Answering the problem of evil (vs good) Atheism Ethics Eugenics etc Evolutionary materialism's amorality Logic and First Principles of right reason Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

Logic & First Principles, 16: The problem of playing God (when we don’t — cannot — know how)

Spread the love

In discussing the attempted brain hacking of monkeys, I made a comment about refraining from playing God. This sparked a sharp reaction, then led to an onward exchange. This puts on the table the captioned issue . . . which it seems to me is properly part of our ongoing logic and first principles reflections. Here, the other big piece of axiology (the study of the valuable) ethics, with side-orders of limitations in epistemology. So, kindly allow me to headline:

KF, 10: >>It is interesting what sparked the sharpness of exchange above:

KF: Playing God without his knowledge base, wisdom and benevolence is asking for trouble.

A78 is right:

all I’m saying is proceed with caution we shouldn’t play God because we don’t know how.

Some humility, some prudence, some caution — thus, a least regrets decision principle — is therefore well advised.

A song on Poker as a metaphor for life, once put this . . . I cite as heard on scratchy AM radio decades ago:

know when to hold
know when to fold
know when to walk away
know when to run
you never count your money
sitting at the table
there’ll be time enough
for counting
when the dealing’s
done
[See: https://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kenny+rogers/the+gambler_20077886.html ]

I add a vid:

Let us again cite his cautions:

A78: I find this comment to be in poor taste “Should we tell the people that you’re going to die because we shouldn’t play God” It really doesn’t justify or prove the point of using or doing this type of research.

It’s more of a manipulative comment trying to force somebody into a moral dilemma (obviously most people are not going to deny someone life saving medication) but it certainly doesn’t prove any point. As an opposite and equal extreme, one can same the same for the opposite prescriptive. IE “We shouldn’t play God with other living creatures genomes because we could accidental create a fatal mutation in the Species which caused its extinction”

Simple slip ups in this field can cause the deaths of millions of people if not billions with a virus that was genetically engineered or something that came naturally that sprouted off of our genetic tampering.

The other scenario could happen after 100 years of genetic manipulations of the human species, a new virus or other new microbes now sharing the new genes that we created, come into existence some of which we might not be able to fight off. The other possibility is permanent genetic defects that show up way later in a generation because of our meddling.

In a way, when we mess with the genome, It is similar to introducing a new species to an ecosystem that is not ready to support it. We do not know the impact or the effects that could happen down the line but they can be devastating, and often with proceeded these was good intentions, Hence “the road to hell is paved in good intentions”

Wisdom requires due humility to recognise the potential for unintended havoc.

We may turn our further thoughts on a premise, that BB intends to persuade us towards the truth and the right as he perceives it. That is, he implies a thesis I have often highlighted here at UD in recent times: our thought-volitional inner life is morally governed. So governed, by KNOWN — repeat, KNOWN (and undeniable) — duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness and justice, etc. This, on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial (we do not operate on the global premise of who is the most effective manipulative liar). Where, such is attested by the witness-voice of conscience. Which cannot be its grounds, its authentic roots.

So, what is?

We here find ourselves facing the IS-OUGHT gap, and post Hume there is only one place it can be bridged on pain of ungrounded ought: the root of reality. We need an inherently good, sound, sufficient root for reality in order for our whole inner life to make sense, an inner life we cannot set aside as inconvenient. Where, it is easy to see that for such a root, there is but one serious candidate. (As this is a philosophical exercise [and not an undue imposition], if you dispute this, simply provide and justify a serious alternative: _________ , addressing comparative difficulties: _________ )

The candidate is: the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our manifest nature.

And, it will be readily apparent that when one deals with powerful, potentially destructive ill-understood domains fraught with moral hazards, a due recognition that we are not omnipotent, we are not omniscient, we are not omnibenevolent, would be appropriate. As Cicero summed up, conscience is a law, prudence is a law.

So, for one, instead of playing heedlessly with gene engineering fire, we should learn from the history of damaging industrial development, spewing all sorts of chemicals into the environment (and into our foods), importing invasive species and the challenges of nuclear technology and should proceed with humility, prudence, soundness. How many times have we been promised sci-tech, technocratic utopias that failed? Failed, with awful consequences and costs?

