Board index ‹ Abortion

[Cuttle]

I don't like abortion at all, but there are many cases where women get pregnant against their own will, or the father leaves while she's pregnant making the mother raise the child by herself. There is child support, but a lot of men don't pay it. Don't tell me it's the law because criminals don't obey the law.

Of course, there's adoption. Unfortunately, there are tons of kids in the system, and abuse of all kinds are common among those children. Many of them live in poor conditions and never get adopted. It's actually very bad. I would adopt, but due to my disability, I would get denied. If I had a biological child, on the other hand, I'd be expected to raise it?

Some people shouldn't have children and would actually make their child's life hell. A lot of abused children end up killing themselves, and those who survive suffer from mental illnesses such as PTSD that could last the rest of their lives.

If a woman gets pregnant and can't raise the child, maybe her financial situation is poor and the father ran away, or she gets raped, would it be better to kill the child or force them to live in poor conditions and possibly kill themselves at a young age anyways. In fact, children with abusive parents and poor living conditions are less likely to become Christian, so a lot of them will be in hell.

Will an unborn baby go to Hell because of the choice its parents made? That does not sound like a just God. In fact, the Bible seems to say unborn babies go to heaven. If you can't give them love, do you think they'll believe in a loving God? Wouldn't it then be more merciful to abort the baby if their chance at a decent life doesn't seem very bright? There's far more chance for an aborted child to go to heaven than someone who turned against God out of bitterness of their living situation according to the Bible.

If you can't love the child and care for it, and you can't trust someone else do give the child what it needs, wouldn't abortion be the better option? Don't assume all children who get adopted go into loving families. Some adopt so they can have power over someone and end up abusing them. Yes, even heterosexual couples, so banning homosexuals from adopting won't fix that. Also, a lot of Christians want to restrict adoption to married, heterosexual couples. You can't expect someone to keep a child if you won't let them adopt.

[jimwalton]

I don't think abortion is the worst you can do to a child. I believe abortion is murder, but torturing a child for the fun of it could rank worse than abortion, or teaching a child to be a sex abuser, an assassin, or even a politician : ).

It's true that there are many tragic ways to live life (adoption into a lousy family, living in extreme poverty and disease, child sexual [emotional, physical] abuse, etc.). But none of these justify murder. "Hey, listen, your life is going to be lousy from here on out, so how about if I just shoot you so you can be done with it?"

> Will an unborn baby go to Hell because of the choice its parents made?

No. Every indication of Scripture is to the contrary. The Bible seems to say (as you wrote) that unborn babies go to heaven.

> Wouldn't it then be more merciful to abort the baby if their chance at a decent life doesn't seem very bright?

No. The ends don't justify the means, especially in this particular case. The brutal murder by abortion of children just to send them to heaven is barbaric. It's abhorrent to say, "I love humanity so much I will kill them all." The logic may be straight forward, but the thinking is skewed by immorality. It's a contradiction to kill in order to give life.

> If you can't love the child and care for it ... wouldn't abortion be a better option?

If you can't love and care for the child, keep your legs together. Seriously. If you can't be responsible with the baby, then be responsible with your sexual activity. Show some restraint and self-control for the sake of a poor innocent child. "Well, I didn't have self-control, and the baby is going to grow up with some rough times, so I think it's best to kill him/her." ??????? Seriously??????

We simply cannot morally go with "the ends justifies the means" in this case. It's basically a claim to euthanasia—that death would be better than life. But (1) there's the immorality of the means (not just a negative means), (2) the deprivation of life and all its own decisions, (3) affirming the self-centeredness of the perpetrators, and (4) a repudiation of the value of life so that people can have sexual unrestraint. The whole idea of it is morally nauseating.

[Sure Breeze]

> I believe abortion is murder, but torturing a child for the fun of it could rank worse than abortion, or teaching a child to be a sex abuser, an assassin, or even a politician

Whoa there, now you've gone too far!

