The Strongest Argument against an Omnipotent Good God?

[R_Daneel]

We have knowlege of Good and Evil.

We have the knowledge of what we consider good and evil. One man’s terrorist is another one’s martyr.

The Child analogy undermines the univocal nature of morality which we share with God.

I wonder if you can seriously say that when you say that genocide is evil, if committed by humans, but it is not, when committed by God. How is this “univocal”?

The manner in which we can use force is only in an incentivized sense; that is to say; we indirectly encourage the will by attributing positive or negative consequences to praxis – this is distinctly different from God forcing an act; because if God did that he would violate the primacy of the will. Humans cannot violate the primacy of another humans will; so in essence we can never force someone to do something. Forcing the action of another human being is a gravely disordered action; and deeply disturbing - it is contrary to natural law and it is an evil action; God being incapable of evil cannot do this.

Who cares about the “will”? If one prevents the “evil” action coming from the will, that is sufficient. Prisons, anyone?

For the sake of this matter; as it involves God; do not be surprised if I invoke arguments or premises based upon the Church. Your counter-argument is an unfounded negation; you have no reason to believe that the Church is exactly as ignorant as everyone else; whilst I have only an unfounded belief in the Church; your negation is equally as unfounded.

Unfounded? The Church is just a collection of equally fallible humans.

In fact; from my perspective the Church stands up for human rights more than any other organisation; so even from a secular standpoint it would make sense to invest in them the confidence that they are at least in general accurate at determining morality.

Not so. Amnesty International is just as vocal. But this is neither here nor there. No one has direct access to God. All we can do is surmise. The Church is no exception.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, but no intelligent theist claims that God’s benevolent nature could prevent the evil that He allows. Your article addresses some rather unsophisticated claims, but does not address a situation where the policemen have no power to stop the rape.

Well, they should. After all God is omnipotent. One simple solution would be to create everyone having a good, benevolent disposition (which exists), to create people who simply do not want to hurt others. They might resort to violence, if provoked, but since there would be no one to provoke them…

The argument against God because of evil assumes that God allows unnecessary evil.

Well said. And this assumption rests on very powerful evidence.

All that is required to refute this argument is to show why allowing evil can be in the best interest of those involved, which would necessitate a benevolent being allowing the suffering to achieve that best interest.

Yes, and that is the argument which is so sorely missing. What is usually being said is: “we cannot know…” or “maybe there is some benefit, we are unaware of…” - as the fifth officer indicates.

Keep in mind that suffering is not the only thing that God uses. God also uses enjoyable things, which is why pleasure was created. There are all sorts of things that influence people, and God uses those to help prod us along in the direction we ought to go. However, the main point is this- the history of the world is a two-way dynamic. On the one hand we have human choice, and on the other we have divine response to that choice. God is constantly interacting with and coaxing that human choice towards its end, although sometimes this goes in wild directions because of human choice.

The carrot-and-stick method - used on non-comprehending animals. When I was about 8 years old, I asked my mother not to discipline me, because I can understand the words, and will not do something if she only tells me. Never again did she have to resort to physical discipline. This is the method which is NOT used by God. Saying it outright, not resorting to indirect “prodding”. And, of course, it is obvious that bad things happen to good people, and good things are “awarded” to bad people - so this indirect prodding is not used very well, I would even say that it is used horribly incorrectly. And the objection, a la the fifth officer: “we are too dumb to comprehend”.

 

[JohnDamian]

We have the knowledge of what we consider good and evil. One man’s terrorist is another one’s martyr.

Knowlege of good and evil is inherant; although it can be perverted.

I wonder if you can seriously say that when you say that genocide is evil, if committed by humans, but it is not, when committed by God. How is this “univocal”?

Genocide when committed on innocents would be immoral; this is a point raised by Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed; God replies that he would not destroy the town if there are innocents there. In that sense; God’s punishment is no different from the death penalty; the only difference is God; being omniscient cannot have made an error in determining who is guilty; wheras man may make such errors in our fallible systems. God punishing the guilty is not murder - although I would concede that human ignorance is nigh-infinite and we should never attempt to justify humans killing other humans for any reason ever. It is not that the act of killing the guilty is immoral; it is that the means of determining the guilty on our part is imperfect.

Who cares about the “will”? If one prevents the “evil” action coming from the will, that is sufficient. Prisons, anyone?

