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?

[Bust Nak]

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...

That is not your decision to begin with, while I am guessing your wife would take your opinion into considersation, it's entirely up to her.

...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?

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

[Divine Insight]

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?

Three years old is pretty young. I would say that if a three year old child is annoying you the best thing for you to do is to seek professional help for yourself.

In your hypothetical situation the mere fact that you actually desire to strangle the child to death reveals to me that you are indeed the one who has a severe problem (in your hypothetical scenario)

More to the point, in reality, the fact that you are the author of this (Hypothetical) situation and you need to ask whether this decision or action is right or wrong implies to me that you still have severe problems and should seek professional help if you don't already know the correct answer to this question.

Also, IMHO, comparing this with abortion is either intentional deceit or a display of extreme ignorance. You seem to be assuming that people choose to have abortions simply because they find the prospect of taking a pregnancy to term "annoying".

I would agree that having an abortion simply because pregnancy is annoying would itself be highly immoral. But that's hardly the reason for most abortions.

But yes, I would personally say that it would be wrong for you to strangle a three year old child, and it would also be wrong for you to have had an abortion simply because you find pregnancy annoying.

Avoiding getting pregnant in the first place would be the moral action to take there.

So your hypothetical situation is an open and shut case for me, but hasn't done anything at all toward any considerations of whether or not abortions in general might be right or wrong. That would all depend upon the reason the abortion is being considered in the first place.

There is also the further controversy over when a fetus becomes a valid "Person".

Many people will argue that early abortions do not constitute the killing of a person because a fertilized egg does not constitute a person.

So there's that argument as well. And that argument cannot be carried over to a three-year-old child scenario.

So again, your comparison of your hypothetical situation with abortion is a deceitful and fraudulent comparison.

Why not just ask, "Would having an abortion solely because you find pregnancy annoying be immoral?"

I would say yes. That reason alone would be a highly immoral reason to have an abortion. But like I say, that's not the reason why most women have abortions. So its a moot point.

[Ooberman]

Two takes:

1. I guess, hypothetically, if we know someone is capable of killing a 3 year old, we could simply kill them. In fact, kill everybody just in case.

Let's just wipe humans off the planet and let it get on with itself.

Is this the answer st. Anger and other people who don't understand the basic principles of morality?

2. Killing the 3 year old, if the Christian God exists, would send that child straight to Heaven. You'd be a Saint. You'd be saving a soul from the fires of Hell.

Under Christianity, killing Children is the greatest. Sure, YOU might go to Hell, but that's a selfish reason not to do it. You'd be following in the footsteps of Jesus: sacrificing himself by taking on horrible sin in order to save people from Hell.
The more kids you can kill, the better Christian you are.

[charles_hamm]

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?

The answer is yes for anyone who does not support abortion.
I think your hypothetical would be harder for those who support abortion to answer if it was a female killing a newborn infant, say three weeks old rather than three years. But it's your hypothetical so I won't hijack it

[Divine Insight]

2. Killing the 3 year old, if the Christian God exists, would send that child straight to Heaven. You'd be a Saint. You'd be saving a soul from the fires of Hell.

Under Christianity, killing Children is the greatest. Sure, YOU might go to Hell, but that's a selfish reason not to do it. You'd be following in the footsteps of Jesus: sacrificing himself by taking on horrible sin in order to save people from Hell.
The more kids you can kill, the better Christian you are.

You make a very good point.

I used to think that not having any children at all would be the most Christian thing to do. Then there is no risk of them going to hell.

But you're right. Having children and killing them as soon as they are born would be far better. Then you'd be guaranteeing that they would all go straight to heaven.

This is what everyone should do. Have as many children as they possibly can and kill them all at birth. Allowing them to live beyond that is to risk that they might not make it into the kingdom of God.

And as you point out, even if you are sent to eternal damnation for having beaten God at his own evil game, at least you will be equal to Jesus in that you sacrificed your own life for others.

You would represent a LOVE that is even greater than God's love.

Killing your children at birth would be the greatest act of love you could possibly undertake if Christianity is true.

[Sonofason]

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?

Three years old is pretty young. I would say that if a three year old child is annoying you the best thing for you to do is to seek professional help for yourself.

In your hypothetical situation the mere fact that you actually desire to strangle the child to death reveals to me that you are indeed the one who has a severe problem (in your hypothetical scenario)

More to the point, in reality, the fact that you are the author of this (Hypothetical) situation and you need to ask whether this decision or action is right or wrong implies to me that you still have severe problems and should seek professional help if you don't already know the correct answer to this question.

