true words Doc Malone: "As both physicians and as citizens, we must wean ourselves from the false idol of centralized planning, utilitarianism, socialism, a nanny state bureaucracy and a conflicted medical elite that seeks to optimize equality of outcomes, and return to a belief and commitment to the ability of free people to make their …
true words Doc Malone: "As both physicians and as citizens, we must wean ourselves from the false idol of centralized planning, utilitarianism, socialism, a nanny state bureaucracy and a conflicted medical elite that seeks to optimize equality of outcomes, and return to a belief and commitment to the ability of free people to make their own decisions about how they live and their own health."
rationally, logically would it be ill-advised or wrong to extend this in this manner?
So, subsidiarity, summarized so nicely as you did here, could that also be extended to the act of abortion, and a mother's right to do so as an extension of this concept whereby a mother really DOES have the right to make the decision, yes or no, on abortion of her growing fetus? To me, this naturally extends and is logical from the perspective of the mother and that of the infant growing as a part of her body during gestation.
Here I go, sticking my neck out. What I have read and believe from a different perspective from most, is that the soul enters the body at or just after birth. That doesn't mean that the responsibility is lessened for starting the process of a new life. This is a deep and complicated topic with no absolute answer, as far as I can tell.
I also believe that DD-- a version anyway. . . that the soul enters the body at conception or sometime during gestation. This subject regarding a mother's authority and responsibility to this new soul really does appear to be an unsolvable paradox viewed from an abortion perspective.
Perhaps God meant it to be:
The action each mother in this situation makes causes her whole life to change in ways for better or worse. This chain of events, good or bad, allows her to learn and grow and understand life-- or not, depending on the person.
Could it be that such experience and the resultant learning process is what "life" IS for human beings? What we learn, change later, and improve could be what life is mostly about. Until we see real life as spirit, we will likely not solve the paradox though.
On the other hand, it is very hard to morally rationalize when a soul never sees human life as a result. (The mother is able to exemplify the ultimate in "subsidiarity" perhaps.) Although I value human life; I value the soul more; yet, I apparently am forced to still come down on the side of a mother being the ultimate responsible, authority in this "decision". Subsidiarity. . . or not.
Still, if I was king I would insist on all pre-adolescents being firmly educated about these issues and the paradox, and that both sexes "see" a live ultrasound of a baby growing in a mother before facing this decision. However, to truly educate utilizing public education, learning about God is required(another paradox in a democratic republic). But then, I am not the king.
true words Doc Malone: "As both physicians and as citizens, we must wean ourselves from the false idol of centralized planning, utilitarianism, socialism, a nanny state bureaucracy and a conflicted medical elite that seeks to optimize equality of outcomes, and return to a belief and commitment to the ability of free people to make their own decisions about how they live and their own health."
rationally, logically would it be ill-advised or wrong to extend this in this manner?
So, subsidiarity, summarized so nicely as you did here, could that also be extended to the act of abortion, and a mother's right to do so as an extension of this concept whereby a mother really DOES have the right to make the decision, yes or no, on abortion of her growing fetus? To me, this naturally extends and is logical from the perspective of the mother and that of the infant growing as a part of her body during gestation.
Quite the acid test of this concept.
Here I go, sticking my neck out. What I have read and believe from a different perspective from most, is that the soul enters the body at or just after birth. That doesn't mean that the responsibility is lessened for starting the process of a new life. This is a deep and complicated topic with no absolute answer, as far as I can tell.
I also believe that DD-- a version anyway. . . that the soul enters the body at conception or sometime during gestation. This subject regarding a mother's authority and responsibility to this new soul really does appear to be an unsolvable paradox viewed from an abortion perspective.
Perhaps God meant it to be:
The action each mother in this situation makes causes her whole life to change in ways for better or worse. This chain of events, good or bad, allows her to learn and grow and understand life-- or not, depending on the person.
Could it be that such experience and the resultant learning process is what "life" IS for human beings? What we learn, change later, and improve could be what life is mostly about. Until we see real life as spirit, we will likely not solve the paradox though.
On the other hand, it is very hard to morally rationalize when a soul never sees human life as a result. (The mother is able to exemplify the ultimate in "subsidiarity" perhaps.) Although I value human life; I value the soul more; yet, I apparently am forced to still come down on the side of a mother being the ultimate responsible, authority in this "decision". Subsidiarity. . . or not.
Still, if I was king I would insist on all pre-adolescents being firmly educated about these issues and the paradox, and that both sexes "see" a live ultrasound of a baby growing in a mother before facing this decision. However, to truly educate utilizing public education, learning about God is required(another paradox in a democratic republic). But then, I am not the king.