Incentivising is a good way of regulating the will of people; however as it does not totally control the will; it is not an evil act in and of itself. Totally depriving the will (ie; full control over mind and thought) would be an obscene crime against human dignity.

Unfounded? The Church is just a collection of equally fallible humans.

No doubt; but God working through the Church can allow infallible teachings and so on and so forth - although understanding your religious persuasions this premise no doubt is rather irrelevant; so I shall try from a secular standpoint; the Church, though imperfect has throughout the ages stood up for morality at the least as well as any other organisation.

Not so. Amnesty International is just as vocal.

We are indeed lucky to have AI; but the Church also stands up for and combats many things that AI ignore; such as poverty; education; faith; spiritual growth; environmental concerns etc. etc; as well as the seven key areas of AI.

No one has direct access to God. All we can do is surmise. The Church is no exception.

What is that claim based upon?

It is the belief of the Church that God works with us through the Sacraments; this is consistent with the Scriptures - which no doubt you don’t fully accept; but in terms of a Christian understanding of God - we do have direct access.

 

[R_Daneel]

Knowlege of good and evil is inherant; although it can be perverted.

There is no evidence for that. There is a lot of evidence that it is acquired, during the formative years, when the child has no critical skills.

Genocide when committed on innocents would be immoral;…

What about the children of Amalekites?

Incentivising is a good way of regulating the will of people; however as it does not totally control the will; it is not an evil act in and of itself. Totally depriving the will (ie; full control over mind and thought) would be an obscene crime against human dignity.

As I said before, the “will” in and by itself is not relevant. What is relevant is to be able to carry out that “will”.

No doubt; but God working through the Church can allow infallible teachings…

There is no evidence of “infallibility”.

…so I shall try from a secular standpoint; the Church, though imperfect has throughout the ages stood up for morality at the least as well as any other organisation.

For the Catholic morality, which definitely coincides with secular morality - in many, many cases. That, however, does not lend a generic credence to the Church’s teachings in all facets of morality.

It is the belief of the Church that God works with us through the Sacraments; this is consistent with the Scriptures - which no doubt you don’t fully accept; but in terms of a Christian understanding of God - we do have direct access.

I would prefer a phone number, that I can call.

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, they should. After all God is omnipotent. One simple solution would be to create everyone having a good, benevolent disposition (which exists), to create people who simply do not want to hurt others. They might resort to violence, if provoked, but since there would be no one to provoke them…

Omnipotence is not unlimited power. God cannot make a four sided triangle.

Human dispositions are not solely formed by God’s creation. They are also influenced by human choice and relationships to other free humans. That introduces an element that God cannot control.

Well said. And this assumption rests on very powerful evidence.

It is extraordinarily difficult to prove that suffering cannot be necessary or helpful. At best a sort of agnosticism might prevail, but that does nothing to bolster the positive argument that evil cannot be justified by necessity.

Yes, and that is the argument which is so sorely missing. What is usually being said is: “we cannot know…” or “maybe there is some benefit, we are unaware of…” - as the fifth officer indicates.

We can be very aware of how suffering helps us. My anxiety disorder gave me the impetus to learn the confidence that would make my life much better. It also gave me a grounding so my later popularity wouldn’t go to my head.

The fifth officer really has no argument. We can know on a limited scale how suffering can help us. It is more difficult on a massive scale. Because we cannot understand the whole course of history, and how every experience and every choice affects everyone, we can’t form a judgement whether or not necessary or unnecessary suffering was present. Merely stating this fact does not mean that we should assume that suffering is unnecessary. We can know suffering exists, but we can’t judge whether or not it was necessary simply because we can’t look at the whole picture. There is nothing outrageous about this- what would you think about a person who claimed to be able to understand all human choices and their effects?

What if the thirteenth officer was interviewed and stated that he fully understood the effects of all choices and all experiences of all people at all times?

The carrot-and-stick method - used on non-comprehending animals. When I was about 8 years old, I asked my mother not to discipline me, because I can understand the words, and will not do something if she only tells me. Never again did she have to resort to physical discipline. This is the method which is NOT used by God. Saying it outright, not resorting to indirect “prodding”.

God does say things outright. That seems clear enough to me from philosophy. However, people have different talents. Some are better at philosophy than others. Some have different talents and different abilities. Because of this very human diversity, God uses diverse methods to make his point across. You do not need to be intensely intellectual to be a Catholic. However, the resources are there if you want to pursue them. However, quickly dismissing necessarily technical philosophy as babble is not going to get you very far.

