Ethical Questions
 

Many of you will recognize this premise; I think it's from the Book Of Questions that was popular some years ago.

You can end world hunger, but you must kill an innocent child to do so.
Would you?

I don't think I could.

What would you do?
(And feel free to add your own ethical head-scratchers.)

- Jake

I couldn't take another life, period.
But I'd be willing to give up my own life to the same ends.

I have an innocent child. Anyone tries to touch her, not only would there still be world hunger, but there would be a world war....

Hell no.

Maria

No way!!
 

I could never take a life, so Miss Struthers would be stationed in Ethiopa for quite a few more years.

Hmmm. We have a volunteer. How old are you Johnny Stew, and are you innocent???? :lol:

Seriously, I guess this is the "is it ever right to do wrong in order to be right." I believe the answer is no. All this depends on your pre-suppositions, the underpinnings of all you believe. And I do take that commandment previously mentioned to cover this issue too.

That philosophy is basically skewed, IMO. You cannot get sick enough, or poor enough, or sad enough to cure another person or persons of anything. All anyone can do is their best everyday and practice random acts of kindess everyday, do their best to project a positive, loving energy into the universe and only then can these problems start to be solved.
All you need is love. :angel:

Well said! I totally agree.

Patti

:laugh:
Well... as far as age goes, "I'm not a child anymore."
And as far as my innocence... well, that's a bit subjective, I guess.
I'm WAY more innocent than some folks, but nowhere near as innocent as others! :laugh:

I know it's very easy to say that I'd give my own life to save others, but it is how I feel.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a Martyr/Jesus complex (though maybe I have a Superman complex! :laugh: ), I just feel we all have a certain responsibility to the world and the people around us.

Very, very true. I definitely place a great deal of importance in regards to the type of energy we put "out into the universe." It's the hippie in me, I guess. :o

This is a weird question for me, because i think there should be waaay less humans. How would they all get fed? Would it be magic food from the sky, or would they use the resources on earth to be fed? After they were fed, would they keep having more kids? I think there should only be as many people as the environment can sustain. While i would never, ever wish anyone ill, it boggles my mind when people care so much about humans, which are not endangered by any means, and so little about everything else that shares our planet with us and which may not have enough food, and certainly not enough space to live...okay, hold on, lemme just climb down off this soapbox real quick... :laugh:
Amber

One more reason to love John Kerry. He says his first act as president will be to do away with the Mexico City Policy. :thumbsup:

What is that? I guess i'll have to love john kerry, but in reality i loved Kucinich...

:xoxo:

I *loved* Kucinich AND Braun. They were my favorites from the beginning. Have you read Dennis' book? It's short but it's fantastic!

The Mexico City policy was originally instituted by the Reagan government. The U.S. gives money to third world nations to promote and provide birth control. The Reagan/Bush government said no aid could be given to agencies that included abortion as a choice.
Clinton did away with the policy but our current Bush reinstituted the policy.