> But what is the meaning of "value" itself? Is "value" not a mere abstract attribution of the mind towards any perceivable person or object?

The Bible says that we have value as human beings. Nothing needs to be ascribed to us artificially (this locket has value to me because it was my grandmother's), nothing about it is a cultural judgment (a diamond has value because of its beauty and hardness—when it's chemically just a rock), and nothing about it is a social construct (we survive better as a species when we attribute value to human life). The Bible says we have value because we have the breath of life that God invested in us (Gn. 9.6). We have a spiritual substance, so to speak, that gives us genuine value.

> Whether mankind has any "value" depends on how much value God assigns to us.

Not exactly. God didn't have to assign value, it was part and parcel of the process and therefore our nature. God is life, and anything that shares His life has intrinsic value.

> After all, how else could God "endow" mankind with dignity and value if not by instruction?

By investing us with his breath (Gn. 2.7). God is our life-force, and so we have intrinsic value as sharers of his breath. "Breath" in Gn. 2.7 is the Hebrew word *nesama* refers to our personhood—an element that is not solely human. In our human nature we share something of the divine life. We're not divine (that's a Hindu theology), but we have the breath of God in us so that we have value.

> Moreover, why honor the value of life when the value of salvation all but guarantees a positive outcome?

As I mentioned, salvation is not the only value. Righteousness, life, holiness, salvation, justice, et al. are all values in God's economy. It is contrary to God's intent, and the very fabric of life, to kill everyone at birth to secure salvation. We would have lasted only one generation if humanity thought (1) that's what God wanted, or (2) murder was the best way to salvation. God wants us to live life, not take it.

As far as our eternal destiny, not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell. There are theories about reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who absolutely, stubbornly, and persistently refuse to be reconciled. It's very possible that there truly is value in living life and not slaughtering all children to attain instant salvation.

> No, it's because we have intrinsic value. If God exists, and he creates something in his image, that creation has value because of its nature, not because of any instruction. Therefore this is false: "When someone states aborting children to secure their salvation is wrong because "life is sacred", isn't he/she saying we shouldn't abort children because God doesn't want us to?"

But what is the meaning of "value" itself? Is "value" not a mere abstract attribution of the mind towards any perceivable person or object? For example, while some people may regard an antique artifact with "value", I see this as little more than a situation where people experience internal feelings of reverence towards an artifact that lasted for centuries, from a strictly objective standpoint. In the case of creation, the objective fact is that God designed mankind in His image. Whether mankind has any "value" depends on how much value God assigns to us. After all, how else could God "endow" mankind with dignity and value if not by instruction? Moreover, why honor the value of life when the value of salvation all but guarantees a positive outcome? Or rather, why try to honor both values when it places the value of salvation at risk? Why risk a negative outcome at all?

> I assume you're referring to the fact that certain situations are less morally clear than others, correct? ... Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes.

> Unlike our five senses, I don't think abstract notions like value or dignity can be "endowed" into mankind.

I'm glad to hear you say that. Many people do. They argue that humans have value because we have chosen to see value in our lives. But I think you're right, because if we're just an agglomeration of chemicals, we have no more value than a rock or a bucket of water.

> To grace our lives with "value", isn't God essentially instructing His creations to respect human life? Doesn't this suggest that when someone says we should respect human life because "life is sacred", it means we must respect human life because God told us to?

No, it's because we have intrinsic value. If God exists, and he creates something in his image, that creation has value because of its nature, not because of any instruction. Therefore this is false: "When someone states aborting children to secure their salvation is wrong because "life is sacred", isn't he/she saying we shouldn't abort children because God doesn't want us to?"

> Sure. Excellent with no negatives, mostly good with minimal cons, somewhat good (benefits outweigh deficits), neutral (roughly equal number of pros and cons), somewhat lousy (but has a few things to speak in its favor), mostly bad with minimal pros, evil.

I assume you're referring to the fact that certain situations are less morally clear than others, correct? When you see people trapped in a burning building, deciding whether to rescue them is a fairly black-and-white scenario. However, heavy decisions like the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War 2 are much more morally gray. Am I understanding you correctly?

> We are not just an agglomeration of chemicals resultant from impersonal processes with only the worth we arbitrarily assign to ourselves. When I say life is sacred I mean that God endowed us with purpose, meaning, personhood and dignity. We have dignity not because we choose to attribute value to our lives but because we our Creator graced us with value. Life is meaningful and valuable as not only a gift from God over which we have stewardship but also as creatures created for meaningful relationship with Him.

Unlike our five senses, I don't think abstract notions like value or dignity can be "endowed" into mankind. To grace our lives with "value", isn't God essentially instructing His creations to respect human life? Doesn't this suggest that when someone says we should respect human life because "life is sacred", it means we must respect human life because God told us to? When someone states aborting children to secure their salvation is wrong because "life is sacred", isn't he/she saying we shouldn't abort children because God doesn't want us to? To me, this almost sounds like a conflict of interest if it wasn't for the fact that salvation remains open for one's children as they grow up. After all, isn't violating the dignity of unborn children a small price to pay for their eternal salvation? Why honor the value of life when the value of salvation all but guarantees a positive outcome?

Personally, I'd be more inclined to view every abortion as the erasure of an entire branch of descendants, entailing less human diversity on the New Earth. Abortion stifles unborn children from growing up and realizing their full potential, depriving the New Earth of otherwise unique individuals.

> Multiple points on a continuum? Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Sure. Excellent with no negatives, mostly good with minimal cons, somewhat good (benefits outweigh deficits), neutral (roughly equal number of pros and cons), somewhat lousy (but has a few things to speak in its favor), mostly bad with minimal pros, evil.