But if you consider abortion to be murder, then what about miscarriage? People typically want murderers jailed, so how will this be prosecuted for miscarriages? How much prison time for abortionists?

[jimwalton]

Miscarriage is not the intentional action of ending a life. The body's built in mechanisms are not in the same category as the willful taking of life. If someone breaks my arm as an act of harm, they can be prosecuted. If I break my own arm by falling, it's a different matter.

[Regnis Numis]

> The ends don't justify the means, especially in this particular case. The brutal murder by abortion of children just to send them to heaven is barbaric. It's abhorrent to say, "I love humanity so much I will kill them all." The logic may be straight forward, but the thinking is skewed by immorality. It's a contradiction to kill in order to give life.

I've noticed that you've been repeating these same exact statements on several threads regarding abortion, which gives me the impression you haven't been updating your arguments against abortion very much. Since we've already discussed our views on the matter, I'd rather not start another debate with you. However, I must ask: If the ends don't justify the means, then how do you justify the deaths of newborn infants in the Great Flood? In a previous post here, you stated the following: "If he could not send the flood to kill communities of evil people because there were two babies somewhere in there, then the greater good would be forfeited."

That being said, I am willing to accept the reasoning that promoting abortion may lead to a culture of sexual promiscuity among the modern generation, which would consequentially destroy people's chances of achieving spiritual salvation. As you already know, I'm a rather staunch utilitarian, so I'm generally more open to hearing such types of arguments.

Speaking of which, I've been wondering why God would oppose abortion, given that He voluntarily accepts infants and children into His kingdom in Heaven. My conclusion is that God's reasons for creating mankind on Earth instead of in Heaven must be related to His disapproval of abortion. Although He doesn't mind inviting deceased children to His kingdom, the fact God created mankind on Earth implies He wants humans to grow up here, not in Heaven. Any ideas why?

[jimwalton]

> you haven't been updating your arguments against abortion very much

You're right. I haven't seen any need to make adjustments. The only change I've observed is that science and technology have allowed us to see more accurately into fetal life, even more confirming what anti-abortionists have been saying all along: this is human life.

> how do you justify the deaths of newborn infants in the Great Flood?

The Flood was a judgment based on order, disorder, the imbalances created by corruption and evil, and God's purposes. Abortion is none of those. It's a completely different moral scenario. Yes, in both cases a child dies, but the reasons are distinct.

> I've been wondering why God would oppose abortion, given that He voluntarily accepts infants and children into His kingdom in Heaven.

Because life is sacred. In Genesis 9.6, two things are clear: human life is sacred, and premeditated murder is utterly evil. The life is identified with the blood in Lev. 17.14, and science is bearing out that blood is a biomarker. Several drops of blood increasing give doctors a broad range of information about your health. Some researchers are even thinking that blood records all the biological events of your life. A collection of your blood gives all kinds of detailed information, like a history of all your viral illnesses. Some researchers even wonder if the information contained in blood is limitless.

Willful murder is to destroy one who bears God's image. Blood was considered life, and when sacrifice was made, the life was being offered up to God. When murder was committed, the ground cried out with injustice. Since abortion is the intentional taking of life (its own DNA makeup, its own blood type separate from the mother's), God opposes it.

> My conclusion is that God's reasons for creating mankind on Earth instead of in Heaven must be related to His disapproval of abortion.

I don't think so. A careful reading of the Bible is that our eternal destiny as people of God is on earth, not in heaven. Heaven is where God's presence is, but in the end of time (Rev. 20-22), the new Jerusalem will descend to a remade earth, and God's presence will be here with us. Earth was always intended to be our home, both for life and eternity.

[Regnis Numis]

> The Flood was a judgment based on order, disorder, the imbalances created by corruption and evil, and God's purposes. Abortion is none of those. It's a completely different moral scenario. Yes, in both cases a child dies, but the reasons are distinct.

