Is God’s will beyond our cognitive grasp?
By Letter to the Editor on July 10, 2019.
Re: “Rights of the conceived human life ignored,” June 28 Rev. Canon Ivor Ottrey rebuts Dr. Gifford Jones who argues women have a right to control their own bodies, including the right to safe, clinical abortions. Ottrey – as God’s mouthpiece – says Gifford Jones “…completely ignored the rights of the newly conceived human life which surely has the basic human right to life ordained by God.” Ottrey assumes God exists. What if Ottrey, who must admit he is a flawed and mortal man as are we all, is incorrect? A false premise is fatal to logical argument. Say, though, Ottrey is correct. God exists and his conclusion is, therefore, sound. Ottrey says God has a purpose for every human life. Do non-believers lose their life’s purpose? Perhaps they have to create their own purpose. Do only humans have purpose? My dog barks to differ. She thinks all dogs go to heaven. Ottrey is correct that a human baby is human. Even anti-natalists who say all reproduction of human life is morally and ethically wrong agree with that. Jacques Cousteau said human overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet. In the film “The Matrix” humans are described as a virus. Being human myself, I want to defend humanity however difficult that often is. I concede all Ottrey’s points about fetal development. This is biology, not religion. Other animals also have gestational landmarks. There are other ways to satisfy sexual urges than to have sperm and egg meetings. Most don’t need further birds and bees lessons. I don’t know if Ottrey is against all sex that doesn’t have the possibility of pregnancy. This was a church teaching at one time and perhaps still is. Does Ottrey consider God may protect unborn babies from being born? Perhaps God wants to save those vulnerable little souls from the harsh reality of being unwanted and unloved. Does Ottrey consider that God’s will may overrule his? Is not God’s will beyond the cognitive grasp of mere mortals? Some suggest – usually in jest – that abortion should be retroactive. Dystopian stories are popular today. The Handmaid said it could be a Brave New World. Ray Marco Dunmore, Alta. 14-13
I usually get my chuckles by reading Ticked Off / Tickled Pink but your letter was hilarious. I’m glad that you were able to get inside your dog’s head and he was able to share his religious beliefs with you. I once met a lady who told me her dog was vegan. She was lucky he was able to tell her that or she might have accidentally have given him meat to eat.
They say Prime Minister MacKenzie King used to hold seances and get political advice from his dead dog.
No person can read God’s mind but all people can know God’s will through revelation.
You play the devil’s advocate by suggesting God uses abortion to protect unborn babies from the harsh reality of being unwanted and unloved. By similar twisted thinking, one could argue Cain’s murder of his brother, Abel, spared Abel the unhappiness of being unloved by his brother. But scripture is very clear: Cain was to be his brother’s keeper.
The science behind scripture is indisputable: human life begins at conception (Jeremiah 1:5), all life reproduces according to its own kind, and the baby’s body is NOT part of the mother’s body. Abortionists who say the baby’s body is really the woman’s body aren’t being honest.
Jacques Cousteau’s claim that overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet is a fish story. Abortion has caused a depopulation problem in Canada that threatens the solvency of our social programmes. That’s why the Trudeau Liberals have had to resort to massive immigration.
You assume Augustine was right and Pelagius was wrong about man being flawed. A false premise is, indeed, fatal to a logical argument.