This is the one issue that boggles my mind, mixing the word love in the same sentence as murder.
I wonder where this perception of a greater good comes from.
Typically(not entirely), left leaning ideology seems to be asserting a position of fairness, or well intentions to others.
Whether it's taking care of our environment or legislating welfare.
On the other hand, it's funding extermination of humans and what I view as aggressively intolerant of religion, which is most sacred to that being.
I see religion being viewed as halting "progression", while religious fundamentalism teaches that progression is holding all life sacred.
Thou shalt not kill.
This notion that science somehow will reveal new levels of understanding or utopia between mankind while dictating life and death is anything but evolving.
Abortion in my view is no different than the holocaust.
And those who advocate it and expect to be judged differently than nazi's following orders for a perceived greater good 100 years from now absolutely perplexes me.
Just as much as conservatives not conserving or Senators who teach the golden rule to their children while destabilizing countries globally through superior firepower.
Every other issue in my view is workable, but if you've chosen to partake in civilization and don't hold the most fragile life sacred, that's the foundation from which your morals come, obviously.
One which dictates who's important.
And while one might say "they shouldn't procreate", or "eradicate them from the gene pool", as if a gene pool is held sacred....for what greater good?
Whose greater good?
It sounds like many, who advocate welfare for others, wouldn't have even picked them to live in the first place.
Then fight with the living regarding enablement of the same individuals.
In these cases, it's the opposite of "evolution", or enlightenment.
Selfishness to put it mildly.
Last edited:
