Board index ‹ Abortion

[Koog]

Do aborted or miscarried fetuses go to heaven or hell?

I would think it's obvious (even though I have been wrong about things I was sure about before) that a fetus can't sin. Or at least there is some time before which it can't sin. Say before they have a brain. But on the other hand they haven't had the chance to accept Jesus as their savior yet.

As the debate premise I will assume that aborted fetuses go to heaven. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have a daughter. I love her more than life itself. I would gladly go to hell for eternity if it means she gets to go to heaven. If aborted fetuses go to heaven, wouldn't it make sense for Christians to get pregnant many times and perform abortions and guarantee they have many children living in heaven for ever?

And why is it frowned upon so much? One if the foundations of Christianity is the sacrifice that Jesus made for the rest of humanity. Isn't having an abortion the ultimate sacrifice? Sending yourself to hell for your child's eternal salvation?

[jimwalton]

To answer your main question, aborted or miscarried fetuses go to heaven.

1. According to Romans 5.13, people are not held accountable for what they had no possibility of knowing or knowing about.

2. In Deuteronomy 1.39, the children who were too young to make a realistic decision are not judged, but are shown mercy; their level of accountability was directly related to their moral awareness.

3. Isa. 7.15-16 teaches the same thing: God deals differently with people based on their knowledge.

As far as your second, and real, question, 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 have discovered that most people who ask this question have a distorted (e.g., not biblical) view of hell. (1) Hell most likely isn't fire; that's just an image to portray its horror. (2) There are degrees of punishment in hell. It's not "one fire fits all." People are punished according to what they have done. (3) It's quite possible that hell isn't eternal for all people. The punishment will be appropriate to the infraction.

Therefore to slaughter all babies in the womb is not "the ultimate sacrifice," but an immoral, barbaric practice not becoming a people who value life, abhor murder, and seek to obey God in all things.

[Regnus Numis]

> To answer your main question, aborted or miscarried fetuses go to heaven.

> As far as your second, and real, question, 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.

Isn't this essentially claiming the only reason abortion and infanticide are wrong is because they're barbaric? From a utilitarian standpoint, the barbarity of the means is irrelevant to the ultimate result, especially given the fact that God Himself has commanded infanticide in the Old Testament before.

Additionally, the notion that babies go to Heaven bears certain implications towards the Problem of Evil. Assuming God's presence is enough to prevent babies from sinning as they grow up, why didn't He create mankind in Heaven? If undergoing the experience of evil and suffering to achieve spiritual maturity isn't necessary to reach Heaven, then what is the purpose of evil?

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe deceased fetuses and infants are either reincarnated or sent to a parallel afterlife where they must undergo similar experiences to achieve spiritual maturity. That way, utilitarians cannot claim abortion and infanticide benefit babies, and God cannot be called "unjust" for sending infants to Hell.

[jimwalton]

> isn't this essentially claiming the only reason abortion and infanticide are wrong is because they're barbaric?

No, that's not what I'm claiming. I just didn't dump 5 pages of the whole argument. Essentially abortion is wrong because human beings are made in the image of God, and the Bible seems to imply that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, a perpetration against which we have specific commands. That it's barbaric is a value judgment.

> Assuming God's presence is enough to prevent babies from sinning as they grow up, why didn't He create mankind in Heaven?

It is not a valid assumption that God's presence is enough to prevent babies from sinning as they grow up. The Bible doesn't teach such a thing, nor did I make or imply that claim. Humans have a sin nature and a free will, so God's presence is NOT enough to prevent sin.

> then what is the purpose of evil?

I wouldn't particularly agree to some absolute that evil has a purpose. God sometimes uses it to accomplish specific (or even general) ends, but "a purpose" sounds like all evil is initiated to a certain end. That's not consistent with Christian theology.

