Coming Home

Posted in Abortion, Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood | Tagged American Life League, Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, Negro Problem | 23 Comments

23 Responses

1. on February 1, 2010 at 7:01 PM saynsumthn

   If you want a detailed film about Sanger and Planned Parenthood and their eugenic connections get a copy of Maafa21- http://www.maafa21.com

   
   
2. on February 2, 2010 at 12:10 AM Tweets that mention Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Problem” « Coming Home -- Topsy.com

   […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stephanie Gwinn, Jo Ellen Davey Cohen and Not Abortion, Not Abortion. Not Abortion said: Margaret Sanger's 'Negro Problem” http://bit.ly/cRVMZz #abortion #prolife […]

   
   
3. on February 2, 2010 at 1:04 PM Siarlys Jenkins

   OK, this video makes a good case that Margaret Sanger was a conservative, as that term was understood among her contemporaries and during most of the 20th century. I infer that she was a sharp critic of the New Deal as well.

   I part company with her on a very fundamental point: birth control is indeed primarily about individual choice, not about national policy or the future of the human race. As far as any equitable, race-neutral, concern for total population the earth can support, history shows that prosperity is the best form of population control. Sanger’s observation about impoverished people having larger families, not actually limited to those of dark skin color, is empirically accurate. The more prosperity becomes general, the lower the birth rate. So, let’s bring on universal prosperity, and let voluntary family planning be a small part of that process.

   I wouldn’t oppose eugenics if we had perfect information examined by a perfect judge. But, as we all know, there is only one who is omniscient, and he isn’t running for office. I believe it would be gracious and wise of anyone who knew they were carrying genes which would inflict debilitating diseases on their children and grand-children to refrain from having biological children, and to adopt instead. I know of no acceptable legal framework to require anyone in that position to do so.

   
   
4. on February 3, 2010 at 9:15 AM Bethany

   I wouldn’t oppose eugenics if we had perfect information examined by a perfect judge. But, as we all know, there is only one who is omniscient, and he isn’t running for office. I believe it would be gracious and wise of anyone who knew they were carrying genes which would inflict debilitating diseases on their children and grand-children to refrain from having biological children, and to adopt instead. I know of no acceptable legal framework to require anyone in that position to do so.

   See, this is where the idea that you are truly pro-choice is shown to be false.

   You desire to see the “unfit” eliminated through eugenics- you just can’t see a way to make it legally happen.

   That you can’t figure out how to legally force women to abort their disabled children is the ONLY reason that you support a woman’s right to “choose”.

   If there were some way you could force women to kill their disabled babies, or could sterilize women who were disabled, sickly, or diseased, you would do so.

   
   
5. on February 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM Bethany

   But, as we all know, there is only one who is omniscient, and he isn’t running for office.

   Siarlys, which God do you refer to?

   Are you a Quaker, by any chance? I see you referring to God time after time, but never have I understood which God you are referring to.

   
   
6. on February 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM Bethany

   Siarlys, I also want you to admit that you are fully in support of a doctor using his or her authority to suggest to a woman that it is in her best interest and her baby’s best interest to abort her baby when she finds that it has some type of deformity or disability.

   That in itself is Eugenics, and coercion, and you support that wholeheartedly, as according to your many, many posts over the last few weeks and the blog post on your own site.

   I think you need to admit that if you were a doctor, you would advise women to abort their disabled babies.

   If you deny this, you would be lying, because you have made it clear that you feel that it is irresponsible and downright cruel to let a disabled unborn baby continue to live.

   You say “you WOULD support eugenics”, but the truth is, you already do, don’t you?

   You ARE an advocate of eugenics. Right now.

   
   
7. on February 3, 2010 at 11:31 PM Siarlys Jenkins

   Bethany, you miss my point entirely. Incidentally, to the best of my limited knowledge, there is only one God. To ask “which God?” denies the lesson Elijah taught when he faced off the priests of Baal. “For surely he is a god…” No, he wasn’t. There was nothing to respond. Elohim and Baal were not fighting it out in the cosmos, with the victor bestowing blessings on his team. There was only one, universal, transcendent. The only point of difference, here on earth, is our pathetic but necessary attempts to incompletely understand that God, who for reasons of his own deigned to create and to communicate with us. As C.S. Lewis said, backhandedly through the mouth of Screwtape, for some inexplicable reason he loves these hairless little bipeds. And no, I’m not a Quaker. I don’t have the patience to be a Quaker.