Also, IMHO, comparing this with abortion is either intentional deceit or a display of extreme ignorance. You seem to be assuming that people choose to have abortions simply because they find the prospect of taking a pregnancy to term "annoying".

I would agree that having an abortion simply because pregnancy is annoying would itself be highly immoral. But that's hardly the reason for most abortions.

But yes, I would personally say that it would be wrong for you to strangle a three year old child, and it would also be wrong for you to have had an abortion simply because you find pregnancy annoying.

Avoiding getting pregnant in the first place would be the moral action to take there.

So your hypothetical situation is an open and shut case for me, but hasn't done anything at all toward any considerations of whether or not abortions in general might be right or wrong. That would all depend upon the reason the abortion is being considered in the first place.

There is also the further controversy over when a fetus becomes a valid "Person".

Many people will argue that early abortions do not constitute the killing of a person because a fertilized egg does not constitute a person.

So there's that argument as well. And that argument cannot be carried over to a three-year-old child scenario.

So again, your comparison of your hypothetical situation with abortion is a deceitful and fraudulent comparison.

Why not just ask, "Would having an abortion solely because you find pregnancy annoying be immoral?"

I would say yes. That reason alone would be a highly immoral reason to have an abortion. But like I say, that's not the reason why most women have abortions. So its a moot point.

I have read each of your responses here, and I agree with just about everything you've said, except for one thing. You said,

"I would agree that having an abortion simply because pregnancy is annoying would itself be highly immoral. But that's hardly the reason for most abortions. "

This is what I've discovered. 21% of abortions are the result of a woman feeling she's not ready for the responsibility of having a child. I think it would be pretty annoying to have to be responsible for something you think your not ready to be responsible for. You might misconstrue this motive as responsible, but it is truly selfish. It is a selfish reason to destroy an innocent unborn child.

Another 21% of abortions are committed because the mother believes she just can't afford a child. I bet it would be pretty annoying to deprive yourself of your own personal wants just to feed a child you never really wanted in the first place. This indeed is another selfish reason for destroying the life of an innocent unborn child.

16% of mothers who chose abortion said that they were "concerned about how having baby would change her life". I must admit, it would be pretty annoying to to be forced to commit your valuable time to care for a child that you yourself never really wanted in the first place. Again, selfish. Again, it is the killing of an innocent life to avoid an annoyance.

There you have it. The majority of the atrocities of abortions are done to prevent an annoyance from ever being born.

[10CC]

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?

Three years old is pretty young. I would say that if a three year old child is annoying you the best thing for you to do is to seek professional help for yourself.

In your hypothetical situation the mere fact that you actually desire to strangle the child to death reveals to me that you are indeed the one who has a severe problem (in your hypothetical scenario)

More to the point, in reality, the fact that you are the author of this (Hypothetical) situation and you need to ask whether this decision or action is right or wrong implies to me that you still have severe problems and should seek professional help if you don't already know the correct answer to this question.

Also, IMHO, comparing this with abortion is either intentional deceit or a display of extreme ignorance. You seem to be assuming that people choose to have abortions simply because they find the prospect of taking a pregnancy to term "annoying".

I would agree that having an abortion simply because pregnancy is annoying would itself be highly immoral. But that's hardly the reason for most abortions.

But yes, I would personally say that it would be wrong for you to strangle a three year old child, and it would also be wrong for you to have had an abortion simply because you find pregnancy annoying.

Avoiding getting pregnant in the first place would be the moral action to take there.

So your hypothetical situation is an open and shut case for me, but hasn't done anything at all toward any considerations of whether or not abortions in general might be right or wrong. That would all depend upon the reason the abortion is being considered in the first place.

There is also the further controversy over when a fetus becomes a valid "Person".

Many people will argue that early abortions do not constitute the killing of a person because a fertilized egg does not constitute a person.

So there's that argument as well. And that argument cannot be carried over to a three-year-old child scenario.

So again, your comparison of your hypothetical situation with abortion is a deceitful and fraudulent comparison.

Why not just ask, "Would having an abortion solely because you find pregnancy annoying be immoral?"

I would say yes. That reason alone would be a highly immoral reason to have an abortion. But like I say, that's not the reason why most women have abortions. So its a moot point.