> what exactly does it mean to say "life is sacred"?

We are not just an agglomeration of chemicals resultant from impersonal processes with only the worth we arbitrarily assign to ourselves. When I say life is sacred I mean that God endowed us with purpose, meaning, personhood and dignity. We have dignity not because we choose to attribute value to our lives but because we our Creator graced us with value. Life is meaningful and valuable as not only a gift from God over which we have stewardship but also as creatures created for meaningful relationship with Him.

> If you are discussing morality, you must intellectually contend with your definitions of good and bad, right and wrong, and from where those definitions derive. Any sense of good and bad, right and wrong are not black and white categories with no nuance or variation, but always multiple points on a continuum. You can easily discern that my use of words like honor, respect, and dignity take me to the positive side of the continuum. I assume that by "consequences" you imply "human wellbeing," which has to give space to value judgments such as I used.

Multiple points on a continuum? Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

> Because salvation, though of utmost importance, is not the only value in God's economy. If life, according to God, is ultimately sacred, the taking of life to secure salvation is a contradiction. God cannot approve the abrogation of one high value to secure another when the alternate choice is available that honors both values, though with an element of risk: live one's life.

I'll concede that the risk of allowing one's children to live earthly lives does promise a better payoff if those children grow up to become virtuous adults who successfully pass on their values to a new generation. That being said, what exactly does it mean to say "life is sacred"? That we should respect human life? If so, then wouldn't it be a tautology to claim we should respect human life because "life is sacred"? Personally, I consider human wellbeing, or in this case salvation (i.e. spiritual wellbeing), to be much more concrete and tangible to the human experience.

A waste of time? You lost me. Medical abortion is a different entity than attempted intentional miscarriage. And murder is almost definable as "ending a life prematurely." Again, I must be missing what you're saying. I keep trying, though.

That's actually my point. That since it would be extremely difficult to prosecute these cases, saying that "ending a life prematurely is murder" is a waste of time.

> Since I generally divorce abstract sentiments like "honor" and primarily determine the morality of an action by its consequences

If you are discussing morality, you must intellectually contend with your definitions of good and bad, right and wrong, and from where those definitions derive. Any sense of good and bad, right and wrong are not black and white categories with no nuance or variation, but always multiple points on a continuum. You can easily discern that my use of words like honor, respect, and dignity take me to the positive side of the continuum. I assume that by "consequences" you imply "human wellbeing," which has to give space to value judgments such as I used.

> how would it be dishonorable if parents killed their children to secure their salvation?

Because salvation, though of utmost importance, is not the only value in God's economy. If life, according to God, is ultimately sacred, the taking of life to secure salvation is a contradiction. God cannot approve the abrogation of one high value to secure another when the alternate choice is available that honors both values, though with an element of risk: live one's life.

> Are you trying to suggest even infants less than a year old could be irreversibly corrupted?

I am trying to suggest that infants less than a year old are already part of a culture exhibiting systemic failure. I am writing a paper on the problem of evil, and some of my contentions are the benefits of a dynamic system over a static one, the necessity of evil as part of a good state of affairs (as long as there is a greater balance of good over evil), and that "collateral damage" is a necessary part of a symbiont circle of equilibrium in life. Sometimes the good irrevocably get caught up in the systems of the bad, but their experiences can neither be ruled punishment or unjust, but rather the inevitable results of a world steeped in tragedy due to sin.

> wouldn't abortion would be extremely detrimental to His plans since it stifles the production of new humans He intends to populate the New Earth with?

Yeah, I think so. God's giving of the function to be fruitful and multiply was a blessing. God values life.

> When a person murders another, if we turn a blind eye to the perpetrator of such a crime we are implying that the perp's life is more valuable than the victim's. The victim is already gone, so let's treat the life of the perpetrator with dignity, honor, and respect, and not punish him for the crime. But if the victim's life is valuable, and the perpetrator has dishonored that life by an immoral act, then the recognition of the sanctity of life motivates us to punish the perpetrator by taking his life. It's a way to show that all life matters. God opposes abortion because life is sacred.

Since I generally divorce abstract sentiments like "honor" and primarily determine the morality of an action by its consequences, how would it be dishonorable if parents killed their children to secure their salvation? You've repeatedly claimed the logic behind such a course of action is warped, but I've yet to hear a sound counterargument to such reasoning.

> As to the Flood, there were no innocent lives being sacrificed. According to the biblical text, humanity had become thoroughly corrupted without hope of redemption. Even in our era we see societies collapse, where children are taught from the youngest ages to be bigots, racists, haters, and murderers. You'll need to present an analysis of the culture of the Flood to give evidence that God inappropriately took innocent lives in his actions.

Are you trying to suggest even infants less than a year old could be irreversibly corrupted?

>Your idea wasn't merely relationship, but a statement of "God's reasons for creating mankind on Earth instead of in Heaven must be related to His disapproval of abortion." Abortion has nothing to do with God's reasons for creating humankind on Earth.

I'm not sure how my statement of "God's reasons for creating mankind on Earth instead of in Heaven must be related to His disapproval of abortion" proposes anything more than a relationship. Certainly, I don't believe abortion has anything to do with God's reasons for creating mankind per say, but rather why He created us on Earth. For example, what if God couldn't create spiritual beings in Heaven that could procreate, so He designed physical beings on Earth that could? If so, then wouldn't abortion would be extremely detrimental to His plans since it stifles the production of new humans He intends to populate the New Earth with?