Suffering vs. abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you honestly believe the world would have been a better place if Soros spend his money on 10 mega yachts and extremely opulent mansions instead of his philanthrophy?
I am sorry, but, what Soros does doesn’t dictate the good or bad in the world. Why do you give him so much power? Why don’t you look at yourself and figure out what you can do vs what he can do. I can guarantee that if you put your mind to it you can accomplish more that he has, even if it is with one person.
 
Sorry, I fail to see the link between Ribo’s preoccupation with Soros and the morality of abortion. 🤷

Money does not buy happiness.
 
I am sorry, but, what Soros does doesn’t dictate the good or bad in the world. Why do you give him so much power? Why don’t you look at yourself and figure out what you can do vs what he can do. I can guarantee that if you put your mind to it you can accomplish more that he has, even if it is with one person.
Soros doesn’t even put his name on his activities.

He just uses his megamillions to fund foundations and organizations that issue press releases and hold conferences that propagandize for his secular beliefs. He also donates to existing organizations that focus on issues that are important to him.

If those secular ideas are not contradicted or counteracted, folks will take them seriously and start to believe those secular ideas themselves.

Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”

**
 
Do you honestly believe the world would have been a better place if Soros spend his money on 10 mega yachts and extremely opulent mansions instead of his philanthrophy?
It’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Somebody builds those yachts and mansions and fabricates the materials they’re made of, and the money goes into innumerable working and mercantile hands. The trouble, perhaps, for Soros (if he lives modestly, which I don’t know) is his insistence on controlling things. If you buy a yacht or build a mansion, the money is beyond your control the instant you write the check. Then, “ordinary people” without the great wisdom Soros evidently attributes to himself, decide what happens to the money from there. Soros, of course, wants “his ideas” promulgated with his money.

If you believed in God, you might be able to detect a certain odor of sulphur lingering about the man’s philosophy.
 
I believe it is best to cover this in a new thread:

I really do not see why I should believe that inchoate human life should be deemed as sacrosanct.** It is not the case that the born will live in a poverty-free utopia where everyone is impervious from its unpleasant effects.** Instead those “lucky” enough to born will learn that life is rather cruel, copiously filled with suffering, and is rather unfair. If I was going to go to heaven (I do not know how many people believe this here) if I was aborted by my mother, I could say that I would prefer to be aborted (as a “defenseless child”) than to live here. If God really loved the unborn, how could he would allow them to live in a world rife with suffering?

It should be a higher ethical priority to mitigate the concomitant suffering in human life than castigating abortion
You devalue the lives of the poor WAY too much. My guess is that you aren’t very poor. I also think the poor would be really insulted that you think they would be better off not being born.

Help the poor: yes. Devalue their lives: no.

Suffering builds character.
 
The problem, ribozyme, is that there are differing versions of “suffering” depending on who you ask. A millionaire might define my current living situation (family of four in a two-bedroom apartment living paycheck-to-paycheck) as “suffering,” whereas I don’t. So whose definition of “suffering” do we go by when deciding to murder children to save them from it?
 
Have you ever read anything like this?
The incomparable worth of the human person
Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire unified process of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual’s earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an “ultimate” but a “penultimate” reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM
 
Unborn children don’t go to heaven. I don’t know where you get this. ?
Why would you believe these unblemished little souls, that Jesus died for too, would go anywhere but the busom of God. Where is the scripture or the teachings of pontiffs or docents of the church that supports the exclusion of the innocents from the heavenly home?

As the song says, "Jesus paid much to high a price for us to pick who should come…
 
The problem, ribozyme, is that there are differing versions of “suffering” depending on who you ask. A millionaire might define my current living situation (family of four in a two-bedroom apartment living paycheck-to-paycheck) as “suffering,” whereas I don’t. So whose definition of “suffering” do we go by when deciding to murder children to save them from it?
I had to get tickled by your post because it reminded me of something. When our first daughter was born, we couldn’t afford a “baby crib”, so hers was one of the drawers of an old dresser I bought for next to nothing at an estate auction and lugged home insecurely in the open trunk of my superannuated Dodge that had bad rings. My wife lovingly “padded” the crib with bath towels, pretty competently too. When my daughter grew up, it was important to her to have that old dresser, so we gave it to her. She still has it, and wouldn’t part with it for anything.