So you admit the ends justify the means under particular circumstances? It's fine to sacrifice innocent children to preserve a "greater good", but not to secure their salvation?

> Because life is sacred. In Genesis 9.6, two things are clear: human life is sacred, and premeditated murder is utterly evil. The life is identified with the blood in Lev. 17.14, and science is bearing out that blood is a biomarker. Several drops of blood increasing give doctors a broad range of information about your health. Some researchers are even thinking that blood records all the biological events of your life. A collection of your blood gives all kinds of detailed information, like a history of all your viral illnesses. Some researchers even wonder if the information contained in blood is limitless.

> Willful murder is to destroy one who bears God's image. Blood was considered life, and when sacrifice was made, the life was being offered up to God. When murder was committed, the ground cried out with injustice. Since abortion is the intentional taking of life (its own DNA makeup, its own blood type separate from the mother's), God opposes it.

Firstly, the scientific fact that blood is a biomarker recording all the biological events of our lives has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. Secondly, it seems like you're repeating a deontological tautology by telling me that God opposes abortion because "life is sacred". The notion alone that "life is sacred" hasn't prevented God from sacrificing innocent lives in the Great Flood, so I'll need to hear a better argument.

> I don't think so. A careful reading of the Bible is that our eternal destiny as people of God is on earth, not in heaven. Heaven is where God's presence is, but in the end of time (Rev. 20-22), the new Jerusalem will descend to a remade earth, and God's presence will be here with us. Earth was always intended to be our home, both for life and eternity.

You've explained how mankind's eternal destiny lies on Earth, but how does this explanation refute my idea that God's opposition to abortion could be related to our destiny on Earth?

[jimwalton]

> So you admit the ends justify the means under particular circumstances?

The ends justifying the means is a tricky moral dilemma, and it's almost impossible to give generalizations about it. I guess there could possibly be times when the ends justify the means, as long as those means fall within certain parameters of morality and reason. Each case would have to be weighed individually.

> It's fine to sacrifice innocent children to preserve a "greater good", but not to secure their salvation?


The terminology and the apparent attitude behind it are what give me pause to agree with you. It's never FINE to sacrifice innocent children, though sometimes such sacrifice may be justifiable and warranted. And salvation is not (and never was) meant to be secured by slaughter, so this entire thought is a distortion of what was going on and a warping of our discussion about ends and means.

> Firstly, the scientific fact that blood is a biomarker recording all the biological events of our lives has nothing to do with the morality of abortion.

Not specifically, but certainly indirectly. Life is identified with blood in the ancient world as it is even in our scientific world. If abortion is an immoral taking of human life, then the teachings of Leviticus still ring true today shored up by our increasing scientific understandings that support the ancient text.

> Secondly, it seems like you're repeating a deontological tautology by telling me that God opposes abortion because "life is sacred". The notion alone that "life is sacred" hasn't prevented God from sacrificing innocent lives in the Great Flood, so I'll need to hear a better argument.

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.

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.

> how does this explanation refute my idea that God's opposition to abortion could be related to our destiny on Earth?

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.

[Sure Breeze]

> Miscarriage is not the intentional action of ending a life.

You don't know the intent of the woman when she suffers a miscarriage. For instance, she could be pregnant, abortion is now equivalent to you killing a person, so you perform various actions that'll result in a miscarriage. How do you know the miscarriage wasn't done to skirt those laws.

After all, there would be serious interest in trying to make sure you don't have a child while not going to prison.

My question is how you can prove this and how you can prosecute people doing this. It's easy to prosecute people in an abortion clinic in the middle of an abortion when you make abortion legal. You now have to make sure that you investigate all miscarriages.

[jimwalton]

> You don't know the intent of the woman when she suffers a miscarriage.

Then I misunderstood the intent of your question. I thought you were talking about natural miscarriage, not malicious miscarriage with pernicious intent to destroy a life.

It seems that you are trying to twist this moral dilemma into a many pretzel curves as you can to make any answer illogical.