It is not for nothing that Hippocrates and others taught us to ponder the duties of the learned professional in society (and environment).

First, do no harm.

Second,

art is long,
life is short,
opportunity fleeting,

[experience treacherous,]
judgement difficult.

[Thanks SM]

The professional must therefore act with due humility and prudence, understanding the doctrine of unintended consequences in a deeply interconnected world. Where, a properly cultivated conscience is a part of the picture. Where, part of that education is and should be, the lessons of our civilisation’s tradition of ethical theism. For, we need to recognise that we are not God.

Something, that rage at our creator, the source of reality, wisdom and sound moral government, is liable to forget.

Anger, is a blinding emotion.>>

Food for thought. END

34 Replies to “Logic & First Principles, 16: The problem of playing God (when we don’t — cannot — know how)

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Logic & First Principles, 16: The problem of playing God (when we don’t — cannot — know how)

  2. 2
    Brother Brian says:

    We “play God” all of the time. Modern (and even ancient) agriculture was playing God. Medicine is playing God. Warfare is playing God. Our judicial system is playing God.

    Anything we do has the potential to have negative consequences, even things that were done with the best of intentions. You don’t have to look any further than the church’s interaction with indigenous peoples to see this. Should we stop research and innovation because of this? Of course not.

    Let’s look at our playing God by developing vaccines. These vaccines have greatly reduced infant mortality and great suffering. Only ignorant and dangerous fools would advocate against them. But let’s extend this further. What if we could develop vaccines that a young woman could take that would prevent Down’s syndrome in future children? Or prevent mental illness or retardation? Would you be opposed to this?

    Or, if a vaccine could prevent homosexuality, or gender dispirit. Would you support its use?

  3. 3
    Brother Brian says:

    I would agree that some type of oversight on research topics, but the part that scares me is who makes these decisions?

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, too often, we do play God and fail to address adequately ethical and epistemological concerns: prudence is a law (and indeed, tort recognises this). The pollution crisis, extinctions and abuse of science to commit war crimes come to mind. The question is not just who makes decisions but how. Rule of just law in a democratic polity raises a raft of issues that we are not handling well just now. You also seem to be out of date on genetics etc, there is and can be no vaccine to cure habits of life, even destructive and addictive ones. KF

  5. 5
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    You also seem to be out of date on genetics etc, there is and can be no vaccine to cure habits of life, even destructive and addictive ones.

    I assume you are referring to homosexuality and gender disphoria. The evidence is not conclusive as to their cause, and there may very well be a genetic link. In fact, it is very unlikely that there is not a genetic link. But regardless, I was using it as an example. If a young woman could take a pill that would prevent any of her future children being homosexual, would you support its use?

    If you would prefer to avoid a debate on the morality of homosexuality, let’s try another hypothetical. What if a carrier of haemophilia could take a pill that would prevent any of her ova that carries the haemophilia gene from becoming fertilized, would this be morally acceptable?

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, everything humans do and are is genetically linked — genetics gives us abilities. No complicated volitionally involved behaviour has ever been shown to be genetically determined, as in in effect programmed, uncontrollable behaviour.Social/cultural influences are known strong factors but do not determine behaviour either. Start with alcoholism and work down from that. As a consequence the sort of language you use about taking pills and innoculations is utterly misdirected. And indeed, underlying is the root problem of genetic etc determinism: such undermines the responsible, rational freedom necessary to genuine reasoning, warranting, knowing and leads straight to self-referential incoherence. The materialistic picture of our mindedness and behaviour fundamentally fails. KF

  7. 7
    ScuzzaMan says:

    The materialistic picture of our mindedness and behaviour fundamentally fails.

    Because it is a mechanistic picture, a mode of thinking about our world based in 18th Century techne and thus thinking. It is a strong component of all explanations of the unknown that we use the highest technology we understand to explain (or at least attempt to understand / tame /assimilate) by metaphor that which we do not understand.