And, of course, it is obvious that bad things happen to good people, and good things are “awarded” to bad people - so this indirect prodding is not used very well, I would even say that it is used horribly incorrectly.

No, that’s not obvious. Is it obvious that good things have been awarded to, say, your standard female celebrity? Sometimes a bit of suffering works out better in the end. People who receive unlimited means to pleasure tend not to turn out very well…

 

[JohnDamian]

What about the children of Amalekites?

As I believe morality to be inherant; and combined with the omniscience of God this poses no problem.

There is a lot of evidence that it is acquired, during the formative years, when the child has no critical skills.

There is certainly evidence that morality becomes manifest in a particular way or perverted in a particular way during the early period of socialisation particularily; however if you have any evidence that it is acquired rather than manifest feel free to show it.

As I said before, the “will” in and by itself is not relevant. What is relevant is to be able to carry out that “will”.

The will is by itself relevant; for the will then leads to praxis - as a matter of course praxis can only be incentivized morally; not compelled.

For the Catholic morality, which definitely coincides with secular morality - in many, many cases. That, however, does not lend a generic credence to the Church’s teachings in all facets of morality.

By no means does it mean that the Church in a secular sense is necessarily moral; however it does follow from that that it always must be; as you rightly say.

I would prefer a phone number, that I can call.

That would certainly be more convenient I must admit; but through the sacraments we truly can interact with God. That aside; most people who believe in God predicate that God with omnipresence anyway; so we are in his presence anyhow.

 

[R_Daneel]

Human dispositions are not solely formed by God’s creation. They are also influenced by human choice and relationships to other free humans. That introduces an element that God cannot control.

There is no need to control. It is true that our original disposition is not “all”. Yes, we are also formed by our upbringing. The point is this: if all humans would have a benevolent disposition toward others - as a starting point, then this would be reflected in the upbringing of the children. Part of the upbringing process is teaching by example. If all adults would present only good examples, then there would be no need to interfere.

It is extraordinarily difficult to prove that suffering cannot be necessary or helpful. At best a sort of agnosticism might prevail, but that does nothing to bolster the positive argument that evil cannot be justified by necessity.

Some suffering may be useful or necessary. But the theist assertion is that any and all sufferings belong to this category. And when asked about some specific examples, the only thing they come up with: “well we don’t know, but surely God does…” which simply an argument from ignorance.

The fifth officer really has no argument.

Of course not. Yet a variant of this argument is being presented all the time.

We can know on a limited scale how suffering can help us. It is more difficult on a massive scale. Because we cannot understand the whole course of history, and how every experience and every choice affects everyone, we can’t form a judgement whether or not necessary or unnecessary suffering was present. Merely stating this fact does not mean that we should assume that suffering is unnecessary.

And is it not also outrageous to say that all suffering is necessary? When there is absolutely no reason to assume that?

What if the thirteenth officer was interviewed and stated that he fully understood the effects of all choices and all experiences of all people at all times?

But that thirteenth officer did not produce an argument for his unaction. What would be his argument?

No, that’s not obvious. Is it obvious that good things have been awarded to, say, your standard female celebrity? Sometimes a bit of suffering works out better in the end. People who receive unlimited means to pleasure tend not to turn out very well…

Sometimes… for sure. But always? What kind of hypothetical “good” can out from the terminal suffering of a child burned to death? The usual response is that the child “may” be awarded eternal happiness in heaven, and that is just bunk. If the burning part was not necessary, then the “reward” cannot justify the suffering.

 

[R_Daneel]

As I believe morality to be inherant; and combined with the omniscience of God this poses no problem.

Your assumption is that all the children were absolutely and incurably evil and deserved to be slaughtered even in the cradle? And when God slaughtered all the humans except Noah’s famility, that is cool, too? Even the animals? A “justifyable” genocide? You sure go far out for my taste. Your whole argument is an argument from ignorance.

The will is by itself relevant; for the will then leads to praxis - as a matter of course praxis can only be incentivized morally; not compelled.

If the will is present, but it cannot be carried out due to physical constraints then what? And, yes we absolutely prevent a possible criminal action to take place by putting some people in jail, where they can fantacize about rape and murder, but are unable to carry it out.

That would certainly be more convenient I must admit; but through the sacraments we truly can interact with God. That aside; most people who believe in God predicate that God with omnipresence anyway; so we are in his presence anyhow.