   OK, back to the question of eugenics. Suppose you held in your hand a hypdermic needle, and you could inject ALS into a healthy newborn baby by the use of this needle. Would it not be unconscionable and cruel of you to do so? I am not talking about who is more fit, I am talking about inflicting a known and diagnosable disease upon a helpless baby. Now, suppose I knew that the seed of this disease was contained in my own sperm. I, for one, would have a vasectomy so that no baby of mine had to suffer from that disease. I would be honest about that with any woman I thought to marry. The personal pleasure of knowing that the baby I’m raising contains MY seed would be secondary to the suffering I would be inflicting.

   I am not a chimpanzee with the instincts to rip a suckling baby from its mother’s breast because it is some other male’s baby, bash its head against a rock, and proceed to impregnate the mother with MY seed. I am a human being, made in the image of God. I am better than that. I would make the selfless choice. If my wife wanted the experience of growing a baby in her own body, I would consent to artificial insemination, and not care whose it was. The baby would be mine. If she accepted simple adoption, that would be fine. If it were possible to sort out my sperm, find some that were definitely NOT carriers, that would be fine too.

   When I say there is no law to enforce such a choice on every man and woman, I’m saying something much more nuanced than you seem to grasp. Oh, I could write a law which would have that effect. But, I have studied our constitution in some depth, legally and historically. I know that the most important thing our constitution does is to define what the powers of government are, and limit them.

   James Madison, when it was first proposed that the federal government should build and maintain national roads, responded that he could see no authority to do so in the constitution, but he thought it a good idea, and would support an amendment to authorize it. Others, more opportunistic, found a way to twist the existing language into a semblance of authority. To impose eugenics by law would require granting to the government vast powers it does not currently have, and I don’t want it to have those powers. Further, it would mean entrusting Congress to define what is and is not a proper criterion for eugenics. I am confident that congress would get that wrong, many times over.

   I might flatter myself that I could get it right, if only I had unlimited powers to write and administer the law myself. But, while I have a high opinion of my opinion, I know I’m not that good. I can’t tell you where and how I would err, if I had that power of self-inspection, I would be close to perfection. But I know, somewhere along the way, I would make a mistake. So would anyone. So no, we cannot pass general laws on the subject. It must remain a matter for individuals, and individual families, to grapple with and pray over and come to terms with.

   Now, as to doctors using their authority, I see a much broader question than you pose, but it does answer your question. If a doctor is handing me an antibiotic, much less proposing to perform an abortion on a woman I love, I expect the doctor to fully explain the benefits and liabilities, and then back off and let me (or her) make a decision. My mother was referred to a cardiac specialist for high blood pressure. She’s been taking some medication, with modest success. The cardiologist recommended a new prescription medication, which is “the latest thing” to those who respond to fads within their profession. My mother asked questions. The doctor gave her the title of a study. My mother read the study. It showed that the new medication was no more effective than the older one, except possibly for people with diabetes, and that it increased the risk of death from stroke. She declined to take the new medication. The doctor still thinks she should.

   We have a lot of work to do on the way doctors treat their patients. We have a lot of work to do on the general knowledge and self-confidence patients bring to their own medical care. Doctors have some expertise. They can be helpful. But they are never the last word. That does for abortion too. Are there reasons to recommend abortion in the event of certain test results? There are. Are there reasons not to follow the recommendation? There are. Are there moral convictions which would rule out abortion? Definitely. Whose choice is it, in the end? The woman concerned. Not her doctor.

   If I were a doctor, and a trisomy-21 test came back positive, I would explain what the normal genes look like, what the defect in genetic replication is, what it means in terms of the characteristics of how the baby would turn out. There is a range of possibilities, I would cover the entire range. I would give examples I know of — including, but not limited to, the young woman with a relatively mild case of Down’s syndrome who had her tubes tied before her wedding.

   I would explain that abortion is one option. I would tell her, there is a good deal of moral argument about whether we even have the right to abort. I would tell her some percentage of women who abort experience depression and remorse. I would tell her some women feel it was the right decision. I would offer her Vitamin B-6 and zinc supplements, before, during, and after whatever decision she made. I would suggest she take some time, seek any other opinions she wanted to. I might even tell her that if it was my wife who was pregnant, and got that test result, I would advise her to terminate the pregnancy, not to inflict those badly replicated genes on our baby. But that is only my opinion. She is the one who has to make the decision.