    But life is not mechanistic and mind is not deterministic. Genetics too is neither. And so the explanation is more a wish-fulfillment fantasy, a plea and insistence to the universe to behave in a manner that I am capable of comprehending. Rejection of our failure is infantile rage. (Ever notice how angry the dispassionate priests of logic get when you question their axioms?)
    Anyway, it’s a shame your memory failed you on this quote, KF:
    Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.
    … because you accidentally omitted some more very sage and ancient advice for the scientists and science of today:

    “Experiment/Experience/Proof is perilous”

    Pick which one you prefer. Like the theologians say, emphasis IS exegesis.

  8. 8
    ScuzzaMan says:

    P.S.

    “Linked”?

    It’s always fun to have someone shout at you that “Correlation is not causation!” but how odd how invisible this vial principle becomes when it also becomes inconvenient.
    What we’re learning about genetics that the mechanistic materialists never imagined possible, is epigenetics, in which behaviour causes genetic change.
    I call it Lamarck’s Revenge.

    Linked? The question is not, are they linked? The question is, in which direction is the linkage operating?

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    SM, you are right, IIRC it was “experience treacherous” I learned, likely in the sense of unreliable guide. KF

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Went digging in the Greek, found sphaleros, A likely to make one stumble or trip metaph., slippery, perilous, http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cg.....:8:165.LSJ

  11. 11
    ScuzzaMan says:

    You’re welcome, KF.
    But HOW did those un-evolved ancients come by such wisdom? They hardly knew anything!
    Genetic entropy is as real as all the other kinds. Perhaps moral entropy is, too?

  12. 12
    Brother Brian says:

    KF, your avoidance of my questions is very telling. My hypotheticals were directly in line with your OP and playing God. Let’s try again.

    If there was a pill that a haemophilia carrier could take that would prevent the fertilization of the her ova that contain the haemophilia gene, would it be morally acceptable for her to take it? What about vaccines that could protect someone from STDs?

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, haemophilia is not a voluntary-involved matter of one’s complicated behaviour. There is no need to multiply cases upon cases of imaginary moral dilemmas, we already sufficiently know that we are ill-equipped to play God precisely because we are both fallible and morally struggling. KF

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    SM, humans face the same predicaments now as then. Some are reflective, deeply reflective — the start of the love of wisdom, aka philosophy. Where also, to fear God has been said to be the start of true knowledge. Given genetic entropy, perhaps it is we who are their inferiors. KF

  15. 15
    Brother Brian says:

    KF@13, so, if I am reading you correctly, you would not support a pill that a haemophilia carrier could take that would prevent her ova with the faulty gene from being fertilized. But, I assume, you would have no problem with her deciding not to have any children to prevent the risk of her having children with haemophilia.

    But what about my other example. Would you support the use of a vaccine that could prevent STDs?

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, I have pointed out that an endless chain of hypotheticals is distractive rather than cogent. The pivotal issue is: are we finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed? Manifestly, guilty on all counts — kindly, read and ponder Hippocrates of Cos in the OP. Such means God’s job is well above our paygrade. We need to have careful ethical, administrative and legal regulation of powerful sci-tech endeavours as a direct consequence and must know the difference between genuine study and that vicious curiosity that foments destructive abuse of sci-tech. Where, we have the compounding factor that too many fail to understand that even our reasoning faculties are morally governed by known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice and more. Such points to the evident law of our morally governed nature, something else that is nowadays too often ignored or even derided and dismissed; never mind, what it means, that the linked IS-OUGHT gap can only be bridged in the world roots. The resultant chaos is increasingly manifest as our civilisation embarks on a needless voyage of folly — much as Plato warned. Shipwreck is staring us in the face and ever so many are in denial. KF

  17. 17
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    BB, I have pointed out that an endless chain of hypotheticals is distractive rather than cogent.