Omnipresence in another problematic concept. God certainly does not manifest himself in any recognizable form. Let’s have that phone number, so I do not have to “rely” on the interpretation of others.

 

[colmcille1]

Not so. Amnesty International is just as vocal. But this is neither here nor there. No one has direct access to God. All we can do is surmise. The Church is no exception.

Point of information: amnesty international lost all credibility (as far as true believers are concerned) when they officially voiced their support for abortion. The CC does not sanction this form of murder.
So, it is very much “here” with regard to this thread.

 

[JohnDamian]

Your assumption is that all the children were absolutely and incurably evil and deserved to be slaughtered even in the cradle? And when God slaughtered all the humans except Noah’s famility, that is cool, too? Even the animals? A “justifyable” genocide? You sure go far out for my taste.

Yes.

Your whole argument is an argument from ignorance.

I think you mistake ignorance for humility. I believe and have trust in God’s actions; even if I fail to understand them. I don’t buy into relatavistic discourses on morality or some man made morality…

If the will is present, but it cannot be carried out due to physical constraints then what? And, yes we absolutely prevent a possible criminal action to take place by putting some people in jail, where they can fantacize about rape and murder, but are unable to carry it out.

It is one thing to constrain people who are dangerous; but so long as you are not defiling their human dignity by controling their free will that is fine. It is ok to prevent people from killing; but to change their fundemental humanity (no matter how twisted) would be evil.

Omnipresence in another problematic concept. God certainly does not manifest himself in any recognizable form. Let’s have that phone number, so I do not have to “rely” on the interpretation of others.

It follows from all-knowingness and all-powerfulness that God is at least in some simple or personal supposito present…

 

[Sarpedon]

There is no need to control. It is true that our original disposition is not “all”. Yes, we are also formed by our upbringing. The point is this: if all humans would have a benevolent disposition toward others - as a starting point, then this would be reflected in the upbringing of the children. Part of the upbringing process is teaching by example. If all adults would present only good examples, then there would be no need to interfere.

Hence, the Garden of Eden.

Some suffering may be useful or necessary. But the theist assertion is that any and all sufferings belong to this category. And when asked about some specific examples, the only thing they come up with: “well we don’t know, but surely God does…” which simply an argument from ignorance.

No, I gave you a personal example about how my anxiety disorder helped me. It’s no big secret that those who are raised without unlimited pleasure and the unlimited means to pleasure tend to become spoiled and tend to lack the traits of hard work, diligence, and virtue. Preppy?

And is it not also outrageous to say that all suffering is necessary? When there is absolutely no reason to assume that?

No, because we don’t prove God because of suffering. We prove God through metaphysics. Having proved God and His necessary nature, and observing the actual fact of suffering, we can put two and two together and deduce that the suffering must be necessary. The atheist tries to disprove God by suffering, and is therefore tasked with proving that the suffering is unnecessary. The theist does not prove the goodness of God by suffering, and therefore is not obligated to actually prove that all suffering is necessary. The goodness of God is established by other means, then compared to the fact of suffering and the fact that suffering could be necessary (it’s hard to tell), and we therefore conclude that the suffering is necessary because of the separate arguments used for God’s existence and nature.

But that thirteenth officer did not produce an argument for his unaction. What would be his argument?

The woman was in danger of killing others on a massive scale. The criminals needed a wake up call. The bystanders needed the experience to get a jolt out of their apathy.

Sometimes… for sure. But always? What kind of hypothetical “good” can out from the terminal suffering of a child burned to death? The usual response is that the child “may” be awarded eternal happiness in heaven, and that is just bunk. If the burning part was not necessary, then the “reward” cannot justify the suffering.

Well, I think it’s safe to say that Holocaust put an end to the violent “dispositions” present in Europe and led to the good, peaceful dispositions you mentioned. Everything revolves around personal virtue, not physical pleasure. If it is necessary to endure physical pain, even on a massive scale, for personal virtue, then the suffering is necessary. The Holocaust was horrible suffering, but the experience led to an increase of virtue on a societal level. It would have been better if everyone had simply been good from the beginning, but that’s not reality. Sometimes we need physical suffering to put the personal virtue back where it belongs.

 

[mtoddm]

I think this is one of the weakest arguments!

If you mean this truly and are not just trying to argue, then you are indeed strong in faith my friend -

I think the argument “I cannot see God therefore He does not exist” is truly one of the weakest arguments, but people make that one all the time. It does not seem worth the time to argue against it is so flimsy.

