an annoyance

[St. Anger]

This story is entirely hypothetical...

What if I have a kid, say, three years old, who has been very annoying to me and my wife of late. I begin to regret not aborting the little sniveler, and decide to strangle him to death, seeing no reason why it matters if I had killed him before he was born, or after. Was my (hypothetical) decision and action wrong?

[OnceConvinced]

I’m no supporter of abortion and I do see it as the killing off of a potential child, but I do understand that there are some very good reasons for it, but I can see 10CC’s point of view. If we go by the bible, then it would be better for a child to be killed at birth rather than have them run the risk of facing God’s wrath if they bruise Jesus's ego by rejecting him later in life. Better that they get a fast track to Heaven than end up burning in Hell!

Of course the problem comes with the rule “Thou shalt not Kill.� This then creates a Catch 32 situation. Obviously as 10CC says, one could give his life for the cause. Kill off thousands of babies and then take Hell for them. That would surely be a loving act just as Christ performed a loving act when he died on the cross (although Christ never suffered in hell, so I guess that makes them even more loving than Christ). But I guess I can understand the Christian not wanting to have to suffer at the hands of Christ for doing it. Best take a more cowardly approach on this matter. To be the savior of all these children, the Christian would have to truly BELIEVE the bible and accept it as God's word. He would have to be adament that he understands scripture correctly.

Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting that any Christian do this. The bible is a horrible book and if its God is real it is horrible too and should not be worshiped

[bluethread]

Since this is in the right and wrong section and not the doctrine section, I would say that the Scriptures are not clear on the eternal status of the unborn. The Scriptures do recognize the unborn as having value, so there would have to be serious overriding consideration for abortion. For the born, it is clear what is to be done. If the child is truly rebellious, the parents could bring the child before the community and have judgment rendered. However, simply killing the child would be wrong, according to the Scriptures. Concern for the afterlife is not supposed to be a consideration, the primary purpose of the written Scriptures is proper living.

[10CC]

Since this is in the right and wrong section and not the doctrine section, I would say that the Scriptures are not clear on the eternal status of the unborn. The Scriptures do recognize the unborn as having value, so there would have to be serious overriding consideration for abortion. For the born, it is clear what is to be done. If the child is truly rebellious, the parents could bring the child before the community and have judgment rendered. However, simply killing the child would be wrong, according to the Scriptures. Concern for the afterlife is not supposed to be a consideration, the primary purpose of the written Scriptures is proper living.

You are discussing the killer, already addressed, but are ignoring the killee. The altruistic killing of thousands of babies to ensure their eternity in paradise must surely be a good thing. The killer being prepared to suffer the consequences for such nobility is indeed praiseworthy.

[bluethread]

Since this is in the right and wrong section and not the doctrine section, I would say that the Scriptures are not clear on the eternal status of the unborn. The Scriptures do recognize the unborn as having value, so there would have to be serious overriding consideration for abortion. For the born, it is clear what is to be done. If the child is truly rebellious, the parents could bring the child before the community and have judgment rendered. However, simply killing the child would be wrong, according to the Scriptures. Concern for the afterlife is not supposed to be a consideration, the primary purpose of the written Scriptures is proper living.

You are discussing the killer, already addressed, but are ignoring the killee. The altruistic killing of thousands of babies to ensure their eternity in paradise must surely be a good thing. The killer being prepared to suffer the consequences for such nobility is indeed praiseworthy.

False, it is not noble or praiseworthy to commit infanticide based on one's beliefs with regard to the afterlife. Every justification in the Scriptures, that I am aware of, for killing is related it's effects proper living. The concept of killing someone for the purpose of saving their souls is RCC doctrine derived to justify the inquisitions.

[Overcomer]

I think it depends on whether you're an atheist or a Christian.

If you're a Christian, you know that all life is sacred and comes from God. Therefore, all human beings have value, including your child. Therefore, you would love and protect your child.

If you're an atheist and you think we're all just accidents of nature, then what would make that child more important than a housefly or an earthworm? In that case, the child becomes truly dispensable.

Of course, you could be an atheist who borrows his value system from Christianity and then you would behave as a Christian and love and protect your child and never even consider getting rid of him.

[Goat]

I think it depends on whether you're an atheist or a Christian.

If you're a Christian, you know that all life is sacred and comes from God. Therefore, all human beings have value, including your child. Therefore, you would love and protect your child.

If you're an atheist and you think we're all just accidents of nature, then what would make that child more important than a housefly or an earthworm? In that case, the child becomes truly dispensable.

Of course, you could be an atheist who borrows his value system from Christianity and then you would behave as a Christian and love and protect your child and never even consider getting rid of him.

Then, isn't it amazing how many atheists love and protect their child more than some Christians do? One of my friends is gay, and volunteers at the local gay community center. There are a number of kids that come in that are 16 or 17 that were kicked out of the Christian parents house because they were gay.

Can you just imagine that?

[Sonofason]

I think it depends on whether you're an atheist or a Christian.

If you're a Christian, you know that all life is sacred and comes from God. Therefore, all human beings have value, including your child. Therefore, you would love and protect your child.

If you're an atheist and you think we're all just accidents of nature, then what would make that child more important than a housefly or an earthworm? In that case, the child becomes truly dispensable.

Of course, you could be an atheist who borrows his value system from Christianity and then you would behave as a Christian and love and protect your child and never even consider getting rid of him.

Then, isn't it amazing how many atheists love and protect their child more than some Christians do? One of my friends is gay, and volunteers at the local gay community center. There are a number of kids that come in that are 16 or 17 that were kicked out of the Christian parents house because they were gay.

Can you just imagine that?

Is there something wrong with kicking your children out on the street? I mean, after all, a parent is just a complex glob of molecular structures interacting within the confines of physics. It's not like they have a choice or anything like that. There is no free will. If a parent throws a kid out on the street, then it must have been necessary to do so.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

I think it depends on whether you're an atheist or a Christian.

If you're a Christian, you know that all life is sacred and comes from God. Therefore, all human beings have value, including your child. Therefore, you would love and protect your child.

Notice the implication that only the Christian can place value on human life.

If you're an atheist and you think we're all just accidents of nature, then what would make that child more important than a housefly or an earthworm? In that case, the child becomes truly dispensable.

Notice the attempt to strawman a position it's obvious Overcomer will object to - that of atheists placing value on life.

Of course, you could be an atheist who borrows his value system from Christianity and then you would behave as a Christian and love and protect your child and never even consider getting rid of him.

Notice again the implication that only the Christian can value life.

Yours is an insulting, slanderous proposition, and you oughta be ashamed of yourself for having presented it.

[cubey]

[Replying to post 2 by Bust Nak]

Yes, it was wrong. You killed another person for selfish reasons.

Thats exactly what all christians do.

[bluethread]

I think it depends on whether you're an atheist or a Christian.

If you're a Christian, you know that all life is sacred and comes from God. Therefore, all human beings have value, including your child. Therefore, you would love and protect your child.

If you're an atheist and you think we're all just accidents of nature, then what would make that child more important than a housefly or an earthworm? In that case, the child becomes truly dispensable.

Of course, you could be an atheist who borrows his value system from Christianity and then you would behave as a Christian and love and protect your child and never even consider getting rid of him.

Then, isn't it amazing how many atheists love and protect their child more than some Christians do? One of my friends is gay, and volunteers at the local gay community center. There are a number of kids that come in that are 16 or 17 that were kicked out of the Christian parents house because they were gay.

Can you just imagine that?

So, parents are required to accept responsibility when their children become sexually active, even if they have made it clear that they oppose that activity?