   If it were a matter of rape, I would tell her I can’t even try to put myself in the position she is in. I would tell her that some women just want all trace of the rape out of their body, they can’t conceive of carrying the result of that rape for nine months. I would tell her some women find that the baby growing within them provides the strongest possible way to rise above it and put it behind them. (Cf. one of my favorite movies, The Spitfire Grill, although Percy’s father, the one who raped her, beat her up, resulting in miscarriage. But Percy wanted the baby.)

   I would also point out that the longer she waits, the closer her pregnancy becomes to a fully formed baby. If she really wants to abort, it is best done sooner. If she waits until the third trimester, she has already made her decision. I can’t and won’t abort in the third trimester, not unless it is the only alternative to death in childbirth.

   You asked three compound questions. I think I’ve answered them.

   
   
8. on February 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM Bethany

   Bethany, you miss my point entirely. Incidentally, to the best of my limited knowledge, there is only one God. To ask “which God?” denies the lesson Elijah taught when he faced off the priests of Baal. “For surely he is a god…” No, he wasn’t. There was nothing to respond.

   I ask which God, because I believe there are false Gods and the true God. I wanted to know which God you believed in. So you believe in the God of the Bible? Of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The God who came down from Heaven in the form of a man and died for the sins of the world? Do you worship Christ?

   OK, back to the question of eugenics. Suppose you held in your hand a hypdermic needle, and you could inject ALS into a healthy newborn baby by the use of this needle. Would it not be unconscionable and cruel of you to do so?

   Absolutely.

   You know what else would be cruel? Taking a child who has cancer and shooting him in the head because he has the disease.

   That is precisely what you advocate in aborting a child who already has a disease in the womb.

   Allowing a child in the womb who has a disease to continue living, and loving him despite the illness that you did not inflict on him, is NOT the same as GIVING the child the disease. I am amazed that you seem to think this is the case. You are comparing apples to popsicle sticks.

   Is loving your born child who has developed autism the same as injecting him with mercury in an attempt to cause him to become autistic? According to your logic, there is no difference! That makes no sense.

   I am not talking about who is more fit,

   Oh yes you are.

   I am talking about inflicting a known and diagnosable disease upon a helpless baby.

   Okay, read my response above. The two are NOT COMPARABLE. They are NOT THE SAME.

   Now, suppose I knew that the seed of this disease was contained in my own sperm. I, for one, would have a vasectomy so that no baby of mine had to suffer from that disease. I would be honest about that with any woman I thought to marry. The personal pleasure of knowing that the baby I’m raising contains MY seed would be secondary to the suffering I would be inflicting.

   Well, Siarlys, suppose you didn’t know that you had this disease, but you found out your child has this disease AFTER he was born. Will you be inflicting the disease on him if you don’t suffocate him?

   Answering the rest in further posts.

   
   
9. on February 3, 2010 at 11:50 PM Bethany

   When I say there is no law to enforce such a choice on every man and woman, I’m saying something much more nuanced than you seem to grasp.

   Oh I grasp it just fine! The unfit and imperfect are burdens to society. They disrupt the gene pool. They must be killed or prevented from existing.

   James Madison, when it was first proposed that the federal government should build and maintain national roads, responded that he could see no authority to do so in the constitution, but he thought it a good idea, and would support an amendment to authorize it. Others, more opportunistic, found a way to twist the existing language into a semblance of authority. To impose eugenics by law would require granting to the government vast powers it does not currently have, and I don’t want it to have those powers. Further, it would mean entrusting Congress to define what is and is not a proper criterion for eugenics. I am confident that congress would get that wrong, many times over.

   Like I said, you just can’t figure out how you could force people to kill their unfit babies without negative consequences for yourself happening as a result. If you could, you’d go for it in a heartbeat.

   I might flatter myself that I could get it right, if only I had unlimited powers to write and administer the law myself.

   Case in point.

   
   
10. on February 4, 2010 at 10:45 PM Siarlys Jenkins

    You missed it again Bethany. I denied that I can be trusted with such powers, and you act as if I claim them. I could figure out how to force people to kill their babies, any darned fool could figure that out, but I don’t want to live under a government which possessed the authority to do so. There would of course be an underground resistance to such laws, just as their was in late Middle Kingdom Egypt, as recorded in the Book of Exodus. I want each family to be free to make its own choice.