However, this problem of pain and evil in the world does indeed have merit and is worth discussing.

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[tonyrey]

I think this is one of the weakest arguments! How would God intervene every time a person is going to commit a crime? By interfering with the mind like performing a leucotomy or hypnosis? In either case it would defeat the purpose of sharing His power with us. In effect we would be amoral robots! If we were compelled to do only what is good, right and just we would all be reduced to neutral agents without moral or spiritual value. Without evil goodness becomes an illusion…

I certainly mean, Todd, it because no one has ever explained how moral evil can exist without free will. Kant was right in pointing out that “ought implies can”. Most people are concerned about the Problem of Evil but they ignore the Problem of Good. They take the immense value of life for granted. Filial ingratitude!

I think the argument “I cannot see God therefore He does not exist” is truly one of the weakest arguments, but people make that one all the time. It does not seem worth the time to argue against it is so flimsy.

The simplest rejoinder is that we cannot see our mind but that does not mean we are mindless! The most important things in life are intangible.

However, this problem of pain and evil in the world does indeed have merit and is worth discussing.

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

I’ve discussed it for more than half a century.

 

[mtoddm]

The simplest rejoinder is that we cannot see our mind but that does not mean we are mindless! The most important things in life are intangible.

I’ve discussed it for more than half a century.

The materialist would say that the mind/brain is observable, and thoughts are simply chemical processes that can be measured and altered - but you are right that the most important things in life are intangible, Love, Virtue, Divinity

You certainly have more life experience than me, not that I’m saying you are old : )
Age brings Wisdom - at least I hope so in my case

For my part, I’ve worked in Child Protective Services for over 11 years, hence my example - I’ve seen much, as you can imagine, which makes me wonder what God is thinking when it comes to innocent, vulnerable children - if their own parents don’t look out for them, and God on the surface doesn’t either…

As far as freewill, I understand that God allows freewill - but then at the same time santions laws and governments to intervene and curtail freedom, thus legitimate laws against murder, and child abuse - but if our rationale is that God allows these things due to his reverence for human freedom, how can we then say that the government authority would be right in God’s eyes in intervening to put limits on the criminal’s freedom - it’s like God is telling us two different things -

—todd

catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, I think it’s safe to say that Holocaust put an end to the violent “dispositions” present in Europe and led to the good, peaceful dispositions you mentioned.

Just a quick answer, since it is pretty late here and I am tired. Unfortunately there is still a whole lot of “racial” hatred is still going on in Europe, anti-semitism, hatred of gypsys and other minority groups - so the Holocaust did not achieve the “intended” purpose. But this is not the whole point.

Let me grant you your assertion that the Holocaust made a huge difference, and it really did - though not enough. The question is: “was each and every one of those deaths and tortures necessary”? Maybe just one more Jewish child could have been spared and the result would have been the same? And that is the issue. The overall positive benefit can only be used as a justification if every ounce of the suffering is necessary to obtain the desired result. Not just “approximately”, but precisely. If the same positive result could have been obtainable by just a little bit of less suffering, then the “excess” suffering was unjustifyable.

 

[tonyrey]

The materialist would say that the mind/brain is observable, and thoughts are simply chemical processes that can be measured and altered - but you are right that the most important things in life are intangible, Love, Virtue, Divinity.

You certainly have more life experience than me, not that I’m saying you are old : )
Age brings Wisdom - at least I hope so in my case.

Age brings at least Experience! In many ways I feel younger and enjoy life more than when I was a teenager…

For my part, I’ve worked in Child Protective Services for over 11 years, hence my example - I’ve seen much, as you can imagine, which makes me wonder what God is thinking when it comes to innocent, vulnerable children - if their own parents don’t look out for them, and God on the surface doesn’t either…

If God protected every child from harm it would be obvious that a benevolent power exists.
There is also the problem of how children would be protected. By a spate of miracles?

As far as freewill, I understand that God allows freewill - but then at the same time sanctions laws and governments to intervene and curtail freedom, thus legitimate laws against murder, and child abuse - but if our rationale is that God allows these things due to his reverence for human freedom, how can we then say that the government authority would be right in God’s eyes in intervening to put limits on the criminal’s freedom - it’s like God is telling us two different things -

There is a difference between freedom and free will. The state cannot curtail our power to choose.