I have read each of your responses here, and I agree with just about everything you've said, except for one thing. You said,

"I would agree that having an abortion simply because pregnancy is annoying would itself be highly immoral. But that's hardly the reason for most abortions. "

This is what I've discovered. 21% of abortions are the result of a woman feeling she's not ready for the responsibility of having a child. I think it would be pretty annoying to have to be responsible for something you think your not ready to be responsible for. You might misconstrue this motive as responsible, but it is truly selfish. It is a selfish reason to destroy an innocent unborn child.

Another 21% of abortions are committed because the mother believes she just can't afford a child. I bet it would be pretty annoying to deprive yourself of your own personal wants just to feed a child you never really wanted in the first place. This indeed is another selfish reason for destroying the life of an innocent unborn child.

16% of mothers who chose abortion said that they were "concerned about how having baby would change her life". I must admit, it would be pretty annoying to to be forced to commit your valuable time to care for a child that you yourself never really wanted in the first place. Again, selfish. Again, it is the killing of an innocent life to avoid an annoyance.

There you have it. The majority of the atrocities of abortions are done to prevent an annoyance from ever being born.

How can it be selfish to give a foetus a fast track to heaven. It should be the ultimate aim of every christian.

[Sonofason]

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?

Three years old is pretty young. I would say that if a three year old child is annoying you the best thing for you to do is to seek professional help for yourself.

In your hypothetical situation the mere fact that you actually desire to strangle the child to death reveals to me that you are indeed the one who has a severe problem (in your hypothetical scenario)

More to the point, in reality, the fact that you are the author of this (Hypothetical) situation and you need to ask whether this decision or action is right or wrong implies to me that you still have severe problems and should seek professional help if you don't already know the correct answer to this question.

Also, IMHO, comparing this with abortion is either intentional deceit or a display of extreme ignorance. You seem to be assuming that people choose to have abortions simply because they find the prospect of taking a pregnancy to term "annoying".

I would agree that having an abortion simply because pregnancy is annoying would itself be highly immoral. But that's hardly the reason for most abortions.

But yes, I would personally say that it would be wrong for you to strangle a three year old child, and it would also be wrong for you to have had an abortion simply because you find pregnancy annoying.

Avoiding getting pregnant in the first place would be the moral action to take there.

So your hypothetical situation is an open and shut case for me, but hasn't done anything at all toward any considerations of whether or not abortions in general might be right or wrong. That would all depend upon the reason the abortion is being considered in the first place.

There is also the further controversy over when a fetus becomes a valid "Person".

Many people will argue that early abortions do not constitute the killing of a person because a fertilized egg does not constitute a person.

So there's that argument as well. And that argument cannot be carried over to a three-year-old child scenario.

So again, your comparison of your hypothetical situation with abortion is a deceitful and fraudulent comparison.

Why not just ask, "Would having an abortion solely because you find pregnancy annoying be immoral?"

I would say yes. That reason alone would be a highly immoral reason to have an abortion. But like I say, that's not the reason why most women have abortions. So its a moot point.

I have read each of your responses here, and I agree with just about everything you've said, except for one thing. You said,

"I would agree that having an abortion simply because pregnancy is annoying would itself be highly immoral. But that's hardly the reason for most abortions. "

This is what I've discovered. 21% of abortions are the result of a woman feeling she's not ready for the responsibility of having a child. I think it would be pretty annoying to have to be responsible for something you think your not ready to be responsible for. You might misconstrue this motive as responsible, but it is truly selfish. It is a selfish reason to destroy an innocent unborn child.

Another 21% of abortions are committed because the mother believes she just can't afford a child. I bet it would be pretty annoying to deprive yourself of your own personal wants just to feed a child you never really wanted in the first place. This indeed is another selfish reason for destroying the life of an innocent unborn child.

16% of mothers who chose abortion said that they were "concerned about how having baby would change her life". I must admit, it would be pretty annoying to to be forced to commit your valuable time to care for a child that you yourself never really wanted in the first place. Again, selfish. Again, it is the killing of an innocent life to avoid an annoyance.

There you have it. The majority of the atrocities of abortions are done to prevent an annoyance from ever being born.

How can it be selfish to give a foetus a fast track to heaven. It should be the ultimate aim of every christian.

No, just atheists.

[OnceConvinced]

But Atheists don't believe in Heaven so how can that be their goal?