    Vaccines for STDs are not hypotheticals. And, since they exist, can you please finally answer a very simple question. Would you support their use.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, most of what you have put up is hypotheticals. Even where there are particular cases that attach to real world developments, there are un-addressed complexities (e.g. how many strains of HPV are NOT covered by vaccines developed, what are side effects and risks otherwise, what do we know on rise of resistant strains or on how novel virus strains emerge) leading to the doctrine of unintended, unanticipated consequences. Again, the core matter is that given our intellectual and moral limitations and challenges, we are ill-equipped to address the moral hazards of punching above our pay grade on relevant matters. We are best advised not to play God as we are utterly incompetent to do so. What we can do better is to address the direct proposed acts in front of us. For example, given that evils are corrupting and tainting the premise, let us do evil that hopefully good may come is absurd. Second to that, we should act with prudence where we have foresight enough, to avert putting ourselves in the dilemma, which of two manifest evils is least ruinous, short and long term. Third, where we are forced into such a choice, we need to acknowledge the kind of dilemma we face and recognise the errors that brought us to such a sad pass, seeking if possible Napoleon’s famed third alternative: if a clever commander locks his opponent up to two bad alternatives, the opponent will invariably choose the third. KF

    PS: As the proper focus of the thread is addressing the root problem of playing God, I decline the tangent leading to a distraction likely to obfuscate the primary focal point. And yes, this is a Napoleon third alternative. Do you acknowledge that we are morally governed, face bounded and fallible rationality that is too often tainted by ill-will, may become trapped in corrupt, evil, ruinous patterns, and need redemptive transformation?

  19. 19
    Brother Brian says:

    KF@18, getting you to answer a simple question is like pulling teeth.

    We play god when we give kids vaccines for measles, polio. Mumps, etc. And no intelligent person disagrees with this. Yet you balk at the concept of giving kids a vaccine that will prevent some strains of HPV, strains that have been linked to cervical cancer. I assume your hesitancy is because HPV is contracted by sexual activity whereas measles etc. are not. This in spite of the fact that many woman contract HPV even though they have never had sex with anyone but their husband.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but your opposition to STD vaccines is because you believe that people deserve to pay consequences for sexual activity that you find immoral.

    I decline the tangent leading to a distraction likely to obfuscate the primary focal point.

    This issue is directly related to the primary focal point of your OP. The fact that you will have difficulty justifying your position on STD vaccines does not mean it is a tangent and a distraction. Quite the contrary, it is an excellent issue to flesh out the discussion on playing God.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    We play god when we give kids vaccines for measles, polio. Mumps, etc.

    No, we play human when we do that. And your hypotheticals just expose your desperation.

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, that’s called setting up and knocking over a strawman. KF

  22. 22
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    BB, that’s called setting up and knocking over a strawman.

    How so? I have asked a very simple question, and made a couple assumptions which you can certainly correct me on. I will try to simplify it even further:

    1) Do you support the use of vaccines for mumps, measles and polio?

    2) Do you support the use of vaccines for Hep A and Hep B?

    3) Do you support the use of vaccines for shingles?

    4) Do you support the use of vaccines for HIV and HPV?

    I think your answer to these questions could open this up for a very interesting discussion that is directly in line with your OP. Then again, refusing to answer or evading these questions is every bit as revealing.

  23. 23
    ScuzzaMan says:

    I support the use of vaccines for those who choose to use them, and I support the non-use of vaccines for those who choose not to use them.

    One of the unfortunate consequences of our tendency (even amongst avowed atheists) to blame God for everything-we-don’t-like is that our language doesn’t say what we think it says. For example, God allows all humans in every time and place to choose whether to use vaccines or not use vaccines.

    As ET so ably pointed out, it is humans who try to compel other humans to ingest certain substances (e.g. vaccines) under threats of violence, and it is humans who try to compel other humans not to ingest certain other substances under threats of violence.

    So, “playing God” is not defined as “choosing things for other people” as your arguments imply. Playing God is pretending you:
    (A) know the consequences of your actions when you choose things for other people,
    (B) have no self-interest in the choice you make,
    (C) have the power to provide only good choices,
    (D) especially when you do it those for whom it is not your proper function to so choose.

    These are the three exclusive properties* that define God: (A) omniscience, (B) omnibenevolence, (C) omnipotence.
    In modern times these properties are ascribed to the preening State:
    – all problems stimulate pleas addressed to the State to “do something!”
    – all such please assume the State wants to help people
    – all such please assume the State has the power to “do something” effective about the problem.

    (*God, somewhat ironically, has the absolute authority to make such choices for us but declines to exercise it. We are manifestly incompetent to learn from that example.)