    “Admit it Bethany…” well, no, I won’t finish that sentence, because I have a good deal of contempt for your use of that phrase. I will not try to put words into your mouth. I will say that it seems to me that you are afraid to face what I’m really saying, because I’m not the demon you want to find yourself fighting. You have to reduce what I say to something I didn’t say to reassure yourself that there is no possibility you might be even a little bit wrong. I don’t ask you to accept my position. You obviously believe passionately in what you have said. But try to have more confidence in the truth of your own belief, your ability to sustain your own principles, without having to blind yourself to what I’ve said as your source of justification.

    Now where we differ on abortion is, I believe there is a period when instead of asking “Shall I destroy my baby?” I can ask “Is this the raw material I want to grow my baby from?” I don’t believe that just because a sperm cell has penetrated an egg, we are now past that point. I do believe that, some weeks before natural delivery, we are past that point. The period in between is what we are arguing about.

    I had a brother who died of cancer at age 34. Why wouldn’t I shoot him in the head? Because, he would experience that as death, and I would be deprived of the last few months left to talk to him. If I could shoot him and have him spring back to life, 24 hours later, with all his memories and personality intact, free of the cancer, I might have considered it. He might have requested it. He did ask his doctors to try a harsh form of chemotherapy. They initially said “We couldn’t do that, it might kill you.” He suggested they let him take that risk, since the cancer WOULD kill him in less than a year anyway, and the treatment MIGHT help. It didn’t, but it was worth trying.

    A zygote doesn’t experience anything that happens to it as death. Neither does a blastocyst or an embryo or a flat set of three layers of tissue. At some point, a fetus does. That point is very important to me. You consider it an artificial boundary. There lies our difference.

    P.S. Glad we agree on STDs. If marriage were more the norm, and children mostly born within marriage, there would be a lot less abortions, and that would be a good thing for many reasons. We’d still have a few things to argue about.

    
    
11. on February 4, 2010 at 11:04 PM Siarlys Jenkins

    I believe in one God who created all that is, seen and unseen. I believe that God is revealed in portions of the Tanch, and that Jesus Christ was the Word made flesh. I am open to the possibility that Mohammed also received some revelation from the same God, or perhaps was simply engaged in an attempt to comprehend the same God. In any case, I agree with Malcolm X’s statement “The God we worship is the one who created the universe. Isn’t that the God you worship?” I understand that the Arabic al-Lah simply means The God, the same term being used in Arabic translations of the Christian Bible. I am dubious about the many attempts made to reduce Christian faith to a series of doctrines and formulas, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox and Coptic. My taste in hymns suggests a leaning toward unitarianism, lower case, without prejudice toward my Trinitarians brothers and sisters. “He has shown you, oh man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” I do not worship bronze, wood, or stone, the work of men’s hands.

    As to our current discussion, I understand that if I am totally and utterly wrong about when a unique new human being exists, or whether personhood and consciousness are even relevant, I am accountable to God for that. God may be merciful, as Gerard invoked God to be merciful to Susan Hill, but I am accountable. I worry about that. I have not come to the conclusion that I am wrong, but I consider it. We all fall short of the glory of God. Your way may be safer, in a Voltairean sort of way, and I’m sure that has significance for many, but it comes with what I consider to be moral dillemmas of its own.

    I drove a paratransit bus for five years. I’ve seen a wide range of physical and cognitive disabilities, congenital and traumatic. I remember a young woman with severe brain injuries in a wheel chair who would give me a faint hug with the one arm that still had some motion, and always smiled to see me. I remember the woman with the 40 year old body half my height who ran up to me and called me her buddy. I remember the man who was blind, barely able to comprehend speech, whose favorite past-time was to dig whatever he could find out of his pants and smear it on the seat — who on arrival at a day program was dragged of to the bathroom crying “No, no, no!” I remember people who wanted nothing more than to spend the day curled up in the sunlight on the floor, but who had to be shoved out the door of their group home and bundled onto the bus, because that’s the way the state paid for their care.

    The latter two are examples of whom I could say without hesitation, it would have been a great mercy if they had never been born. Would I slit their throat? No, they are here now, we may not do that. If, as I believe, their condition was genetic, if such a condition could be identified in the first trimester, would I have recommended abortion of the tissue with the genetic abnormality? Absolutely — and from the fresh healthy tissue of another sperm and another egg, the same mother could grow a healthy baby, the one she was undoubtedly praying for in the first place. If you consider that the fertilized egg IS the person we may not destroy, then of course you would not make the same choice.

