I believe the good book holds the answer to people suffering.
What hope do we have without eternal life? Life would merely be an absurdity.
2 Corinthians 4 16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
If god is both the standard for love and morality,
Then whence cometh evil?
Also, free will doesn't apply here; because we're talking about natural evil like disease, miscarriages, and disasters, You've still got to account for all of those.
Not to mention, the fact that it(your morality) is ONLY true because god says so, doesn't solidify how you know God isn't an evil demiurge (Please google this) which case, the morality he advocates isn't the TRUE morality.
This is why christian philosophies generally abandon the bible when actually trying to use reason.
Read the article I linked, it'll explain the finer points.
Basically, if it's capable of surviving outside the womb, you can't kill it, if it isn't, then you can safely abort it, because no alternative exists.
This preserves both criteria without sacrificing either, thus allowing for the preservation of rights to the mentally challenged and comatose without compromising the rights of animals.
You would know this if you read literally any of the articles I attached to my posts. However I'll try to condense it into as few words as possible.
God made the machinery we simply operate it. We are like biomechanical machines to a certain extent.
Imagine you make a bunch of self replicating robots.
One day one of these robot’s tells you that they don’t think you did a good job creating them, so they are going to destroy the next robot that would have been created.
Who created the robots? You or the robot?
Would you say dog’s create dogs? Dog’s give birth to dog’s but they don’t create them.
Also, clearly if the facts were all in your favour, then there would be no pro-life/pro-choice argument. The need to bring morality and religion into the argument shows that they are not (even without doing extensive research).
here is something very simple that many people fail to understand: humans are complex, and you shouldn't expect a perfect one size fits all formula to address all issues.
ideologies can be and are piece wise functions: it will never be continuous, there may be some discontinuous parts (see abortion and animal rights)
If god is the standard of goodness (that would logical indicate that it's good because god says it's good)
Then it's merely a subjective preference on god, god either COULD or COULDN'T change his mind, and the system of morality wouldn't be internally consistent (read subjective)
If God stated that abortions aren't murder, but actually a positive moral obligation, because all fetuses go to heaven and don't have to suffer the temptation of sin with existence, would that suddenly make abortion not only morally permissible but morally required?
Either you have two options here in order to stay consistent with "god"
Either God is incapable of change ( this argument refutes him actually being "god" just a sufficiently powerful being capable of creating a universe)
OR,
God is capable of change, but doesn't want to. (In which case, you'd have to argue what exactly is this supposedly objective being appealing to other than himself, which case the introduction of the problem of evil becomes incompatible with his "goodness" and he isn't really "good")
If neither of these solutions seem appealing to you, you'd have to admit that God isn't the standard/source of morality, he merely has absolute knowledge of morality.
Well, thankfully in the west, religious arguments have no place in arguments about restricting a woman's reproductive rights, as we do not live in a theocracy.