 

[mtoddm]

Age brings at least Experience! In many ways I feel younger and enjoy life more than when I was a teenager…

Teenagers think they know much and know very little - reminds me of the quote: “those who think themselves wise are fools, those who are truly wise think themselves fools”

If God protected every child from harm it would be obvious that a benevolent power exists.
There is also the problem of how children would be protected. By a spate of miracles?

If my children and all the children I know remain safe in the years to come and grow to a venerable old age I wouldn’t think that a direct miracle of God -

There is a difference between freedom and free will. The state cannot curtail our power to choose.

our “power to choose” corresponding to our freewill, not our freedom?

Abortionist supporters always talk about the need to continue to have the “freedom of choice” to kill an unborn child - should the law continue to allow them this freedom, or should the law curtail their power to choose?

Liberal Catholics on this issue focus on the freedom of the individual to choose, and point out that God gave us freewill and the law should respect that -

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[Sarpedon]

Let me grant you your assertion that the Holocaust made a huge difference, and it really did - though not enough. The question is: “was each and every one of those deaths and tortures necessary”?

Absolutely. When I speak of societal affects, I necessarily generalize. There is also the level of the individual and individuals involved at the local level. Every individual German soldier who participated in the experience was affected in some way. Every single Jew involved in the experience was affected. Every other person involved was affected. Each of those individuals affected even more people by their subsequent actions. It is entirely reasonable to argue that the balance of things worked out in the way each individual responded to the situation, and that the situation was necessary to help bring about the moral states of all the individual souls involved in the experience. Furthermore, the situation is not in isolation. The moral states affected by the experience in turn affect other situations, and on and on. In the end, we have an enormous web of all individual souls, all individual choices, all individual experiences, and the individual responses to each of those experiences.

A few points are key:

1. As a positive argument against an omnibenevolent God’s existence, the argument from suffering cannot work. As a positive argument, the argument must demonstrate that some part of the suffering was unnecessary. This is impossible- for it is impossible to analyze all related mental states, influences, choices, dispositions, and circumstances in all times. Therefore, we cannot disprove God by appealing to something that we know we cannot prove.

On the other hand, it is not necessary to prove that all suffering is necessary, because the existence of God and God’s nature is not proved by suffering at all. They are proved by other means, and then compared with suffering. Acknowledging that the suffering could be necessary (and is not known to be unnecessary) is enough for internal self-coherence.

1. An atheist can make dying baby appeals all he or she wants, but this never leaves the level of personal incredulity. It cannot be proven that some experience of suffering was unnecessary. Therefore, giving examples of suffering and wondering how they could be necessary is pointless- we know they metaphysically could be necessary, but we cannot actually know whether or not they are necessary or unnecessary. Expressing personal incredulity on how suffering could be necessary is just that- personal incredulity- and no more convincing than personal religious experiences.

 

[tonyrey]

If my children and all the children I know remain safe in the years to come and grow to a venerable old age I wouldn’t think that a direct miracle of God.

If every child in the world did not come to any harm what then? Questions would certainly be raised…

There is a difference between freedom and free will. The state cannot curtail our power to choose.

our “power to choose” corresponding to our freewill, not our freedom?

Yes.

Abortionist supporters always talk about the need to continue to have the “freedom of choice” to kill an unborn child - should the law continue to allow them this freedom, or should the law curtail their power to choose?

In a secular society it would be futile to attempt to impose a law curtailing a woman’s right to have an abortion.

Liberal Catholics on this issue focus on the freedom of the individual to choose, and point out that God gave us freewill and the law should respect that -

Even though abortion is undoubtedly evil we have to respect women’s right to choose. We cannot compel anyone to do what is right. All we can do is try to enlighten them and pray they will realise that allowing an unborn child to die is justified only to save the mother’s life.

 

[mtoddm]

Even though abortion is undoubtedly evil we have to respect women’s right to choose. We cannot compel anyone to do what is right. All we can do is try to enlighten them and pray they will realise that allowing an unborn child to die is justified only to save the mother’s life.

Well, that opens up new vistas of debate/discussion - but laws are legitimate when they do things like deny a person the right to choose to kill another person, or themselves - laws are sometimes the only things that keep people from engaging in certain acts - what do you think would happen if all speed limits on highways were suddenly lifted? But people should be allowed to choose how fast to go…? and pray they realize on their own before it’s too late that 100 mph is too fast to drive

—todd

catholicsojourner.blogspot.com