> I'm more inclined to believe deceased fetuses and infants are either reincarnated

My problem with reincarnation is that it ultimately erases the difference between good and evil because it assumes the ultimate uniting of all things into a spiritual homogeneity. Individuality and personality are rejected and there is a denial of the particularity of matter. All is one in essence, and we are all on a long journey to arrive at eventual harmony. I think that in the long run reincarnation doesn't square with what we know about science and psychology: the distinction between inorganic and organic, the particularity of personality, and individuality.

[Regnus Numis]

> No, that's not what I'm claiming. I just didn't dump 5 pages of the whole argument. Essentially abortion is wrong because human beings are made in the image of God, and the Bible seems to imply that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder, a perpetration against which we have specific commands. That it's barbaric is a value judgment.

From a teleological standpoint, your argument makes sense. However, a utilitarian could ignore teleology and still argue that abortion and infanticide ultimately guarantees long-term benefit to the children, unless you can demonstrate why children do not benefit from an immediate ascent to Heaven. For example, perhaps you could argue that being separated from one's parents in Heaven would adversely affect child's happiness, especially if the child must witness the punishment of his/her parents for committing abortion/infanticide. Things would be much happier if both parent and child lived godly lives and ascended to Heaven together.

> It is not a valid assumption that God's presence is enough to prevent babies from sinning as they grow up. The Bible doesn't teach such a thing, nor did I make or imply that claim. Humans have a sin nature and a free will, so God's presence is NOT enough to prevent sin.

So how does Heaven remain sinless as babies grow up over there?

> My problem with reincarnation is that it ultimately erases the difference between good and evil because it assumes the ultimate uniting of all things into a spiritual homogeneity. Individuality and personality are rejected and there is a denial of the particularity of matter. All is one in essence, and we are all on a long journey to arrive at eventual harmony.

How does uniting all things into a spiritual homogeneity erase the difference between good and evil? Plus, isn't it a good thing if everybody is on a long journey towards eventual harmony? In any case, I only meant that fetuses and infants would be reincarnated, not anybody else.

> I think that in the long run reincarnation doesn't square with what we know about science and psychology: the distinction between inorganic and organic, the particularity of personality, and individuality.

Could you elaborate on what reincarnation has to do with science and psychology?

[jimwalton]

> utilitarian could ignore teleology

In the real world we can't create separate categories for utilitarian and teleological. What we have is reality. Philosophically we can speak in categories, but life isn't divided like that. Teleology and utilitarian have to exist juxtaposed and intertwined. I would not argue that children do not benefit from an immediate ascent to heaven, but immediate benefit are not the whole of reality or the only piece in the puzzle. When we deal with things such as abortion in real life, we can't create artificial separations for the sake of argument.

> So how does Heaven remain sinless as babies grow up over there?

There is never any indication of growth in the afterlife, but of the realization of the ideal.

> How does uniting all things into a spiritual homogeneity erase the difference between good and evil?

Because if one day all reality will be united into a consolidated whole, then good and evil were merely illusionary components of the same expression of reality. It's one of the flaws of Hinduism (the primary teachers of the theology of reincarnation) that evil and suffering are but an illusion, and one day such illusions will be subsumed along with everything else under the one true reality of spiritual oneness.

> Plus, isn't it a good thing if everybody is on a long journey towards eventual harmony?

It depends what you mean by that. The Bible teaches that God will reconcile all things to himself (Col. 1.20). It's a different theology than all things coming to harmony. In the Bible it's a bringing the entire rebellious creation back under the rule of God's sovereignty. All things will be put in their proper place and exist in their appropriate role. It includes various elements of harmony and others of subjugation. This is one of many places where one must evaluate the teachings of Christianity and Hinduism and decide which conforms more closely to reality.

> Could you elaborate on what reincarnation has to do with science and psychology?

Sure. Hinduism denies that suffering and pain are real. They are only illusions. Reincarnation is a theology that says that one day all these illusions will give in to the reality of spiritual oneness. I think these teachings contradict what we know to be true about life: Suffering and pain are real.