4 ms·
Do you have the ability to read minds? Because you're doing some mind reading in that comment. Many people find the flippant nature of his response disturbing.
by captainredbeard 7y ago
Do you have the ability to read minds? Because you're doing some mind reading in that comment.
Many people find the flippant nature of his response disturbing. I'm not "anti-abortion" but I found the Northam situation squicky.
YMMV, and that's the beauty of living in a free and liberal society. Your comment would probably win hearts and minds if it was more about educating folks about the medical reality some parents are faced with instead of castigating and denigrating "the other side" (which doesn't exist, it's a spectrum).
- Bartweiss 7y agoIt's not just the tone - there are plenty of religious people who flatly disagree with the moral claim above. "The baby is going to die, so this isn't murder, and it's going to suffer, so this is mercy" is not necessarily a background assumption. For some people, those claims are the debate. Deontologists actually exist, and some of them sincerely believe in souls, and eternal damnation or paradise. To them, the doctor is committing a mortal sin, and for the infant any life long enough for baptism can mean the difference between limbo and heaven. Whatever Northam's intent, they would genuinely find his position morally similar to any other infanticide. I don't intend to argue for that position, but I think it's important to realize how quickly "simple" rulings on misinformation or malice can become judgements on entire ideologies. If Bentham, Kant, and the Pope would all disagree on whether a choice is ethical and humane, perhaps it's not a matter to be settled by Twitter moderation rules?