    
    
12. on February 4, 2010 at 11:29 PM Bethany

    The latter two are examples of whom I could say without hesitation, it would have been a great mercy if they had never been born.

    I will try to answer the rest of your comment tomorrow, but let me ask you this.

    Why is it a great mercy to wish these people out of existence, but not a great mercy to want to care for them and show them love and compassion?

    The problem you have expressed says more about the governments’ inability to truly give actual care to the poor and needy than it does about a need to keep these disabled people from existing – it speaks volumes about a true need for individual people to reach out with their own time and help these people.

    I believe that you advocate for more government, don’t you? Why is that, based on what you have just told me about the way they treat these people?

    Your scenario does not say to me, “those people shouldn’t be here- or shouldn’t have been born”. If anything, it says to me, those people given the opportunity to know they are loved and valuable, no matter what!

    Why is their life any less valuable than your own, Siarlys? Because you wouldn’t personally want to live like they do? You speak of people who have so much love in their hearts. They would never wish you out of existence. That woman who hugs you every time she sees you- how do you think she would feel if she were able to know that you wished she didn’t exist?

    You say some of these people wanted nothing more than to lie next to a window, and were not given the opportunity to because of the state’s manner of care? Well, isn’t the state the problem then, and not the person with the disability?

    
    
13. on February 4, 2010 at 11:31 PM Bethany

    When I say you advocate for more government, I mean that you support government programs to assist the needy or disabled. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    
    
14. on February 4, 2010 at 11:39 PM Bethany

    Siarlys, why are you so afraid of suffering?

    Everyone must suffer at some point and time in life.

    Why do you seem so afraid of it?

    No one wants to suffer. But suffering is a part of life, and no one is going to escape having some kind of suffering…some suffer more than others, but everyone suffers.

    We people can use our sufferings, whether great or small, to help ease the burdens of others….to share our love, to fill each other with encouragement, to see and experience the world in a different and more profound way.

    Our sufferings do not have to be in vain.

    Why do you think death is better than suffering?

    
    
15. on February 4, 2010 at 11:54 PM Bethany

    Okay, you said you are a Unitarianist. That makes sense, and I had a feeling it was something similar, based on your comments. Now I can think that I can make better sense of where you’re coming from when you write. I appreciate it.

    
    
16. on February 4, 2010 at 11:57 PM Bethany

    Wait, I may have misworded that. You lean towards unitariaism..but you didn’t actually say straight out that is what you are. Just wanted to clarify that I was not trying to put words in your mouth.

    
    
17. on February 5, 2010 at 8:16 PM Siarlys Jenkins

    Thank you for the clarification. We are beginning to understand each other. I am not a Unitarian, capital U, member of a Unitarian Church. There are a lot of things I don’t see eye to eye on, including I’m not sure they still believe in God any more, although they originally were Unitarian Baptists. There is a joke in the West Virginia hills that a Unitarian is a Baptist who can’t count. I believe that doctrines about the Trinity are something like three blind men feeling an elephant. They sense three different aspects, they recognize there is some connection, but if they try to define what all the connections and inter-relationships are… they would be Greek philosophers. I have a problem with what Greek philosophers imposed upon Christian faith.

    Moving on, I don’t wish people who are in the world out of it. I have occasionally seen posts from people who said “I’m glad my parents didn’t abort me.” Well, they didn’t. If you are here, abortion is not an issue for you, so relax. I was actually recognized for being able to coax people on and off the bus who most drivers couldn’t handle — they related well to me, and I appreciated that. They are here, they are alive, of course we have to be gracious to them, and not be condescending or patronizing about it either. On the other hand, there are some you have to speak loudly and firmly to. But, if we could prevent another person having to deal with that illness, I believe that is fine.

    Why am I afraid of suffering? Any sensible person would be afraid of suffering, just as any sensible person would be afraid of death, but we do all have to die eventually, and if there is anyone who hasn’t had to suffer, I never heard of them. Most of what we do with our lives is an attempt to lessen suffering, for ourselves, or if we have the moral sense to do so, of others. Agriculture is about reducing the possibility we will suffer from hunger. America may have overdone that. Vaccinations are about reducing the suffering from disease. Mechanization, up to a point, reduces the suffering of debilitating forms of labor which can really cause life-long muscle pain and skeletal deformity.