My hat’s off to you, Wanner. I have a feeling you and yours will do just fine.
 
Do you honestly believe the world would have been a better place if Soros spend his money on 10 mega yachts and extremely opulent mansions instead of his philanthrophy?
The quote you provided was regarding his “ideas,” not his money. As far as his money, it isn’t that much in the larger scheme of things. [EDIT ADD] As Ridgerunner said [/EDIT]…had he used his money for mega yachts, mansions, etc., it still would have supported working people who build mansions, yachts, etc. - not a total loss.
 
The quote you provided was regarding his “ideas,” not his money. As far as his money, it isn’t that much in the larger scheme of things. [EDIT ADD] As Ridgerunner said [/EDIT]…had he used his money for mega yachts, mansions, etc., it still would have supported working people who build mansions, yachts, etc. - not a total loss.
So the world would be a better place if Soros was a greedy and heartless person who only cares about satisfying his hedonistic desires?

He spends about 400 million dollars a year on his philanthrophy (and only a small portion of it goes to US political programs) - most of it going to benefit foreign causes. So you think that his money would be better spent on luxuries?

If he did that, I wouldn’t admire him - he would just been a normal greedy person.
 
So the world would be a better place if Soros was a greedy and heartless person who only cares about satisfying his hedonistic desires?

He spends about 400 million dollars a year on his philanthrophy (and only a small portion of it goes to US political programs) - most of it going to benefit foreign causes. So you think that his money would be better spent on luxuries?

If he did that, I wouldn’t admire him - he would just been a normal greedy person.
But at least he would have a job!😉
 
Plus it also depends on what “foreign causes” you are talking about.
Take this for example, instead!

"From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting" (Gen 9:5): reverence and love for every human life.
  1. Man’s life comes from God; it is his gift, his image and imprint, a sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of this life: man cannot do with it as he wills. God himself makes this clear to Noah after the Flood: “For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting … and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life” (Gen 9:5). The biblical text is concerned to emphasize how the sacredness of life has its foundation in God and in his creative activity: “For God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6).
    …40. The sacredness of life gives rise to its inviolability, written from the beginning in man’s heart, in his conscience. The question: “What have you done?” (Gen 4:10), which God addresses to Cain after he has killed his brother Abel, interprets the experience of every person: in the depths of his conscience, man is always reminded of the inviolability of life-his own life and that of others-as something which does not belong to him, because it is the property and gift of God the Creator and Father.
    …41. The commandment “You shall not kill”, included and more fully expressed in the positive command of love for one’s neighbour, is reaffirmed in all its force by the Lord Jesus. To the rich young man who asks him: “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”, Jesus replies: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:16,17). And he quotes, as the first of these: “You shall not kill” (Mt 19:18). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus demands from his disciples a righteousness which surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, also with regard to respect for life: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ?You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment’. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment” (Mt 5:21-22).
    You never said if you read it or not so, do yourself a favor and read it, better yet, send it to him to read too (Soros), and see if perhaps it doesn’t help him also.
    vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM
 
Why would you believe these unblemished little souls, that Jesus died for too, would go anywhere but the busom of God. Where is the scripture or the teachings of pontiffs or docents of the church that supports the exclusion of the innocents from the heavenly home?

As the song says, "Jesus paid much to high a price for us to pick who should come…
You don’t quite understand. The parents have a choice. Abortion or life. This extends to baptism into the choice between heaven and hell. I believe (personally) that the whole unborn infant thing is based on the parents. In some way, the child is a part of the parents. If they choose abortion, they choose hell for the child. However, the punishment is light, and indeed, the child may enjoy some natural happiness. If they choose life (assuming they will baptize the infant), then they choose heaven for the child. Even if the child miscarries, their desire for the infant’s baptism will suffice.

