, would you advise terminating the pregnancy in order to at least save the mother, OR would you just prefer that both mother and child die?"

Is that really the gist of your question? If so, what do you think that I would answer?

[fuzzis]

Wow. What utter and complete arrogance. Yeah. Winning them to the lord by being a condescending ass.

Good deal. :roll:

fuzzis

[Conveyor Belt]

That must be that 'Christian World View' I keep hearing about.

[TheGenius]

This seems to have turned into an abortion or "when does life begin" issue. I think CB was only seeking advice as to should he be responsible for the actions of someone spending his money on something he is opposed to. I think he is no more responsible than he would be if one of his under age employees' cashed one of their pay checks and went out an bought a beer. Sure abortion is more serious than buying a beer but the same principle applies.

[SoMissTV]

Good call Genius. I thought this thread had veered of course. Maybe it took a hard turn to the right at some point back there.

[Conveyor Belt]

Sure abortion is more serious than buying a beer but the same principle applies.

I tend to disagree with the absolutes of right and wrong on this one. It's like lying. I don't think a lie saying, "You look great" is the same as a lie about knowing where the bomb is hidden. Sure, they're both lies, but one has more serious concequences than the other.

[dollfus46]

Sounds like you've messed in your post toasties here. If you can't withhold the money it's a moot question. Otherwise withhold the money, unless it's a loan to be paid back. Then, it's their money they're using. Hope this answer is much clearer to you than it is to me.

[dollfus46]

I almost hate to answer this question because I don't want to start a fight, but I am opposed to abortion except in the case of rape or incest.

I have no answer so don't label me, I simply throw this out as food for thought: Why does rape make a difference? The child is still innocent. Still a life. Not his fault he was conceived whether it be rape or accident. He could still be adopted and have a wonderful life and make a baren couple happy. May end up a great person. I'm looking for answers more than anything here. As for incest, the child has a good chance of being deformed in some way.

[TheGenius]

No offense taken. Let me give some food for thought.

The dilemma or question is whether using your personal funds to finance something you are morally opposed to. So, given this dilemma let me throw out a hypothetical question.

Lets say you find out from a friend that your boss had been involved in recreational drugs. There is a good chance also that he has sold to his best friends. Given that hypothetical situation, would you quit or refuse another paycheck because those funds may have come from something you are opposed to? And, could you also conclude that your services for your employer have also provided him with revenue to purchase illegal substances?

I know that is an extreme example, but where do you draw the line with taking personal responsibility for others?

[zorro]

What utter and complete arrogance. Yeah. Winning them to the lord by being a condescending ass.


fuzzi,

It is never my purpose to intentionally offend anyone. I try to make a reasoned argument regarding certain positions, whether they are popular or not. Can you honestly say the same?

BTW, the following from the IPA seems apropos here:

Name-calling is a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and person, group or idea. By linking the person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

[fuzzis]

Nice tactic, zorro, but it doesn't fly with me and it doesn't apply here.

When you tell someone that they haven't heard you, when you assume that they have not given thought and reason to the position that they come to, you are being arrogant and condescending...an ass. If expect people to respect your views and your beliefs--to believe that you came to your position thoughtfully--, how can you NOT extend that courtesty to someone else?

You are the kind of Christian that I completely turns me off to even listening to your message. You are a Christian with a captial "c", hitting others over the head with your belief. It appears to work *splendidly*.

fuzziS

[zorro]

Well, of course, what I write doesn’t “fly with you” fuzzis. And , of course, we will disagree whether what either of us writes is relevant or pertinent here.

But I explained what I meant and I’ll stick with it. Heck, this doesn’t just apply to CB, but it applies to everybody here at times. For example, there have been many times in my life where I will be reading a passage of Scripture that I have read before, and all of a sudden, it is like I am reading it (i.e., understanding it or truly “hearing” it) for the first time. This also happens at times when someone is teaching on a certain passage or subject. I even gave a striking example that I just learned of this weekend (more striking than you will probably ever know) of what I was speaking of.

Jesus often spoke of having “ears to hear” and “eyes to see”. I could list several passages regarding this, but I think one should suffice:

This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. -- Matthew 13:13-16

(The last line was directed to his apostles)

[fuzzis]

*sigh*

I was not speaking about your spirituality, zorro, but rather your trying to assert a superiority by saying that I was engaging in an ad hominem attack.

Drop the superiority BS. I am *quite* familar with the Bible. I really don't need you to tell me what it says simply because I disagree with you. It's that whole thing about extending the same courtesy to others that you want extended to you. I believe you came to your position thoughtfully and considerately. I believe you have made an informed decision. I give you that respect. (Notice I'm not telling that you are wrong because of your beliefs. I'm saying that your approach to others is wrong)

Consider that whole Christain thing and think about doing the same.

fuzzis

[zorro]

Well, you were name-calling rather than posting any real argument or discussion and that is what is at the heart of the ad hominen abusive fallacy.

And certainly, one of my points, is that being “quite” familiar with the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean that you understand it. There is always plenty there for us all to keep on learning.

Perspective is an interesting thing. You think that I have some type of “superiority” complex, and I see myself as a sinner (even one of the worst) who has found his Savior and just wants others to have their greatest need met as well. In other words, it is like one beggar wanting to lead other beggars to where he knows there is a feast.

I think that any faithful discussion regarding what Christianity teaches is going to be personally irritating to you (unless God changes your heart); nevertheless, I’ll make an effort to be more courteous in my approach (II Tim. 2:24-26; I Peter 3:15).

Now, about that “pot calling the kettle black” thing ….

[fuzzis]

And certainly, one of my points, is that being “quite” familiar with the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean that you understand it.

Wow. So much for trying to be more courteous.

Another example?

I think that any faithful discussion regarding what Christianity teaches is going to be personally irritating to you (unless God changes your heart);

You could probably start that whole "courteous" process by deciding to not make assumptions about people. "Faithful discussion" does not bother me at all. In fact, I engage in it frequently. My "surrogate parents" here are very religious people, and we frequently discuss Christianity. Three hours of it last night. I occasionally go to church with them...have spent time in discussion with their pastor, as well as socializing with him and his wife. My grandmother's brother and I often exchange emails, the subject of which is faith.

They don't irritate me because at base they extend respect to me and aren't trying to tell me what I think and believe. They leave the whole lecture aspect of it at the door.

:roll:

fuzzis

[zorro]

I rest my case.

[Blondie]

CB - Maybe it's because it's so late that I'm thinking this, but do you think there is a slight possibility that this person may not make the wrong choice with the money and may surprise you with a right decision? Or are you 100% sure the money will be used for something you do not agree with?

[Conveyor Belt]

I rest my case.

thank the gods... However, I'm sure it's not over... LOL

[Conveyor Belt]

Lets say you find out from a friend that your boss had been involved in recreational drugs. There is a good chance also that he has sold to his best friends. Given that hypothetical situation, would you quit or refuse another paycheck because those funds may have come from something you are opposed to? And, could you also conclude that your services for your employer have also provided him with revenue to purchase illegal substances?

I would certainly quit the job immediately upon discovery of my boss making money off illegal drugs. Using is one thing, selling is another. I'd probably take the paycheck, because I'd know that the money came from the business side, not the illegal side, even though the monies may all be in one account. I would assume that my services enabled him to start his illegal enterprise. I'm not sure I would feel 'guilty' about it, though. That's a personal choice... I do see your point, though... I'm almost starting to feel this way about the situation.

[zorro]

What does the phrase "I rest my case" mean?

According to the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms it is "something that you say when someone says or does something that proves the truth of something you have just said".

And according to the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms it is tantamount to saying "you have proved that what I just said is true".

In other words, her last post proved the point that I had been trying to make.

[Conveyor Belt]

I knew it was too good to be true...

[fuzzis]

What does the phrase "I rest my case" mean?

According to the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms it is "something that you say when someone says or does something that proves the truth of something you have just said".

And according to the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms it is tantamount to saying "you have proved that what I just said is true".

In other words, her last post proved the point that I had been trying to make.

I rest my case as well? :roll:

I think that perhaps CB and Noway have a new candidate for the title of "professor".

fuzzis

[Conveyor Belt]

We'll just call him Mullah Zorro...

[wilebill]

What is the world coming to?

Fuzzis & Mrs. Hubba become best friends.

Fuzzis & Cbelt forming an alliance.

Is hell freezing over? :smt118

And Oh Yeah - Fuzzis slurring her prose.

[Blondie]

What is the world coming to?

Fuzzis & Mrs. Hubba become best friends.

Fuzzis & Cbelt forming an alliance.

Is hell freezing over? :smt118

And Oh Yeah - Fuzzis slurring her prose.

Well she did say she wanted a scotch last night. :)

[fuzzis]

What is the world coming to?

Fuzzis & Mrs. Hubba become best friends.

Fuzzis & Cbelt forming an alliance.

Is hell freezing over? :smt118

And Oh Yeah - Fuzzis slurring her prose.

Slurring my prose? Nevah. :smt003

fuzzis

[TheGenius]

“Being right half the time beats being half-right all the time.”



Malcolm S. Forbes