    I prefer Nietzsche’s indictment of the State to this modern fantasy, just as I prefer the ancient wisdom of Hippocrates to its modern pretenders:
    State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lies it also; and this lie creeps from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.” … But the state lies in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it says it lies; and whatever it has it has stolen. False is everything in it; with stolen teeth it bites, the biting one. False are even its bowels. Confusion of language of good and evil; this sign I give to you as the sign of the state. Truly, the will to death, indicates this sign! Truly, it beckons to the preachers of death! Many too many are born: for the superfluous ones was the state devised! See just how it entices them to it, the many-too-many! How it swallows and chews and re-chews them! “On earth there is nothing greater than I: it is I who am the regulating finger of God.”?—?thus roars the monster.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    BB,

    I note for record, a strawman fallacy is a form of the red herring fallacy of distraction, by which a simplistic or misleading caricature is substituted for the substantial argument (and often, its presenter). This is then knocked over in the imagination that it settles the matter. Notice, how it naturally compounds and shifts focus, often triumphing rhetorically by implicit ad hominem.

    In this case, the focal matter is patent, that we ought to recognise that we are not and cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Therefore as we conduct research, analysis, decision-making under uncertainty and risk etc — all of which are reflective of our ignorance and linked constraints — we must exert due ethical cautions. In particular, some forms of research under the name of science, medicine etc, are manifestations of vicious curiosity rather than legitimate inquiry, may trigger over-the-cliff slippery slope ratchets, may involve definite or probable abuse or other key ethical violations, may cause undue risks, are subject to utterly dangerous uncertainties, may hand ruinous power into the hands of the irresponsible and tyrannical, and more.

    It is legitimate to stop when such limits are in front of us and seek a sounder, saner alternative.

    First, do no harm.

    In the words of the pioneer of medical and professional ethics, Hippocrates of Cos:

    art [techne] is long,
    life is short,
    opportunity fleeting,
    experience treacherous [sphalere],
    judgement difficult.

    It is significant, diagnostic, that you have by and large not engaged this central case. One that reeks of the sobering, bloody (but too often overlooked) history of radical revolutions and totalitarianism, reigns of terror imposed on the public, wars of expansionism, holocausts, indiscriminate bombardment by air or by artillery, creation and use of weapons of mass destruction (especially, targetting civilians), research that developed deadly biological weapons such as Anthrax powder, genocide, enslavement in service to war machines, gulags, reckless industrial developments that devastated environments, and more. All of which are in fact legitimate foci for cases studied under the rubric, professional ethics. And yes, this extends to the reckless playing around with our individuality, sexuality and family life which is now clearly being imposed by those who presume to a wisdom they do not and cannot have. God only knows what else is being imagined as we speak.

    That sort of thing is what playing God recklessly and foolishly is about.

    Sound vaccines that address contagious diseases that pose a high risk to people going about the ordinary, innocent affairs of life are not playing God. School authorities concerned that the school-bus or classroom or lunchroom etc. could become vectors for highly contagious deadly diseases are not playing God if they insist on reasonable immunisation. Parents looking at highly destructive side effects from minimal- risk- of- epidemic diseases that are preventable through ordinary hygiene measures and responsible behaviours then taking the decision that the balance of benefits and risks is such that refraining from that particular vaccination is advisable are not playing God. Community authorities seeking to protect the public at borders by screening for contagious disease risk — a major border protection function — or by imposing quarantines are not playing God. And more, there is no need to multiply tangents.

    Again, the focal issue is focal for a reason. Side stepping it and going off on tangent after tangent with strawman cases and hypotheticals is needlessly distractive.

    The core matter should be addressed first, which then gives a sound base to address more complex, harder to analyse or hypothetical cases.

    KF

  25. 25
    Ed George says:

    ..

  26. 26
    ET says:

    I gave my house the vaccine for shingles and now I have tin roof, rusted. 😎 🙂

  27. 27
    Brother Brian says:

    KF

    In this case, the focal matter is patent, that we ought to recognise that we are not and cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

    I think we all agree that this is a wise approach.

