I suppose I could have posted this on my political blog, but liberals just wouldn't figure it out...
I read this article where Madonna is trying to adopt another child from Malawi. I understand the good-hearted intent, especially because Malawi has such a bad AIDS problem. Here is the article:
My dilemma is this: If the baby that Madonna wants to adopt stays in the orphanage, it will be fed and have social experiences relative to other small children in that nation. They are under Heavenly Father's care, He loves them and is giving them experience that will be for their ultimate good. If the baby dies, it is saved in the Celestial Kingdom. Nothing could be better... eternally speaking.
However, if Madonna adopts this baby, it will grow up in the home of a single mother, and one that is dysfunctional. Madonna has even admitted publicly that her personal life is unhappy and messed up. The baby will grow up as an extreme left-wing liberal, like her mother. It will grow up believing that single parenthood is normal and good, and that sexual perversion and promiscuity - which it will also learn from her mother - are acceptable. The baby will grow up in an anti-God environment, being pulled about as far away from eternal salvation as one could get without being a murderer. (Just a disclaimer about single parenthood to all those single ladies who might read this: don't get offended, because you know what I mean by this. If you are divorced because your husband was a cheater or an abuser, etc, this doesn't refer to you, because you didn't choose a life of 'privilege without responsibility'.)
In my view, neither is a happy alternative. One will likely result in more earthly suffering, but will most likely lead to the far better eternal consequences. Therefore, the lesser of the two evils appears to be leaving the baby in the orphanage, and in God's care, not Madonna's.