Abortion, sex, death penalty, veganism, religion, and a whole bunch of other fun topics! - Part 1
This letter covered so many different topics, so I thought it would be a good one to post. My words are in red.
I'm borderline straightedge (can't rid the sexual activities) and pacifist. I've made a choice for
myself not to use drugs or alcohol to destroy my life and body.
Can't sexual activities destroy both mind and body? In some cases, I think it can be more lethal than drugs. Anything that involves desire has the power to destroy. Don't get me wrong, sex can be a beautiful thing, but it can also be dangerous and unhealthy.
I'm not against abortion by any means. I feel that abortion is acceptable up to a certain stage in the pregnancy. The
embryo is not a fetus until it becomes a fetus. I believe killing a fetus is
wrong. To me, an embryo is not a human being, more like a human being in
progress, therefore, the termination of an embryo is ok.
Why is killing an embryo ok but killing a fetus is not? The growth of a child from conception is a continuous process...it is not broken up...so at what point does the embryo become a fetus? Can you pinpoint the exact moment? Do you believe that at such a moment, the embryo somehow gains humanity? What makes it different, as a fetus, than it was moments ago, when it was an embryo? At the moment of conception, the genetic make-up of every living creature is decided. At the moment of my conception, it was decided that I would be male and would have brown hair, brown eyes, etc. At that moment, I came into being. I did not somehow obtain being sometime between conception and birth. Since coming into being, I have always been human. It is not possible that I could be anything other than human. I was a human in the womb, at all stages.
I'm also for the death penalty. Eye for an eye, man. Tooth for a tooth. The US government
is way too lenient when it comes to death-row prisoners. If you rape and kill two 4 year old twin-sisters, I think the government should justify their
deaths by ending their murderers' life.
You can't justify anyone's death by taking another life. The death penalty doesn't solve any problems. Executing the murderer of the afore-mentioned twins wouldn't bring them back to their parents. The damage is done and it is irreversible. The taking of the murderer's life is little more than a public gesture, and it solves nothing. Justice is not served. The death penalty abandons all hope that an individual is capable of redemption. A murderer can repent, change his/her life, and go on to do wonderful things for mankind. It's possible, but the death penalty condemns man irreversibly and gives up hope of redemption. If there's one thing society needs to believe in, it is redemption, because we all have made mistakes. Besides, what about the wrongfully accused who are executed? We have a good justice system in our country, but it isn't flawless. If there is even the slightest chance that our government might execute an innocent man, then there should be no executions at all. The system fails an innocent man who is executed. That innocent man might be you or me. In failing the innocent, it fails us all.
OJ slaughtered his Ex-wife and her boyfriend (or who ever he was). Imprisoning him for life is just wasting tax
money. Remember, this is all my opinion. I don't know what it costs for
keeping an inmate alive for an entire year, but I do know it's a pretty high
cost. I believe in justice. I believe killers should be killed.
You believe in vengeance, not justice. Justice would bring the killed back to life. Vengeance just takes more lives in retaliation for the initial taking of life. I don't know how much it costs to keep an inmate alive, but I don't believe in quantifying the value of a human life. If it takes all my tax money to keep a man alive, then so be it.
Now, on to veganism. I think the killing of animals for a human's expense is wrong. But I think a humans survival
outweighs an animal's.
I agree. But human survival no longer requires the death of animals...at least not in our society.
We are probably overdoing it in America, Americans
should learn to be more conservative. In the long run, like humans, animals are living organisms, which draws me to my conclusion- so are plants. If
killing a cow is wrong because it is living, what makes it different from
uprooting a vegetable to eat or cutting down a tree for the use of it's lumber? Isn't a fern living just like a pig or human?
I must eat to survive. I eat plants to survive and sustain good health. I think as long as I'm eating them for survival, it is justified. People don't eat meat for survival. They eat it for taste. Meat isn't necessary for survival and good health. Also, I think it is likely that animals (more than plants) feel pain and have some sort of self-awareness. I can't detect suffering in plants. I don't know if they feel pain. I do know that animals feel pain. That is why I opt to eat plants rather than animals. I'm trying to live a life that causes the least amount of suffering to other living creatures.
In addition to my straightedgeness, I have excluded religion from my daily practices. If we are in search for the best
life with the least amount of obstructions, why would you live your life
according to a single book?
Let's be honest...whether we go to church or not, we all have religions. Atheism is a religion. Your belief that you don't need organized religion is a religion. Religion is simply a collection of beliefs, and we all have beliefs. My faith in Christ guides my beliefs because after years of contemplation, I believe that Christ's approach to life makes the most sense. Buddha said that life is suffering, and suffering is caused by desire and ignorance. I agree. I choose to be Christian because I feel it is the religion that best helps me address the problem of suffering. It helps me to take control of desires that have the power to enslave and to find solace in charitable love.
To me, people use religion to fill a void in their life. Perhaps they lack self confidence or just need something to
blame for their failures. Ask yourself why you need religion (that is, if you are religious) and try to see what it fills in your life.
To assume that people pursue spirituality out of weakness is a horribly closed-minded and ignorant assumption. Do you think it is easy to follow the moral doctrines of Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism? It isn't easy to be a faithful follower of any of these religions. They require immense self-discipline and faith in one's self. They also require one to search out one's own faults, no matter how painful that might be. There isn't anything easy about turning the other cheek. There isn't anything easy about fasting. There isn't anything easy about abstinence. Do you honestly believe that people who have that kind of self-control are weak? People follow these religions because they want to discover truth. Not everyone finds truth in the same religion, but at least they are looking and are willing to make sacrifices to find truth. I have nothing but admiration for those who are that dedicated to discovering the hidden truths of this life. Personally, I don't follow my religion to make life easier. In fact, I think it makes life more difficult. I could choose to abandon my beliefs and give in to my desires. That would certainly be the easiest way to live. I would not be accountable to my conscience and I would not have to think about what is right and wrong. But I think if I chose to live that way, I would be living in a fog of lies. I would be failing to see reality, where there is a right and wrong. For the same reason I choose not to cloud my mind with alcohol, I choose not to cloud my reality with self-centeredness.