Oh, and, your Protestant past is showing.
 
So the world would be a better place if Soros was a greedy and heartless person who only cares about satisfying his hedonistic desires?

He spends about 400 million dollars a year on his philanthrophy (and only a small portion of it goes to US political programs) - most of it going to benefit foreign causes. So you think that his money would be better spent on luxuries?

If he did that, I wouldn’t admire him - he would just been a normal greedy person.
This is not a thread about George Soros, and you still haven’t addressed the philosophical arguments placed before you. I personally think that Soros has little bearing on the subject. The fact that you bow down before him is, quite frankly, irrelevant. 😉

In addition, your arguments won’t hold water in a bathtub.
 
This is not a thread about George Soros, and you still haven’t addressed the philosophical arguments placed before you. I personally think that Soros has little bearing on the subject. The fact that you bow down before him is, quite frankly, irrelevant. 😉

In addition, your arguments won’t hold water in a bathtub.
The fact that he bows down before Soros does, however, have some bearing on the fact that his arguments won’t hold water.😉
 
That depends on how hard you work, and how much talent and brains you have.

BTW, do you know what a “hedge fund” is?😉
What makes you suspect that I do not know what a “hedge fund” is?
Money does not buy happiness.
Money does indeed buy “happiness” although has diminishing marginal utility - that is the more money one spends, the less happiness it will buy.

I also found it interesting when some people suggested that Soros’ philanthrophy would be better spent on luxuries for himself. Surprising!!! I thought charity was considered a virtue, but instead conspicious consumption is revered.
 
Do you honestly believe the world would have been a better place if Soros spend his money on 10 mega yachts and extremely opulent mansions instead of his philanthrophy?
Perhaps the world would have been a better place if Soros had paid employees more and accumulated less…

perhaps the world would have been a better palce is Soros had used his wealth to aleviate some of the worlds problems throughout his life time and not just aftter he had accumulated more than he could spend and after he had assured the financial well being of his family in pupetuity …

Perhaps the world would be a better place if Soros had given back to the world from his need instead of his excesses …

Perhaps the world would be a better place if Soros spent less resources on politics and more on results oriented caritable works … with all the money alrady donated to end poverty, Mr. Soros charitable causes don’t seem to list many “Hands down successes” where villages are living above the poverty level …due to his sharing his “financial benevolence and superior intellegence” …

Yet I can point to people who had a vision of assisting others and who had no personal wealth to make their vision immediately successful Yet they have been successful in creating organizations that are effective in moving homeless persons from the street into permanent housing [just one example] …
 
What makes you suspect that I do not know what a “hedge fund” is?
The way you keep throwing the term around, like it was some sort of magic incantation.😛
Money does indeed buy “happiness” although has diminishing marginal utility - that is the more money one spends, the less happiness it will buy.

I also found it interesting when some people suggested that Soros’ philanthrophy would be better spent on luxuries for himself. Surprising!!! I thought charity was considered a virtue, but instead conspicious consumption is revered.
Who said that?

Although, if he were to spend it on building factories, roads, and so on, it would provide jobs for people currently unable to support themselves.
 
Unborn children don’t go to heaven. I don’t know where you get this. What’s more, your argument is VERY weak. You have not been aborted. You cannot know whether it would be better not to live at all.
Also, your view tends toward Albigensian views - that the physical is evil. The Albigensians also believed that suicide is the highest good.

Following your philosophy, the human race should be driven to extinction.

Shall I also provide St. Dominic for an argument?
We don’t know that unborn children don’t go to heaven. Even if they do, it is presumption to say that an aborted child doesn’t suffer. Even the saints would suffer from the loss of their bodies and long for the Resurrection were they not held in God’s embrace. A kind of Platonism prevails even among Christians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top