    Therefore as we conduct research, analysis, decision-making under uncertainty and risk etc — all of which are reflective of our ignorance and linked constraints — we must exert due ethical cautions.

    Again, I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. But, as I mentioned before, who determines what these ethical constrains constitute is problematic.

    In particular, some forms of research under the name of science, medicine etc, are manifestations of vicious curiosity rather than legitimate inquiry, may trigger over-the-cliff slippery slope ratchets, may involve definite or probable abuse or other key ethical violations, may cause undue risks, are subject to utterly dangerous uncertainties, may hand ruinous power into the hands of the irresponsible and tyrannical, and more.

    If you could provide examples of such current research, it would make for an interesting discussion.

    It is legitimate to stop when such limits are in front of us and seek a sounder, saner alternative.

    Again, we agree. But it raises the issue of who determines what these limits are?
    Sound vaccines that address contagious diseases that pose a high risk to people going about the ordinary, innocent affairs of life are not playing God.
    This is a very interesting turn of a phrase. If I am reading you correctly (please correct me if I am wrong), you wholeheartedly support vaccines for things like measles, mumps, polio etc. But you have reservations against vaccines for STDs because of the way that these diseases are contracted. However, may I point out to you that a significant number of people infected with HIV and HPV are the result of rape, a cheating spouse, or previous sexual partners of a spouse. The person infected second is completely innocent of any moral or ethical breaches. And for people in these situations, these infections can result in a painful and preventable death. For this reason we had our two daughters vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. It was in no way an issue of promoting or condoning sexual promiscuity, or playing God. It was a responsible parent ensuring that our children are protected from preventable diseases. How is this any different than the flu shot, the shingles vaccine, Hep A and Hep B vaccines, taking vitamin C and vitamin D.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Brother Brian- You are right. Parents should get their children vaccinated against any diseases or infections for which vaccinations exist. There isn’t any HIV vaccine. However there are other ways to prevent diseases and infections.

    Responsible parenting also includes educating your kids on the consequences of their actions.

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, FYI, there are many lifestyle induced or enabled diseases that with simple prudence are preventable, without the risks attendant on various technologies. Second, the very case that triggered the OP is a current case of dubious research. There is a lot of research and decision making out there that is driven by power games rather than good sense. As for WHO determines ethical limits, that very posing is diagnostic of the problem, a refusal to recognise objective ethical knowledge; which, is itself a serious ethical failing that has increasingly manifestly ruinous consequences. Unfortunately, with a civilisation in the stakes, we cannot just sit back and say, let consequences weed out the folly. It seems we forget that a big breakdown today will have nukes floating around and chemical and bioweapon horrors too, a measure of just how arrogantly irresponsible and imprudent — how nihilistic and/or amoral — we have become as a civilisation. This does not look like ending well. KF

  30. 30
    Brother Brian says:

    KF@29, I am still not sure where you stand on vaccines for STDs. Do you support research into them. Or is this the type of research that is beyond the ethical/moral “limit” and should be stopped?

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Brother Brain- Why are you trying to make this a personal issue? Clearly you have some sort of twisted agenda.

    I would support thorough education over vaccination for STDs. I support treatments that can cure “as needed” infections. I will not tell anyone to stop the HPV vaccine, nor any other that has already been developed. I would not stop private corporations from doing whatever they want to do in that area.

  32. 32
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Again, we agree. But it raises the issue of who determines what these limits are?

    Largely, individuals.

    It’s an old observation, that you either have a policeman in every head or on every doorstep.

  33. 33
    Brother Brian says:

    SM@ 32, I agree that it tends to be individuals who push their personal opinions as to what these limits should be, but I think that we can all see how this could cause serious divisions amongst the population. You don’t have to look any further than issues such as abortion, homosexuality, immigration, public health care and the like to see this.

    As long as your opinion is the one that is being implemented, you would feel that it was the right decision. However, if it were my opinion (assuming that it is significantly different than yours) you might feel that the wrong decision is being forced down your throat. Sadly, that is the nature of trying to impose rules that are based on individual, or even collective, morality.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    Abortion is the ruling class’s method for population control of its minions. Congratulations to those who are readily doing their bidding.

    Losers…

Leave a Reply