    If suffering comes from a cause I cannot prevent, or comes to me as a natural consequence of failing to to what I could have done to prevent it, it is a part of life, to be met in whatever manner I have to meet it, overcome if possible, endured if necessary. But there is nothing good about it for its own sake. Why are you so anxious to glorify suffering?

    We could probably find some common ground on government programs. There is a legitimate role for government, but it can make things worse rather than better. It has really messed up provision for people with disabilities by setting one-size-fits-all rules and regulations, which is a natural tendency of government, and overlooks the tremendous spectrum and variety of individual needs. On the other hand, if we leave it all up to individual or community response, it probably wouldn’t come close to meeting the need. People would rather pay taxes than actually provide care themselves in person, unless of course it is their paid job, in which case affection does develop, but the paycheck is essential. That could be a whole discussion site in itself.

    
    
18. on February 7, 2010 at 9:22 AM Bethany

    They are here, they are alive, of course we have to be gracious to them, and not be condescending or patronizing about it either.

    But can’t you see that the way you have expressed yourself here sounds as though you are resentful of the fact that you “have” to be gracious to them, because they are here?

    “have to”
    “have to”
    “have to”.

    Think about the way that sounds. It sounds like you are resentful of being forced to tolerate the “unfit”.

    But there is nothing good about it for its own sake. Why are you so anxious to glorify suffering?

    Siarlys, why do you personally believe that God allows people to suffer?

    
    
19. on February 8, 2010 at 4:39 PM Dan

    Thorton Wilder wrote a play called “The Angel that Troubled the Waters” which is excerpted here:

    http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/bridges/transformation/bethesdastory.html

    The key phrase is:

    In Love’s service only the wounded soldiers can serve.

    
    
20. on February 8, 2010 at 7:51 PM Siarlys Jenkins

    Why do I believe that God allows people to suffer? God gave us free will for a lot of reasons. One is, if he made bionic robots programmed to do the right thing and praise him daily on cue, it wouldn’t mean much. He wants to see if those who are made in his image, or according to some hymns, the entire creation, will praise him of our / its own accord. Also, while I don’t pretend to know all the reasons why (My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord), I have a sense that we are supposed to struggle with trying to get things right, for ourselves, for our fellow humans, and for the creation we have been given as stewards. God doesn’t MAKE us do it right, he let’s us fumble with it, and learn from our mistakes. He doesn’t IMPOSE suffering, nor does he intervene universally to save us from suffering we create for ourselves.

    There was a movie on TV some thirty years ago, which started with an unmarried pregnant women who had sought an illegal abortion, and hadn’t made her connection. Her mother figured it out when she got home, and told her “Honey, its a sin against God.” The daughter tearfully exclaimed “There is no God!” Mom got a little angry, but lovingly, and answered “Oh yes there is! And he didn’t get you into this mess, and he’s not going to get you out of it.”

    Even though I was then and am still pro-choice, I loved that answer. I’m not sure I even believed in God at the time. But it is so true — we suffer because of situations we get ourselves into, and God is not going to get us out of them.

    As to your imputing resentment to my choice of wording, I think you are reading what you want to believe into what I said. Abstractly I might resent it. But, when in the course of my work I have in front of me a flesh and blood person, however incapable, someone who has a name and a face, who can stand up and walk, however uncertainly, there is no time or place for resentment.

    
    
21. on February 8, 2010 at 8:03 PM Bethany

    Siarlys, I asked you, “Why do you believe that God allows people to suffer”.

    You then proceeded to answer the question, “why do you believe that God gives people free will?”

    That is not what I asked.

    Nor did I ever imply that God IMPOSES suffering on others. I asked why He ALLOWS it.

    
    
22. on February 8, 2010 at 8:41 PM Bethany

    we suffer because of situations we get ourselves into, and God is not going to get us out of them.

    So what does a baby who is born with a disease do to have deserved to suffer?

    What does a woman who loses a baby through miscarriage or stillbirth do to cause her suffering?

    
    
23. on February 9, 2010 at 9:00 AM Bethany

    I think you are reading what you want to believe into what I said. Abstractly I might resent it.

    In one sentence, you say I’m only reading what I want to believe into what you say.
    In the second sentence, you admit that what I say has merit.

    
    

Comments are closed.